(Hansard)
MONDAY, JULY 29, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 7, Part 2
[ Page 1069 ]
The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the House, they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and then later the Ministry of Employment and Investment. And in this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 15.
The House in committee on Bill 15; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 6 (continued).
M. Coell: Before our break, I suggested that we had a number of questions regarding subsections (3) and (4). Last night the Minister of Education commented to my colleague that they would consider looking at this. They didn't guarantee that there would be any changes, but they would look at it, and if there were changes to this
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I'd be pleased to discuss this with the Minister of Education, Skills and Training and Minister of Labour.
V. Anderson: I go along with the opportunity to discuss this. As we've already made abundantly clear, this is not a section that we're at all happy with, and it has created a great deal of consternation in the area of the whole B.C. Benefits appeal process that has been developed. I'm not sure it will be any better for those with disabilities than it is for anybody else. This is just to say that it's a section which has to be worked over, we hope.
Section 6 approved on division.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
Hon. D. Streifel: I move the amendment that's in the hands of the Clerk on section 10.
[SECTION 10, 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.]
Amendment approved.
Section 10 as amended approved.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
M. Coell: Does section 12 also relate to the present GAIN Act? Are there any changes in this portion of it?
Hon. D. Streifel: The old provision was 18 months from the happening of whatever circumstance; this is 12 months from when we become aware of the circumstance.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I would like to move the amendment to section 13 that's in the hands of the Clerk.
[SECTION 13, in the proposed section 13(2)(q) by deleting "sections 7(4), 8(2) and 10(3)" and substituting "sections 7(4) and 8(2)".]
Amendment approved.
On section 13 as amended.
V. Anderson: Could the minister say something about the Disability Benefits Advisory Council, which is listed under section 13(2)(v) -- i.e., who might make it up, and what's involved in "the payment to its members"?
Hon. D. Streifel: This section is one of those that seem to be all-inclusive in every bill I've ever heard discussed in this House, an enabling section that
V. Anderson: We've asked this before. When the regulations are done, would the minister be kind enough to get us copies of the regulations?
Hon. D. Streifel: Absolutely. I'd be pleased to.
Section 13 as amended approved.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
M. Coell: I just wonder if you could outline the timetable you are expecting for this. It's our understanding that this would come in immediately, but the wording of this item 15 gives us some problem, as it may be some time before it is all enacted.
Hon. D. Streifel: The expectation is that it would be by September, so it's very, very close.
[ Page 1070 ]
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
V. Anderson: It says, under "persons with disabilities":
[6:45]
Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, this is one of those language issues. We're getting rid of the old language within those acts mentioned in this section -- for instance, persons with disabilities as opposed to handicapped people. We are changing that language in there.
V. Anderson: Could the minister just give a little explanation about the implication of section 16(b)?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's the same change again -- a person with disabilities as opposed to a handicapped person or handicapped.
V. Anderson: If I understand section 16(b) rightly, though, it takes the word "relative" out and substitutes specific relatives instead. So the change in this section is not with regard to handicaps or disabilities, but seems to relate to particular persons rather than relatives. It gives a list instead of the word "relative."
Hon. D. Streifel: It cleans up language within the legislation and has nothing to do with us in this context.
V. Anderson: Am I not right that it takes out the definition of relative and substitutes "the following"? I agree that it cleans up the language, but isn't it trying to be more specific about relatives who can be involved? Does it limit or expand the persons who are in relationship to a person with a disability?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this word: it supplies more "specificity." It's more definitive. It actually describes -- the reference to the relative -- who we're dealing with here, if that helps the hon. member.
Sections 16 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
V. Anderson: Here we have a definition of disability which has different connotations, if you like, from the definition of a person with disabilities which was in section 1. Could you explain the reason for this particular definition in this section as against the one in section 1?
Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the members, this is the Motor Fuel Tax Act, and we recognize their legislation here in this act. This is what they are doing, I suppose, to upgrade their language again. I think this is it. If I get a tug on my coat, then I'm going to know that I've kind of stepped off on this one. I'm sure that's what the process is: to identify "handicapped person" and substitute again "person with disabilities" to clean up the language in relationship to what we're doing. If we go down to subsection (g), it says: "has suffered the complete and
M. Coell: Regarding the Motor Fuel Tax Act, would there be no difference in the moneys being paid or claimed by people with disabilities because of this, or does this just recognize the act and what is in GAIN continues?
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for the clarification. He's absolutely right.
Sections 23 to 26 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Streifel: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 15, Disability Benefits Program Act, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. D. Streifel: By leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 15, Disability Benefits Program Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Streifel: I call committee on Bill 16.
The House in committee on Bill 16; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
M. Coell: The opposition was in favour of the last bill, as you know, and we made those points in second reading as well as at committee stage. With this bill, we are opposed. We made a number of statements in second reading at great length. I believe that we have the ears of the ministers involved, but we do have some points we wish to raise in opposition to this bill at this time.
V. Anderson: I think we need to start with the question of the minister deciding on "tribunal." It's appointed in accordance with the regulations, but I think it's important that we understand what the minister's understanding of tribunal is at this point. In taking over from the previous GAIN Act, is it the same, is it different, and what meaning does tribunal have under the regulations at this point?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's the same as was included in the GAIN Act.
[ Page 1071 ]
V. Anderson: Could the minister explain the tribunal to us? Is it voluntary? Is it still three-person, and is it required that only the chairperson is recognized as having taken the proper qualifications or study course or indoctrination -- however you want to call it -- to be chair of the tribunal? Or is it, as it was at one time, that the two appointees from the ministry and the client would be able to choose a mutually acceptable person?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's a three-member panel. One member is chosen by the appellant; the ministry chooses one. If there is a designated pool of chairs, then that's where the chair would come from; if not, then the chair would come from another source.
V. Anderson: When you say "a designated pool," where are those designated pools? How are they located? Are they available throughout the province? Where do they come from? What is the nature of the pools out of which a chair of the tribunal comes?
[7:00]
Hon. D. Streifel: We've been in the process for the last few months of very extensive training. These chairs are available throughout the province. I will get further information and specific locations for the member, if he wishes. I don't have that information right here, but if you require geographic locations or
V. Anderson: Along with that, can you give us an estimate of what it costs to train these people and what the cost of setting up the tribunals is?
Also, could you indicate to us, in regard to the tribunals, what kind of reception there is of the new system? Is any evaluation taking place as the old system and the new system, from the point of view of the ministry on the one hand and the client on the other
Hon. D. Streifel: On the evaluation process, the answer is yes. We will endeavour to supply the information on the training costs when we bring forward the other information. I don't have it available right here tonight.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
V. Anderson: If a person has a right to an appeal seven business days after a person is notified, I would question the length of time, knowing that we're dealing, as we did in the previous bill, with people who have disabilities and knowing the difficulty that people have with language and with English for a whole variety of reasons. It seems to me that seven days is a very short time frame. The experience has been that most people aren't aware of it. It's a time before the information gets to them, and even though it's seven business days and it doesn't count the weekends, when you're trying to get in touch with ministry staff who are working three or four days a week and who have appointments and holidays and all of the other complications, seven days, I would suggest, is totally inadequate for that appeal to come in.
Hon. D. Streifel: The time has been expanded somewhat, hon. members, as the member mentioned in his presentation. The old system was seven days straight. Now we have seven business days, which could roll over into a weekend very easily; in fact, if there's a long weekend involved, it takes that into consideration as well, being seven business days.
But I do take the member's words to heart, and as we have expanded now -- of course, it only happens once the person is notified of the decision -- there are the seven business days. I take the member's comments to heart and thank him for them. But we have now made an expansion in this process, and I think we should see if this is adequate as we go along.
V. Anderson: I'm curious as to why the minister has put seven days in the act when they put all the other significant things in regulations. It would seem to me to be more reasonable to leave the time out of the act and just have a time limit for commencing the appeal, as done by the regulations. I'm not always happy about everything being done by regulation, but in this case, it would have been much wiser because it would give the flexibility.
Also, around the province, where you're having to deal with large travel distances and winter conditions and all the other things, seven days is just totally unreasonable. I didn't bring an amendment, but it would seem to me that if the minister were willing, a time limit to commence the appeal as set forth in the regulations would be a lot better way of doing it rather than listing a specific time. So many things work against the seven-day situation.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's a very important date, and we want to make it absolutely clear because there could be an effect on their benefits. There could be an effect on a number of issues here. So it was included in the legislation to make it absolutely clear that in fact that's the time.
V. Anderson: I think it makes it absolutely clear that one is limiting the opportunity to appeal as much as possible in the act, instead of making it open and available. I say that particularly for people who have disabilities, for people who have transportation difficulties in rural or urban areas and for people who live in the midst of cold weather in the wintertime, when you've got snow and frost, and you don't have telephones or transportation. The seven days is totally unrealistic to actually make the appeal system in the very beginning open and available to people. I think it's just unrealistic. We're also dealing here with many people who don't have the capability to read or write. They may have it in another language, but even in
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the hon. member for his comments, but we did canvass this at some length in debate on other legislation.
The appeal process is seven business days, not seven days. There are appeal kits made available, as we discovered in examining other legislation, in multiple languages. The member has this minister's commitment to the openness of advocates and the use of advocates in these circumstances. The FAWs inform individuals right at the time of what the difficulty is and inform them of options. We've covered what can happen if the options aren't made clear under some of the
[ Page 1072 ]
other legislation. The member understands how I feel about that. I believe that this should be as open and accessible as possible. The seven business days have created a problem in other
I think it's good that the member is concerned and brings forward these concerns in this manner, but we have made the process as available and user-friendly as possible. I will repeat: there are appeal kits in multiple languages in that area. There doesn't seem to be a difficulty with the seven business days. In fact, if the hon. member has specific cases where these difficulties have arisen, I would ask him to bring them forward so we could have at look at it. If there's a plethora of these, perhaps then we should be considering alternative time frames, but it seems to be working with the openness and the information that we supply.
V. Anderson: In helping the minister to understand the difficulty of the situation, I will make sure that low-income groups know that you would like to hear from them directly. I expect you will get a fair number of responses with very specific, detailed information. Might I ask, though, with the seven days, does it go by the postmark date or by the day it arrives in your office? That's a three- or four-day difference right there.
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, it's the day the notice is mailed, but if there are unusual
Given the community I live in, if I were to mail myself something, I might wait five days for it. I recognize that problem, and I expect -- as I'm in this ministry longer and with the tone of the ministry and the protocols that are set up -- that our financial assistance workers would realize that there's a real difficulty here, particularly when something comes within that real short time frame, and there's no opportunity for decision or contact. Somebody could be staying at their mother's for two days, for Pete's sake. They get the thing and get home, and the clock has been punched while they were looking after mom. That's just not fair, and we would like to think that this would be taken into consideration.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. We ask these questions because in the past, it has not been fair. Those kinds of circumstances have worked against the appellant again and again. So if there's going to be fairness in
Are any of the tribunal members paid for the tribunal under this new system?
Hon. D. Streifel: The chair is paid $75 per, and the appointees -- the members -- are paid $50 per.
V. Anderson: This is $75 for the chairperson and $50 for each of the others. Up until a year or two ago, all of these were volunteer positions, which makes it an entirely different process than what we had before. This is regardless of expenses. Are there expenses over and above the $50 and the $75?
Hon. D. Streifel: There are no returned expenses over and above that.
V. Anderson: If a person has more than one appeal a day, is that per appeal or per day?
Hon. D. Streifel: I apologize to the members opposite for the time it takes to get clarification on these answers. The fee -- the $75 and $50 -- is per appeal for a maximum of three a day. The encouragement is to consolidate on behalf of different appellants. Similar cases would be done from different appellants. If it had similar difficulties or appeals, then it would be consolidated.
[7:15]
V. Anderson: It sounds to me like we're becoming more efficient and less fair. I think fairness and efficiency will work in opposite directions to each other, and it becomes more like a business operation than a concern with individuals. So I have a real concern with the direction in which it is going.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'd just like to point out to the member that when you use the word "fair," it's a large loop and it must include everybody. The process in the past was that somebody came down and kicked in their time and their parking wasn't returned, their meal expense wasn't returned and their mileage wasn't returned. I would suggest, hon. member, that it's not necessarily fair for individuals to give up their time and be out of pocket. If you want to park in downtown Vancouver, and you pop it off down there, you are dealing with $14 a day to park -- and give me a decent meal down there for $20.
So there is an issue of fairness; I agree with the hon. member completely. That's why we are at least returning a bare minimum to some of these folks who participate and who were, in the past, totally out of pocket. If we stroll around some areas of these cities -- and it's not necessarily just the city of Vancouver where these costs can be incurred, because there could be distances to drive, vehicle expenses to
M. Coell: I think this is the crux of why we're opposed to this particular bill. I'll give you an example. You now have a board where, I believe, the chair would get $150 a day and a member would
Interjection.
M. Coell: No, the board would have $150 for its chair, and a member of the board would get $100. With the tribunal, there's the possibility of the chair receiving $225 a day and a member of a tribunal receiving up to $150 a day if they heard three appeals.
We're saying that this is an awful lot of paid bureaucracy where in the past a great deal of this was done through the use of volunteers and community groups. We're trying to point out that there is a cost to this, including payroll clerks and a number of other people who have to put together the members' per diem bills. All of a sudden you seem to create a huge new bureaucracy to settle something as simple as someone appealing the need for homemaker services or glasses for two of their children and themselves. You might have someone on income assistance -- or on one of these other acts -- coming forward to appeal for $100 or $200 for a minor thing, and such
[ Page 1073 ]
a person has to deal with a whole bunch of paid people. The payment for them to listen to the appeal is far more than it would be just to grant the appeal of a couple of hundred dollars for a pair of glasses. That's the crux of what we're opposed to in this bill, and I hope the minister is hearing what we're saying.
Hon. D. Streifel: Would that we lived in a perfect world, hon. members. There has to be some avenue to consider or reconsider doubtful decisions on either side of a question. I hope the hon. member isn't suggesting that there should be no doubt about any decision that's made, that anybody who applies to get anything should automatically get it and that there isn't room to manoeuvre. I would hope that that's not what the suggestion is. I don't imagine it is, but I will suggest that that's what the member is suggesting, because that's what we're supposed to do here: you take one side, and I take the other. In fact, if we don't have any forum at all to adjudicate, to take a look at or to reconsider decisions that you or I don't like, then I guess we've found perfection.
M. Coell: That's not what we're saying. We believe that there needs to be an appeal. What we're suggesting to the minister is that the minister is creating a very costly appeal process. Sometimes this government takes a good idea and makes it cost a lot more than it needs to cost. We're trying to point out that there was a system in place that was hearing appeals. We're not talking about the quality of the appeals, but their cost. We're just suggesting to the government that this is going to become a very bureaucratic and costly appeal process; it needn't be.
Hon. D. Streifel: I believe, in this whole avenue of about a billion-dollar
V. Anderson: Are these same expenses available to the appellant for coming to the appeal, and if so, is it $50 or $75? What's available to the appellant for coming to the appeal?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's just for the appellant's nominee, the winger on the tribunal. The appellant's benefits carry on while the appeal process is in place.
V. Anderson: But the appellant also has expenses to come to that appeal process. The appellant has to have bus fare. If they are handicapped, they have to take a taxi to come to the process. They also have expenses such as meals, as many expenses as the members of the tribunal have. If you are talking about fairness, then, and if there are extra costs to the members of the tribunal, those costs are even heavier upon the appellant, who doesn't have money to begin with. That's why they are appealing. I am trying to find out if there are any extra costs to the appellant in coming to the appeal. Or is the appellant the only one that isn't getting paid for coming to the appeal process?
Hon. D. Streifel: I wonder if the hon. member would clarify how one cost is a higher burden on one individual than another. Who has the appellant chosen to be a winger or their representative on this tribunal? I don't know who an appellant chooses. I think it would be a mistake for us to presuppose that the appellant has chosen an individual of means to be there. In fact, the benefits for the appellant carry on during that process, hon. member.
V. Anderson: If I can clarify the question, hon. Chair, let's call the appellant Jane. Jane chooses her nominee, who comes and gets the payment; the minister's nominee comes and gets the payment; and the staff person who represents the ministry gets their expenses paid for coming. I am asking whether the appellant, who has expenses to come to that hearing, gets at least her expenses. Or is she the only one that doesn't get paid in order to come to the appeal? The three tribunal members get paid; the staff person for the ministry gets paid for making their presentation. Does the appellant at least get her expenses paid for coming to that appeal, when everybody else is getting paid?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, these appeals, which a client brings forward, are generally held locally on behalf of the appellant, but the appellant would not be required to have their representative on the panel from that local area. They could be from out of the way. But I take the member's words to heart, and I'll take them under consideration, actually, because the member has made a good point tonight. I've been involved many times with appeals and the appeal process, whether it's UI or WCB or labour arbitration, and the member has made a point. I'd like the opportunity to work on this with my staff and get some further clarification.
V. Anderson: We are dealing with persons who are coming to an appeal and who haven't the proper clothing to wear or adequate food in many cases. In many cases, they are appealing a medical prescription or transportation allowance that they are not getting. They are appealing for the bare necessities of life. So it's considerably different from union arbitration, because these are people who have the least of all. They are on the bare minimum, even if they get their full payments. So it's a very critical issue, and not only must it be fair but it has to be seen to be fair.
I can imagine there are people in dire circumstances who discover that the appeal process has cost $125 plus the staff, and everybody else is getting paid except the person who's most in need. They're not even getting their bus fare, their transportation or a meal allowance. I've gone to situations where, if the person didn't borrow money, they didn't get home from those events. It's very critical, and I highlight to the minister that being fair to the people who are volunteering also requires a different kind of fairness to the appellants who are coming to these appeals.
[7:30]
There needs to be a real relook at the tribunal itself, because, at this point, it's seen to be a process that has been hijacked by the ministry. The validity it has had over the years is being lost. That very awareness is something the ministry has to deal with, because it makes it difficult for the tribunal to
[ Page 1074 ]
be fair when there's that kind of impression about it. That's why, on the tribunal, I'm stressing that the trust and fairness that were there are lost, and they need to be rediscovered.
Hon. D. Streifel: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara has made these points very eloquently many times in this Legislature. I appreciate your comments. My commitment is to work with my staff on some of the issues that are before us. I know we can find many avenues in
Section 2 approved on division.
On section 3.
V. Anderson: Whereas we had concerns about the tribunal, we have even greater concerns about the appeal board. Could the minister explain to us how many branches of the appeal board are being set up? How are these being set up across the province? How many people are on the appeal board, and what is the payment to those persons?
Hon. D. Streifel: There is only one appeal board with six members on it.
V. Anderson: And those six are to cover the appeals right across the whole province? There are six persons on an appeal board, and, in my understanding, they are to deal with all the appeals that come in right across British Columbia.
Hon. D. Streifel: The answer would currently be yes, but this act would allow us to expand that board.
V. Anderson: What is the process? Do you actually get to make your case to the appeal board? If you live in Prince George, Dawson Creek, Saanich or wherever, how do you get your appeal to an appeal board if there are only six of them to cover the whole province?
Hon. D. Streifel: For the hon. members, the mandate of this board is really quite narrow. It is to determine errors in law. The cases are written and submitted on forms, and in that manner they can be heard from any geographical area in the province, because they come in written form.
V. Anderson: It's an error in law, so no personal presentations are made. There are only written presentations made to the appeal board. Is that what I'm hearing?
Hon. D. Streifel: That's correct.
V. Anderson: So in the written presentation, the staff of the ministry make their presentation, I gather, to the appeal board when the appeal has been made, and then the appellant makes a written presentation to the appeal board as well. Is that what I'm hearing?
Hon. D. Streifel: Both are written -- from the appellant and from the ministry.
V. Anderson: If there's an appeal, there are two sides to the appeal. On one side it is the ministry making the appeal against the decision of the tribunal, which would be a supervisor or the minister himself asking for the appeal to be heard, and on the other side it would be the appellant making the appeal. Will there be legal aid services or lawyers available to the appellant to make that appeal, and are they paid for by the ministry, since it has to be a legal document that they're now presenting?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, usually there would be legal aid services supplied, and, of course, that comes from the AG's legal aid bill.
V. Anderson: So we've gotten into a semi-legal process in looking at these appeals. As I understand it, the only appeal that was available before was to go to court, for either the ministry or the appellant to take it to court. What we have now is a semi-judicial process which requires legal documents according to law and requires legal presentations. But in a court hearing, if you make a legal presentation and somebody wants to get clarification or understanding of that presentation, there's also a personal presentation. Are you saying that there's only the written document for the appeal board to deal with?
Hon. D. Streifel: There are only written presentations in this circumstance, and they're on a form that's supplied. We don't want to duplicate a tribunal, and we don't want to drive back through the court system on these issues. That's why this is in place. In fact, the documents are prepared, and the forms are filled out. There's assistance supplied to the appellant through the processes we already described to help make sure that the forms are filled out properly and that the error in law is pointed out, and the process goes ahead in that manner. The alternative is that we go to court.
M. Coell: The more we get into this, the more we see that this particular bill is going to create more jobs than B.C. Youth Works. It just seems to be from one bureaucracy to another, and now we're into court. I guess we have some more questions, but it's obvious that this particular piece of legislation is designed to create a whole new bureaucracy. I just can't see why the minister isn't considering scrapping this now and going back to what was previously there.
Hon. D. Streifel: I wonder if the members understand that this has been brought forward to stop these $50,000 court cases, as a matter of fact. We won't have to go to court. This is a much more cost-effective method of determining the outcome of error-in-law decisions. I wonder if the hon. members would prefer that we don't correct error-in-law decisions.
V. Anderson: Do I understand the minister to say that there is no longer an appeal from the appeal board to the court? It was my understanding when this was brought in, that there was still the opportunity to appeal to the court a decision of the appeal board.
Hon. D. Streifel: The member would know that you can always go to court as a final arbiter in these cases. If the concern is the law, it is always available.
V. Anderson: So there is still the opportunity. If I understand rightly, when it talks about panels of the board in another section related to this, one person can be the appeal
[ Page 1075 ]
board. The whole decision can rest on one person. Is this right? Rather than a three-member or a six-member board, one person can hear, take those two documents, look at them and make the decision. The only follow-through to the decision of that one person is to go to court to take it further.
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, that is correct, and it's not inconsistent with other tribunal processes that are heard by a single arbitrator -- for instance, labour or the WCB again. As we go forward in some of these circumstances, I believe it's available under the WCB, certainly under labour. These individuals are chosen for their high level of expertise and ability in these areas.
V. Anderson: Are we to assume that since the decision is made on a question of law, all of the board members will have legal training and therefore, presumably, will be lawyers? Who else would be able to make the decisions on a point of law unless they have that legal training?
Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, for the clarification of the members opposite, the chair has the capacity to determine the size of this panel, and if there are complex legal issues, the Chair can provide for that. As to qualifications, each member of the board must have either knowledge of the principles of administrative law or experience with income security programs, appeal or arbitration boards or commissions, or health education or community programs. There's a vast array of experience that's required in this area.
V. Anderson: Will the findings of these boards be public findings? They will go to the two parties involved, but will they be findings that are public, so that one can track the fairness, the justice and the nature of these findings?
Hon. D. Streifel: With the exception of possible confidential information, yes, the findings can be made public -- with some considerations for privacy and confidentiality.
V. Anderson: We'll leave it until we come to the next section. I think that's all on section 3.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
Hon. D. Streifel: I have an amendment. Are there two amendments? I have amendments to section 5 that are in the hands of the Clerk -- two subsections, 5(6) and 5(3). I understand they have been distributed to the members.
[SECTION 5, by deleting the proposed subsection (6) and substituting the following:
- (6) If the parties notify the board that they have resolved the issue under appeal, the board, or a panel to which the appeal has been referred under subsection (5), must order that the appeal be discontinued.
(3) The appeal must be commenced and conducted in accordance with the regulations and must be decided on the basis of written submissions only.]
Amendments to section 5 approved.
Section 5 as amended approved.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
[7:45]
V. Anderson: Again, we have this section where everything that is undecided is passed over to regulations. It talks in section 7(2)(b) about
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm pleased to clarify that. Those are the individuals who have taken the training to secure the qualifications to be prequalified in order to sit there. We'll train them, hon. member, and we're going to pass that information over to you.
V. Anderson: Might I ask who is developing the training course, and who is undertaking the training? Do we have people from the Justice Institute? Are they external trainers? Are they internal trainers? There's a real concern that there's a bias in the trainers. How do we know that the bias is not trained in?
Hon. D. Streifel: We contracted through a contractor to develop the training module that we'd be using. This contractor developed the training program or module through research and through looking at other areas that have programs along these lines. The training is delivered by other contractors within the regions, so it's somewhat at arm's length from the ministry under this method.
V. Anderson: Is this one contractor who deals with it throughout the province, or is this a variety of contractors?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's put out for tender in areas of the province, so it could be multiple contractors by tender in the regions. Again, I'd stress that the
V. Anderson: Call it a contract or a core program, whatever you like. May we get a copy of the core program so that we could see it? That would be very helpful, thank you, so that we may share it.
There's a couple of things in the regulations that I wonder about in light of the discussion:
Hon. D. Streifel: For the first question, yes, to the core or the contract. Could you clarify the other question for us -- which regulation and where we're at with this? I can't find it here.
V. Anderson: Sub-subsection 7(2)(i) is the regulation:
Hon. D. Streifel: I understand that this refers to a decision that could be made without prejudice, so it wouldn't be precedential, I would suppose. Generally, with any decision
[ Page 1076 ]
I've ever seen that says "without prejudice," it's so that it doesn't affect you later on down the road, or whatever. I think that's what this reference is to.
V. Anderson: Sub-subsection 7(2)(j) talks about the "consolidation of 2 or more appeals to be heard at a single appeal hearing of a tribunal or the board." With all respect, my experience with these tribunals is that they are all very personal and very individual. To try to do two personal appeals, which have very specific information, together would just turn everybody off. Does the appellant have the privilege of saying yes or no, that these appeals can be heard?
Hon. D. Streifel: It is sometimes difficult to understand all the nuances in the workings, and I want to make the information as clear as I can. It would appear that over the last week or ten days, clarity has been a difficulty.
In this case, it could be the consolidation of a number of legal issues by the board, or it could be the consolidation of a number of issues by the same individual -- so the same individual would bring forward multiple issues all at the same time. That would be the general happening. I hope that clarifies it for the member.
M. Coell: I realize the minister has some staff here that can probably assist. Before a person gets to the tribunal, what avenues to resolve a difference would they have? Let's say a client applies for something that is rejected by a financial aid worker. How many different opportunities would someone have to satisfy themselves before they got to the tribunal?
Hon. D. Streifel: So far, we've come up with at least two. The supervisor or area manager could work within an administrative review. As a matter of fact, if we go back to fiscal '95-96 -- if the members opposite would allow me the privilege of a written answer this time; it's awful how concerned we are about what others think, isn't it? -- a total of 4,788 decisions were reviewed. Of these, 3,933, or approximately 82 percent, were settled by administrative review. So that would be within those two processes in the ministry. The remaining 855 appeals were resolved at the tribunal level, so that's 18 percent at the tribunal level. Those are fairly good statistics, hon. member, if 82 percent of these things don't even get out into this extended process but are handled at the admin level. I think that's remarkable, actually. I thought what we were discussing affected almost everybody in the system.
V. Anderson: I think the minister, without meaning to, demonstrated the point we've been trying to raise: that a good many of the appeals have been resolved at the tribunal stage. Most of them have been resolved to the benefit of the appellant coming forward. Many of the reasons for tribunals in the first place are because of the manner in which social workers or income assistance workers have had to use the regulations. So the fault has been in the system itself, which was corrected by the tribunal.
So to set up this whole appeal board process over and above
Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the hon. member for his comments, but I think I'd like to again offer some clarification of my words. In 100 percent of the cases, 82 percent of them don't get anywhere near the tribunal stage. They're done within. That's 82 percent. That's a tremendously successful rate within the offices and right within the ministry. Only 18 percent ever proceed to the tribunal stage, so I guess I lean back on my first comments: that through the process of this debate around appeals and tribunals and who comes where, I was really under the impression that the hon. members were bringing forward virtually everybody within the system, not just 18 percent of those who have had a difficulty here and who would even proceed to the tribunal stage. I don't know if I even have the figures of those that get settled at the tribunal stage and those that actually have to go to the appeal board, but I imagine it would be considerably smaller.
M. Coell: We're almost ready to sum up our points. I just want to make the final point that if you had a client who was receiving income assistance at the lowest rate of around $500 a month, and they were appealing the $150 cost, whether it be a medical cost or housekeeping, they would have to go through about seven layers of appeal. We have a financial aid worker, we have an area manager, we now have a tribunal, an appeal and the courts, and we have subcontractors hired and contractors hired. So for someone making $500 a month on income assistance, this is a great make-work project for the bureaucracy. There are people hired all through this to appeal very small amounts of money. We're trying to point out the cost of the whole appeal process, from the financial aid worker to the judge in the court. Why have we set up a process that allows appeals to be so expensive? I think it undermines the credibility of the ministry -- and all of us -- when we set up systems like this.
[8:00]
The Chair: Hon. minister, it's a little like second reading debate. You may want to take that under advisement.
Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you very much for the caution, hon. Chair; I will take your words to heart.
I thank the hon. member for his comments on this section, and take my place and wait for the yeas.
Section 7 approved on division.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 36 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton |
| Hartley | Janssen | McGregor |
| Conroy | Smallwood | Farnworth |
| Robertson | Gillespie | Doyle |
| Lali | Sawicki | Randall |
| Sihota | MacPhail | Dosanjh |
| G. Clark | Miller | Petter |
[ Page 1077 ]
|
NAYS -- 32 | ||
|---|---|---|
| G. Wilson | Weisgerber | Penner |
| van Dongen | Whittred | Nebbeling |
| Anderson | Coell | de Jong |
| Stephens | Plant | Hurd |
| Farrell-Collins | Campbell | Reid |
| Gingell | Dalton | J. Wilson |
| Reitsma | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Hawkins | Symons | Abbott |
| Jarvis | Weisbeck | Chong |
| Coleman | Masi | Krueger |
| Barisoff | Neufeld | |
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 16, BC Benefits (Appeals) Act, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 16, BC Benefits (Appeals) Act, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the House, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
On vote 29: minister's office, $348,000.
Hon. A. Petter: Before I begin, I'd like to introduce some of the members of my staff who are here today. Seated on my immediate left is Deputy Minister Garry Wouters; on the other side is Chris Trumpy, ADM, provincial treasury; and seated behind me is Brian Mann, director of finance and administration.
The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations occupies a pivotal position in maintaining the economic well-being of this province. The ministry's mandate and scope of responsibilities, especially since its amalgamation with the former Ministry of Government Services this spring, makes it central to the operations of government. The ministry is the government's tax collector; banker and money manager; chief accountant; fiscal and economic policy-maker; budget and expenditure arm; central human resource and labour relations agency; corporate and personal property registrar; collector of statistical information; purchaser of goods and services; central post office; printer; deliverer of information technology services; administrator of public pension plans; regulator of utilities in the province; regulator of trust companies, credit unions and cooperatives, insurance and real estate; and provider of planning, communication and coordination support to the executive council.
To fulfil this broad mandate, the ministry has 2,638 FTEs and estimates that it will spend $277.5 million this fiscal year. In addition, the ministry provides other corporate services and supports other government entities, such as the Information and Technology Access Office, B.C. information and privacy office, Enquiry B.C., and the B.C. information management services office. I am also responsible for Intergovernmental Relations, the Provincial Capital Commission, the B.C. Gaming Commission and the B.C. Racing Commission. Together, these additional agencies and functions employ 539 FTEs and will spend $63 million this year. Lastly, my ministry has recently become responsible for the Insurance Corporation of B.C. and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.
Leading by example, my ministry continuously looks for ways to cut expenditures. As a financial manager for government, the ministry is determined to streamline and cut its own costs. We are also searching for ways to increase government revenue, while supporting the objective of this year's budget of making government leaner but not meaner. Let me provide a few specific examples.
We have worked closely with the RCMP and Revenue Canada over the past year to curtail illegal tobacco smuggling and to ensure that the province receives the appropriate tax on all tobacco products coming into this province. We will continue to aggressively pursue this source of tax revenue. The introduction of new purchase cards will streamline government small-dollar purchasing, with an ultimate saving of $1.4 million. This program received the deputy minister's service quality award last year.
The government vehicle fleet will save an additional $1.1 million through a streamlined licensing and insurance process and a prenegotiated fuel discount program. An agreement with Canada Post will save $700,000 over four years on government mail delivery. A risk-sharing agreement for student loans with three major banks will save the province $10 million annually through a reduction in defaulted student loans. On the cash management side, the ministry has tapped into the U.S. market for the first time in three years with a very successful $500 million (U.S.) 30-year bond issue. I'm pleased to say the auditor general has given the ministry a favourable review on our cash management operations and contributions towards minimizing borrowing costs. Ministry initiatives for the next fiscal year will continue to look for ways to increase efficiency and cut costs. We will also be working to find ways to produce more accurate and timely information on current changes to the provincial economy.
Certainly, the highest-profile function of the ministry is the production of the government's annual budget. This year's provincial budget -- introduced by my predecessor the day the election campaign began, and reintroduced after our government won a second mandate from the people of this province -- made some significant commitments. We committed to protect health care and education in this province, to provide a modest tax cut to middle-class British Columbians and small business, and to balance the budget while reducing overall government debt.
We have already begun to act on these commitments. The personal income tax cut took effect on July 1. Legislation has been passed to establish the B.C. family bonus, and the first cheques have been mailed. New capital spending by government has been frozen, and all government programs are currently being reviewed. We made a commitment to balance the budget in this fiscal year, and I am determined to do whatever is necessary to meet that commitment.
[8:15]
[ Page 1078 ]
I'll recap briefly some of the actions taken and planned by this government. The personal income tax rate has been reduced by one percentage point on income up to $80,000 a year. Personal income tax will be reduced another percentage point in 1997. The tax cut is supported by a freeze on all other taxes for individuals and families until the year 2000. The budget also freezes B.C. Hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and college and university fees. Taken together, these measures will mean a savings of up to $500 for a typical family, and the total savings for taxpayers will be $485 million annually by 1998-99.
We also made a commitment to protect health care and education for the families of British Columbia. We're increasing funding for hospitals by 2.5 percent to ensure quality services that all B.C. families and seniors can count on. A five-year health care funding guarantee means that health care spending will keep pace with population growth and cost pressures. This is a stronger commitment to health care than made by any other government in Canada.
The budget also protects education. We're increasing funding in the K-to-12 system to cover enrolment growth as families continue to move into the province. In colleges and universities we're adding 7,000 spaces in the upcoming academic year. This will guarantee a space for every qualified post-secondary student, and the budget also makes post-secondary education more accessible through freezing tuition fees for two years.
We're also working hard to create new jobs and protect the good family-supporting jobs that exist in this province. Based on our strong economy, we're forecasting 40,000 new jobs in B.C. in the upcoming year. According to Statistics Canada, 34,000 new jobs have been created in B.C. just since December, so our target is achievable. A 10 percent tax cut for small business in the province will also help stimulate job creation, and we've also been working hard to protect the jobs in B.C.'s coastal communities by protecting our valuable west coast fishery resource. The agreement signed last week with the federal government showed that we are making significant headway in this regard.
I think it's also known to members of this House that we have frozen all new capital spending by government, pending a review of capital spending. The objective is to reduce overall capital expenditures and the related debt while ensuring that we make the investments necessary to support British Columbia's priorities, and particularly our priorities with respect to health care and education.
Every government program is currently being reviewed through the program review, and we are asking the tough questions. Is this a program that's really necessary? If it is, can it be done better, cheaper and more efficiently? We're working to streamline bureaucracy, increase government efficiency and cut costs. The end result will be a government that serves the public, not the process of bureaucracy. This government is already well on its way to living up to its 1996 budget commitments.
In conclusion, my ministry has focused its resources on the priorities of British Columbians: cutting taxes, sound fiscal management, reducing the debt and reducing the size and cost of government. This ministry takes seriously its responsibilities for sound fiscal management, not only in the annual budget process but in our day-to-day activities. The ministry will continue, as we have done in the past, to serve the people of this province. We will seek out every way to ensure that every dollar of taxpayers' money is spent wisely. Like all parts of government, we can improve, and we must continue to do that.
I'd like to thank the staff for their hard work and dedication. I know they'll continue to provide excellent support as we meet the challenges of the next year together. I'd like to also indicate that as a new minister I'm very much looking forward to the challenges that lie ahead and to working cooperatively with the members opposite. I've certainly enjoyed the interactions I've had to this point with the critic for the opposition
An Hon. Member: Every one of them?
Hon. A. Petter: The chief critic for the opposition party, who's obviously well versed in these matters.
It has always been my philosophy in this House -- I hope I've managed to find an opportunity from time to time to disclose it -- that we do better when we work together. I look forward to the opportunity to work together with all members of this House -- with my opposition critic and even with some other critics from time to time -- on these and other matters, as I take on some of the challenges that this ministry affords and provide some direction on these important issues.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, it was most interesting to sit and listen to the full extent of the minister's responsibilities. The reorganization that has taken place within government has placed a great burden, I think, on this particular ministry. It is a ministry that needs to be watched every hour of every day, and I just hope that by the adding on a whole series of other responsibilities from the Ministry of Government Services and some other transfers, I think, from the Attorney General, they haven't put too much of a load on this minister, to take him away from the very important task at hand.
It was interesting when he said that their effort was to make government leaner but not meaner, and the next thing he mentioned was all the work they're doing with the RCMP and the income tax department regarding smuggling and other such items. I can assure the minister that if he answered the phone calls in my constituency office and listened to local business people talking about the income tax department and the RCMP, he wouldn't describe that as a route by which they would become leaner but not meaner.
The first item that I'd like to deal with with the minister is the manner in which the estimates are produced. I'm sure the minister is expecting me to ask this particular question, and we might as well get into it right away. The estimates are produced and tabled. At some point very late in the
Hon. A. Petter: There was some ambiguity, at least in my mind, about the member's question, but if he's talking about the estimates for Forestry revenues as opposed to the actual
F. Gingell: The billings.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll have to come back and answer that. I was ready to answer on the estimates side, which is done
[ Page 1079 ]
ultimately by the Minister of Finance, based on information provided by the Minister of Forests. Maybe the member could restate the question so I can make sure I get the answer.
F. Gingell: As logs are cut and brought to a booming ground, they are scaled. Those scale bills go to the Ministry of Forests, and someone at some point makes out an invoice for the stumpage or the royalty which is owing on those scaled logs. I was wondering if the minister could advise us which ministry is responsible for that process.
Hon. A. Petter: For the scale, that would be the Ministry of Forests.
F. Gingell: And the conversion of those fibre volumes into dollars is done also by the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. As I understand it, the conversion of the scale on the billings is done by the Ministry of Forests.
F. Gingell: Is it also true, then, that the Ministry of Forests mails that invoice out and that they are responsible for the collection of the receivables in their revenue division?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
F. Gingell: See, it's going along swimmingly.
Perhaps the minister could advise the committee of the means by which the Ministry of Forests advises the comptroller general's office about revenues and the amounts that should be recorded.
Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that subsequent to the billing being done, the Ministry of Forests has a system for providing information to the Ministry of Finance. But if the member wants more detailed information about how that is done and the way in which it's done, I'd have to seek advice of other staff in order to get that for him.
F. Gingell: The issue I'm interested in is the issue of timing: when it happens. Can the staff help with that question?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm trying to get this as precise as I can for the member. As I understand it, there is a process of interaction between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance in which estimates are sent from the Ministry of Forests, based on the actuals that they submit to the Ministry of Finance. This process goes back and forth in terms of reconciliation procedure until sometime in August, when there's a sign-off by the comptroller general, as I understand it.
F. Gingell: I wasn't interested in the issue of the final. What I'm interested in is the process. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for billing and collecting the majority of revenues that the province gets, and administering them. But the forest revenues are an exception, because they are administered, it was my understanding, by the Ministry of Forests. There must be some process whereby every five or ten days there is advice given by the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Finance about the value of the invoices they have sent out.
Hon. A. Petter: I can't give the member a precise time line, but I can try to get that from staff. My understanding is that it takes some time, in the normal course of events. It's not just the Ministry of Forests. Energy and the Ministry of Employment and Investment, as I understand it, are also submitting information back and forth. But this is, as I understand it, not an automatic procedure of simply submitting invoices, and they're totalled up. There is an interaction back and forth that culminates in a finalization of the actuals through the comptroller general. In fact, I know a little bit about the middle of this process, because I myself fell into it as Minister of Finance. I don't know a lot about the beginning and the end of it, but I'll try to get that for the member.
I can tell the member that the draft of the comptroller general's report was only just being prepared when I became minister. The finalization of that report isn't done until August.
[8:30]
How the actual receipts come in, how much time lag there is, the extent to which they are then vetted and returned, and go back and
F. Gingell: I would imagine, just from the point of view of common sense, that as the billings are prepared on the computer and mailed out, totals of those billings would be sent over to the Ministry of Finance. That's probably done automatically. The Ministry of Finance probably has a means of going into the computer of the Ministry of Forests and getting those totals. Now, the Ministry of Forests is also responsible for collecting the receivables, so there are going to be some arguments and discussions and, I'm sure, adjustments.
As I understand it, you receive an interim financial statement every single month from the comptroller general's office, and it contains revenues from Forestry, revenues from Energy, and all those other items. So the information must be available for the preparation of those monthly statements. At this moment, I would just like the minister to confirm that I'm not labouring under a misunderstanding.
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there is a report done on actuals by the comptroller general on a monthly basis. But the report does not include the accruals, and it does not include the reconciliations that are necessary in order to take those actuals and convert them into what ultimately becomes the public accounts. So there are actual statements, but the actual statements are unadjusted and subject to review and change on an ongoing basis. That's where, of course, a lot of the uncertainty comes from until those various matters are resolved.
F. Gingell: Could the minister tell the committee what time of the month he gets the monthly statement for the preceding month from the comptroller general's office?
Hon. A. Petter: There's some confusion here. As I understand it, normally the results would come in in the second or third week of the month, but there is some uncertainty as to what the actual reporting around this is at year-end. As one moves from the monthly process to the preparation of the public
If the member wanted to know precisely about reporting at a particular time of the year -- I suspect he may be heading in that direction -- I would have to go back to staff who aren't
[ Page 1080 ]
present and find out whether those reports are prepared and at what time they are received by the deputy. They aren't sent to the minister; they're sent, as I understand it, to the deputy.
F. Gingell: The point, of course, that I'm trying to make is that by the time April 28 came, when the estimates for this year were tabled for the first time this fiscal year, somebody had taken it upon themselves to increase the estimated forest revenues from the original estimate of $1.522 billion to $1.603 billion. Can the minister tell the committee which person was responsible for making that change?
Hon. A. Petter: Those final decisions were made by the Minister of Finance at the time, as I understand it. They were based upon two key factors. One was a ministry report that was prepared at the end of February, which showed that as of the end of February, revenues were about $5 million higher than projections to that point. Notwithstanding some decline in small business, there was a more-than-offsetting revenue increase in other areas, showing $5 million more than projected.
The other factor that influenced the minister's decision, as I understand it -- because I wasn't the minister at the time -- was that in recent years, the value of timber harvested but not invoiced had been, in the last two months, about $100 million higher than had previously been estimated. There was this upward trend of accruals that had emerged in previous years towards the last two months of the year.
Based on those two factors, I'm told, the minister was presented with a range of options and chose an intermediate option based on those two variables: the fact that we were, at that point, about $5 million ahead and the fact that accruals had been running about $100 million ahead and had been increasing over previous years. For that reason, the minister of the day felt that the revised forecast should be set at $1.603 billion. That was higher than the January forecast of $1.497 billion and reflected the expected accrual of about $100 million.
F. Gingell: Can you tell us which department and which officer within Treasury Board would have been responsible for making the assessments -- or if the assessments came from the Ministry of Forests for vetting, who would have advised the Minister of Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: It would have been the deputy minister of the day who would have taken all of the available information and presented it to the minister. Based upon that presentation, the minister would have made her determination.
F. Gingell: The minister knows that a ten-month report was prepared and issued by the Minister of Finance's office on March 15, before year-end. The forest revenues for that period, for the ten months, are about $260 million behind projection. If you take ten-twelfths of the estimated 12-month
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer lies in the fact, as I was mentioning earlier, that you cannot just prorate the revenue flow. The pattern over recent years has been that approximately 27 percent of total forest revenue is collected in the last two months of the year. Regrettably, that pattern didn't emerge this year, but it was the pattern that had occurred in recent years. In fact, it was about 30 percent in '94-95 and 26 percent in '93-94. So you have a pattern in forest revenues of a ballooning of those revenues in the last two months -- partly because of accruals, perhaps, and partly just because of the nature of reportings and billings.
I don't know the full details, but that was the pattern that, as I understand it, was in the minister's mind in making her determination. I think the member's mistake -- if I can call it that; maybe it's not a mistake but just his observation -- is based on this notion that there is somehow an even prorated flow of revenues. That has not been the pattern in previous years, regrettably, and this year the revenue in the final two months did not meet the pattern of previous years -- hence the shortfall.
F. Gingell: Even if there had been another $100 million to be accrued -- and I understand that there have been some changes in the way these are done -- you'd still have been running $150 million behind. When you came out with the final numbers, they were, in fact, virtually equal to the amounts that were projected for the ten months. Did the whole industry collapse for two months? Were there no net revenues? Did all the adjustments wipe out the billings that had been made?
Hon. A. Petter: It wasn't a complete collapse, hon. Chair, but there certainly was a substantial drop for the final two months from the previous year's experience. I haven't done the calculations based on the March numbers, but as I understand the numbers that were presented to the minister, they were based on the ones I cited from the end of February. If there had been this upturn in the amount I indicated, it might have produced -- and was, in fact the basis for the
There was a substantial drop in the final two months of this year from what had been the experience in previous years, not only in the absolute value but in the relative value of forest revenues in those final months, to the point that they were about half, on a percentage basis, of what had previously been experienced. They were about 15 percent, rather than the 30 percent in the previous year.
F. Gingell: I must admit that as an accountant I have problems understanding how this could happen. Your income tax revenues are well defined. You send out invoices. They are mailed out and they come back.
Mr. Minister, when you were appointed Minister of Finance, you would have received a briefing book that would have a thorough review of the finances of the province and would give the current status. Having seen a couple of old ones, I've got a good vision of what's in them. Can you advise the committee if there was any reference to forest revenues in those briefing books?
[8:45]
Hon. A. Petter: I'd have to go back and review the book. There may well have been some general reference to forest revenues. There was an addition to the briefing book based on a briefing I received in the last few days before the budget. It was based on the first draft report of the comptroller general. It was the report that became finalized at the end of the week -- not finalized, but confirmed by ministry staff. So that was added the day before the budget. Beyond that, I don't think
[ Page 1081 ]
there was a specific reference to forest revenues. I've already said publicly that I was advised by staff that there was certainly uncertainty around forest revenue -- a concern about a shortfall in forest revenue. I was initially advised that that uncertainty would be resolved or be better addressed in July, when there were more certain numbers. When the OCG first draft report was prepared, I then received a briefing on that on the Tuesday before the budget, followed by a note that was added to my briefing book on that, which was the preliminary take on the report that became finalized later in the week.
F. Gingell: The impression I got from the public statements the minister made at that time was that during budget week -- I think the budget was tabled on
Hon. A. Petter: June 26.
F. Gingell: June 26. Yes, that's right; we dealt with interim supply on the 27th.
During that week, either on the 25th or the 24th, it was the first time you had been led to believe that there might be some shortfalls in forest revenues.
Hon. A. Petter: No, that's not correct, hon. Chair. I was informed shortly after becoming Minister of Finance that there was a concern, an uncertainty, around forest revenues that could result in a shortfall and a deficit. But it was an uncertainty, and it could also still come around to ending up in a surplus position.
What the member may be referring to
F. Gingell: I take it that the minister is telling this committee that even though the January 31 statements, which were prepared on March 15, showed two major items of forest revenue to be $268 million behind the pro rata portion of ten months out of 12, there was no concern expressed by anybody at any time that forest revenues could be substantially less than originally budgeted and
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I can only reiterate what I said to the member before. As I understand it -- because I wasn't the minister at the time -- the information presented to the previous minister, based on a Finance report of, I think, March 20, showed that revenues to the end of February were up $5 million. That, plus the fact that, contrary to the member's assumption, the flow of forest revenues was not a prorated flow in past experience, but had this buildup of accruals in the last two months, caused the minister to make that determination. In respect of my own role, I think I've been clear that, yes, there were concerns expressed to me of the nature that I've expressed and in the way that I've expressed them. I have already gone through that sequence.
F. Gingell: You obviously now have a lot of analyses giving you a lot of information. Seeing as all of this is stuff in the past, I presume you would make that available to me in its fullness.
Hon. A. Petter: I've asked my deputy to review this and to assemble the information. I believe, in fact, that there are some freedom-of-information requests, and I anticipate that information will be made public in due course. Certainly the member will have access to it.
F. Gingell: I'd like to, quite honestly, get it as soon as we can. It surely must have been done by now; it must be finalized.
In dealing with the issue of whether this government or its predecessor government was aware that the supposed surplus of some $16 million that was in the revised forecast for the year '95-96 and tabled subsequent to that date -- within this current year, just to make sure it's discussable -- there are two other items. The first item is the issue of the $47 million which the federal government have withheld payments on for Canada Assistance Plan financing -- an established program -- over the issue of residency in British Columbia to qualify for Social Services things. I understand that, at that particular time, British Columbia was proceeding to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to start an action against the federal government. Can you confirm if that is correct as of the end of April?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member's question is whether that $47 million debt owing, at least from B.C.'s point of view, was accrued in the estimate for the purposes of producing the forecast of '95-96 -- which is contained in the '96 budget, for the purposes of making this a relevant question -- my understanding is that the answer is yes, it was accrued based on the prospects of the legal case succeeding.
F. Gingell: I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing a university professor, but one of the first lessons accountants should learn is that you provide for all losses and anticipate no profits. I'd like to suggest to you that you provide for all liabilities and anticipate no assets, unless they are certain. If you're having to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to collect this, I doubt if even your favourite firm of chartered accountants, who I won't name at this moment in
An Hon. Member: They know who they are.
F. Gingell: They know who they are, and you deal with them pretty regularly. I doubt if even they would give you an opinion that it is properly includable in revenue.
I'm wondering if the government did in fact seek an opinion from the comptroller general's office or the auditor general's office on the proper inclusion of this amount.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, one thing I'm finding as a Finance minister who is newer to some of these issues than the member opposite is that it's an accrual world. [Laughter.]
My understanding is that it was included as an estimate of revenues. But the matter of whether or not this ultimately should and will be accrued is one that is being reviewed with the comptroller general and, I guess, ultimately the auditor general as well, in finalizing the public accounts.
[ Page 1082 ]
F. Gingell: You're probably aware that the government makes, in its accounts, provisions for uncollectible receivables or questionable receivables -- valuation allowances, you call them. Clearly, this is an item that you would provide for 100 percent, even in these first estimates. Can you advise the committee if in fact an allowance was made on the expense side of the budget to provide for that $47 million?
Hon. A. Petter: No.
F. Gingell: Which leads to one more issue. After everybody had a party to celebrate us winning the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans -- well, we may have lost it since,
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I don't have the exact numbers, but there was an assumption -- I'm confused as to whether the member is talking about last year's budget, 1995-96; I think he is -- concerning the rebate of those collected tariffs in that budget.
[9:00]
F. Gingell: My understanding is that there is $86 million included in corporate income taxes that is purely and simply an accrual or an assessment resulting from income that will arise through the softwood lumber tariff refunds. Is it normal for your revenue policy group to think about these kinds of things and add those sorts of items into normally anticipated corporate income tax returns? Or do you normally work on the basis of estimates given to you by the federal government?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, this deals with matters that arose when I was not the Finance minister, so I am not as familiar with the practice as I would have been had I been minister. But my understanding is that in this particular case estimates were based on information that was gathered from the federal government and other sources. Ultimately, the forecasts that are made are those of the province, based on best information; in this case, best information included, but I'm sure was not exclusively, information received from the federal government.
F. Gingell: I can well appreciate the problem that the minister has in not being the minister who was responsible when all these things were happening. I hope I have his sympathy for my not having the minister who was responsible for all these happenings present here, either. I'm very pleased, in fact, that we have a new member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. There are questions, however, that constituents bring to me every single day of the week. I must admit -- and I say this to the Minister of Women's Equality, too -- that the people feel that these kinds of issues and numbers should have been better understood by a Ministry of Finance that has the staffing and resources that this one has. I find it inexcusable. I really don't want to put it down to incompetence, but either it's incompetence or people aren't being quite as straightforward as they might otherwise be.
I hold the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Finance in high regard. Up to now, I think this government has done very well in keeping political appointees out of senior positions in the ministry. All the people who have come up through the ministry into senior positions have been professional bureaucrats with a grounding in finance, and that's been good. But clearly, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. This government, I suggest, needs to give us this information, because it's one of those issues that's not going to go away until the opposition is satisfied. People just fell down on this job. I mean, how can forest
I believe that the Ministry of Forests knows. Those people know about the price of logs, the price of 2-by-4s and the volume of timber being harvested. They know what cutting rights they have given out. They know what small business permits they have given out. They know who's working in the woods and who isn't. I just find it terribly difficult to accept that the minister can come along three months later and say: "I'm sorry, but we're out $235 million in an amount of roughly $1.5 billion."
G. Farrell-Collins: Just before we move on, I have a couple of questions, if I may. Perhaps I can approach this from a slightly different angle and run through the scenario of events backwards. The minister briefed the reporter from the Times Colonist on a Friday as to his finding -- his finally becoming aware -- that in fact the government was likely to run a deficit of some $235 million as opposed to a surplus of $16 million, I believe it was. I apologize if my figures aren't as dead accurate as the Finance critic's. It's not my purview, but the ballpark figures, I think, will stand. That was on a Friday. If I recall correctly, the budget was tabled on a Wednesday and the minister had been advised on Monday or Tuesday of that same week that there was potentially a problem. Or was it the Monday or Tuesday of the previous week?
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Okay.
Perhaps the minister can run down the scenario of events of that week, and we can start from there.
Hon. A. Petter: I think I said that after becoming Minister of Finance, I was obviously briefed on a range of issues, one of which was that there was this uncertainty and concern around forest revenue, that that was being worked out by the Ministry of Finance with the Ministry of Forests, the OCG, etc., and that it could result in us being in a deficit -- but it might not result in us being in a deficit, and there would be more certain numbers in July.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, you'd have to go back to shortly after I was Minister of Finance.
It was just part of the general briefings, saying that the status of this stuff was still uncertain as between the ministries. It was only on the Monday before the budget, I believe, in an oral briefing and then followed up by a written note on, I believe, the Tuesday -- actually, I think it was the Tuesday-Wednesday, now that I recall, but in that period right before the budget -- that I was briefed. The reason I was briefed then was partly in preparation for the budget speech but also because there had been a first draft report prepared by the office of the comptroller general on, I believe, the previous Friday. I'd been away in Ottawa. I'd come back and was
[ Page 1083 ]
briefed when I got back on the Tuesday, in fact. I was told orally that that first draft report indicated there would be a deficit in the range of $200 million, that the numbers were surprising to some Finance officials, that they were still preliminary, in draft form and subject to change, and that I should not regard them as in any way determinate or final.
On the Friday I received a further briefing, this time in preparation for dealing with credit-rating agencies and the like, and I was told that as a result of a review that had taken place during the course of that week by Treasury Board staff, there was now a sense of confidence by Treasury Board staff in those forecast numbers -- still forecast, still subject to change, but the degree of uncertainty that had previously been there, and some of the surprise around the numbers, had been addressed, and these were numbers that the Treasury Board staff, Finance staff, now felt they had greater confidence in. It was at that moment that I felt it responsible to make those numbers public.
G. Farrell-Collins: A couple of points. Can the minister tell me what would have gone on that week? My understanding is that the minister said that the Friday before the budget was the day the report became available -- the first draft report was done. What would have taken place between that Friday and the following Friday that would have helped solidify those numbers? What is it that would have taken place back and forth? What sort of examination or revisitation would the Treasury Board people have done in order to come to a conclusion over that week that those numbers were more than anticipated, that in fact there was some pretty solid ground upon which they were based.
Hon. A. Petter: This takes me outside my realm of expertise, but my understanding, based on staff advice, about what they would have done is that they would have taken the numbers that were in the first draft report of the comptroller general, based on Forests estimates, gone back, reviewed those numbers and the accruals with the Ministry of Forests in light of the assumptions made, and satisfied themselves that the assumptions around those numbers and the accruals were in fact accurate in the draft report that had been prepared.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that he was briefed orally on the Monday and in written form on the Tuesday.
Hon. A. Petter: Tuesday-Wednesday.
G. Farrell-Collins: Tuesday or Wednesday. I think you finally did say it was in fact Tuesday, but whatever -- in written form on Tuesday. Can the minister tell me who would have given the minister the oral briefing on the Monday? Would that have been the deputy, somebody from Treasury Board, the comptroller general himself or somebody from his office? And who would have prepared the written briefing which the minister got on either the Tuesday or the Wednesday, or both?
Hon. A. Petter: As I say, it was Tuesday, because there was a caucus meeting on Monday. So I remember now that it was on the Tuesday. It would have been a briefing involving the deputy, Mr. Trumpy and certain Finance staff -- a general briefing in which I was also informed about the first draft of the comptroller general's report.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is telling me that he was briefed orally on the Monday and in written
Hon. A. Petter: Tuesday; before the Tuesday.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, no. The first time, you said you were briefed orally on the Monday and in written form on the Tuesday.
Hon. A. Petter: On the Tuesday I was briefed orally. On the Wednesday, before presenting budget, I was given a note, in the form of a question-and-answer kind of note, that reviewed the information that I had been briefed on orally, which I'd requested in a written form.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hope we have that cleared up now, because when I took notes the first time it was Monday and Tuesday. Now it's Tuesday and Wednesday. That's fine, as long as we're clear on what it is.
The written report that the minister got on the Wednesday, the very day the budget was being tabled, was in the form of a question-and-answer note, one paragraph probably: here is a question, here is an answer. We do those, and I know the government does them too. So that was the extent of the written background the minister had on the day he tabled his budget with regard to the forest revenue estimates. I see the minister nodding, so I won't ask him to state that.
He received the first oral briefing on the Tuesday. The minister said the staff was surprised, when they got the first draft of the comptroller general's report on the Friday, to see the change in forest estimates. Can the minister tell me if he was surprised on the Tuesday when he was briefed orally on the potential for the size of a drop-off in forest revenues, which we've seen?
Hon. A. Petter: I was not surprised by the potential for a drop-off in forest revenues, because I had been advised that it was a possibility. But I was surprised by the extent, yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister, when he
[9:15]
Hon. A. Petter: It would have been in the form and the context of oral briefings I received within days of being sworn in, as one issue -- the uncertainty around forest revenues and a caution that this could end up in a shortfall, and also advice that it was by no means certain and that, once the accruals were completed, it could also end up with the revenues still coming up to expectations.
G. Farrell-Collins: If we can go back to that week again, the minister received the oral briefing on the Tuesday, with a potential dollar figure attached to it, and the written question-and-answer on the Wednesday. Can the minister tell me why, if the Finance ministry officials were surprised on the Friday when they got some pretty firm estimate at that point of what the dollar figures might be -- at least as far as the comptroller
[ Page 1084 ]
general was concerned -- it took them until Tuesday to let the minister know the magnitude of the drop-off in forest revenues that he was potentially facing?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can only speculate, because I don't reach into the minds of Finance officials. But one reason would be that I had only returned from Ottawa around the weekend and had a all-day caucus meeting on Monday. This was the first briefing I had since returning. The other, as I've already told the member, is that the officials were very clear that these numbers were still regarded as preliminary, subject to change, and not in any way final, even insofar as they represented a forecast.
G. Farrell-Collins: I keep coming back in my mind to the Friday and the document -- the report on forest revenues -- that was presented, I assume, to Treasury Board officials by the comptroller general and that first surprised them, as the minister said. It raised their eyebrows.
Now, I would suspect that the minister was briefed, upon becoming Finance minister, to the effect that there was a potential for a drop-off in forestry revenues, that it looked like they could be dropping off. And now, not quite a month -- maybe three weeks later, two weeks
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: One week later. Okay. The minister is sworn in, and a week later the ministry finds out an actual dollar figure has been put on this by the comptroller general -- one week later, and they're surprised by it.
It would seem to me that, knowing that the Minister of Finance is about to go and table a budget the next week, knowing that the Crown is going to be reading a Speech from the Throne on the Tuesday, knowing that's the kind of information the Finance minister would want to know pretty quick -- not hang around for the weekend, and then while he's in a caucus meeting on the Monday, not bother the minister with that information until some four days
Can the minister tell me why it took from the Friday, when the report from the comptroller general came in, until the Tuesday before anybody even mentioned it to him, and the Wednesday before it even appeared in any sort of written form, in the form of a question-and-answer? It seems to me that a drop-off of that size, as critical as it is to whether a budget is balanced or not, is something the minister would expect to hear about from his staff very, very quickly.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess I can only give the facts to the member as I know them, and he can draw his own views as to why things occurred the way they did. This is an ongoing process that takes place in reconciling the public accounts, as I understand it, according to a predetermined schedule. It was not done in light of the fact that I was introducing a budget. Remember, the focus on the budget I was introducing was on the coming year. This was part of the ongoing process that takes place normally over six months to reconcile the previous year's budget in public accounts. The report in question was a first draft of a comptroller general's report. It was sent as a first draft to the auditor general, with copies to the Finance ministry. I can only assume -- but I don't know -- that it being a first draft, it being subject to further scrutiny and change, they brought it to my attention at the first opportunity they had to brief me. But that's an assumption on my part.
G. Farrell-Collins: Now we're sort of backing up. We've done the week of the budget; I'd like to go back to the previous week. Can the minister tell us what process the comptroller general would have gone through? Where would he have received his information to write his first-draft report which became available on that Friday?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that this is the outcome of an iterative process back and forth between the comptroller general's office and the Ministry of Forests -- based on accruals and actuals and all that kind of stuff -- that finally crystallizes into a final draft of the report. But at this stage it had just crystallized, or not crystallized, into the first draft of the report.
G. Farrell-Collins: So at this point, then, on Friday, June 21, the comptroller general issued and sent to the auditor general, and c.c.'d the Finance and Treasury Board people, a report saying something to the effect of: "Boy, there's going to be a big drop in forest revenues relative to the estimates for the past year." And it's an iterative process.
Over what period of time would the back-and-forth have gone on between the comptroller general and the Forests ministry, before the comptroller general brought that information to the forefront? What form does that back-and-forth take? Is it in a written form, is it meetings, is it an exchange of figures and memos back and forth, or is it just something that they chat about, back and forth, over the phone?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm learning about this process as we go along, as I'm sure the members are, too. As I understand it in this case, ministries are expected to submit their final statements in May. Well, we don't have a specific date, but likely towards the end of May. Ministries are feeding in information which are actuals, not reconciled subject to accruals, etc., by late May. The comptroller general is therefore getting a flood of information from a range of different ministries. It then takes the comptroller general's office the better part of six to eight weeks to go through that information from all the different ministries systematically, to reconcile that information, to go back and forth, to look at the actuals and the accruals, and to reconcile it in all the various ways, to come up with the reports that are then submitted in draft form and subject to further change along the way.
G. Farrell-Collins: From, let's say, the last week to the last two weeks of May, the information is coming in, not just from the Ministry of Forests but from all ministries that collect revenues in one form or another -- and I suspect most of them do. He's sitting at his desk -- visually, anyway -- collecting all this stuff, double-checking it and going back and forth to the various ministries over the ensuing approximately six weeks, the minister said.
Can I ask the minister just one question before we move on? I think it's crucial. The interim financial statements -- this one for ten months, which came out at the end of January,
[ Page 1085 ]
Hon. A. Petter: The comptroller general.
G. Farrell-Collins: The figures that are contained in the document -- how firm are they? Are these pretty solid numbers by the time they get published in this document?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the precision on a document of that kind would not be of the same extent one would expect in the final public accounts -- in the range of $10 million to $100 million. In the effort to try to come up with the numbers, there could be that range of discrepancy.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is telling me that in the numbers that are published -- in this case, the ten-month financial statements issued mid-March, ending January 31, 1996 -- the total figure of revenue to that point could be in the range of $100 million up or down. Or is that $50 million up or down, for a range of $100 million?
[9:30]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that it's plus or minus $100 million. In these reports, I understand, the comptroller general is trying as best he can, based on the information he has. The difficulty in processing information is to provide as accurate information as possible. There is the understanding that because of the reporting, it could come within $100 million -- high or low, either way.
G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't hear everything the minister said. I missed a sentence there somewhere. Was that $100 million plus or minus, for the total revenues for ten months, the total figure or just for forest revenues?
Hon. A. Petter: Just in the forest report that the member was referencing.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is telling me that after all that information comes in to the comptroller
Hon. A. Petter: Monthly.
G. Farrell-Collins: Monthly. He gets this information at the end of every month, tabulates it and sort of comes
When the budget was tabled in
Hon. A. Petter: I think I've already explained in questions from the previous member the basis on which the projections in the budget were made: monthly tables prepared by the Ministry of Finance on March 20, showing a $5-million-ahead-of-revenue forecast. I think the problem -- the member is confusing various reporting systems -- is that the comptroller general, as I am informed, does not have an accounting system that captures accruals. So they get manually calculated estimated accruals from the ministries which vary in accuracy, and because of the historical lack of precision in forestry accruals, it was difficult to come to firm numbers. Hence we have the process we have been talking about, and that's the reason it traditionally takes six months or so to finalize and report out on the public accounts. It's that method of accounting -- trying to capture accruals and come back with determinations based on the interaction of ministries -- that causes the uncertainty and requires the time it takes for the comptroller general to finalize his numbers.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll come back to the details of the months in a second. Yes, historically, it probably has taken six months for all that stuff to come together. I would suspect that now, with some of the automation we have and the way information flows back and forth and the way reports are issued, it takes a heck of a lot less than six months for that process to work its way through. Or maybe nothing has changed in the last 20 or 30 years, in which case I think we've got a bigger problem.
If I can come back to my first comments, the minister said that -- if we look at the May-June period -- information on revenues would have been flooding into the comptroller general from various ministries in the last -- I think the word he used was "last" -- week of May. But I gave him a little bit of leeway and said it was probably in the last two weeks of May that information would have come into the comptroller general. Then by June 21, the Friday, the comptroller general issued his first draft as to what the revenues were likely to be. Indeed, a full week later, the minister was pretty darn confident on those figures. They would be pretty close to what he eventually released on that date to the media. In fact, he felt that they were significant enough that he should make them public.
Essentially, what we have
Interjection.
[ Page 1086 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the minister says, "Not true," but he said that.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: A forecast of what they are -- a pretty accurate forecast, a forecast that he's comfortable enough going to the public with. In fact, he feels a duty to go to the public with it.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Backwards, whatever.
We've got a period of about half of May and all of June -- and I'm giving you a lot of space at either end of this thing. We've got a period of about six weeks from when the information flows in to when the minister has a pretty confident estimation of what those forecasts are going to be -- enough that he's confident to go public with it. If I take the same six-week period, from the middle of a month to the end of the following month, and move that over to from mid-March to the end of April, I would also say that the Minister of Finance, at the end of the month of April, would have had exactly the same reliable estimation of revenues, based on the information that came in in the previous two -- and including the last two -- weeks of March, in order to give a pretty darn good estimate of what revenues were. If not, the minister can perhaps explain to me why not.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, it's just that the member is comparing apples and oranges. I already explained that the earlier reports -- which he is referring to and which I already referred to in the internal Finance report -- which were the basis for the budget, did not include an accounting of accruals in a way that would have satisfied the comptroller general to the degree of precision that the comptroller general would have found in the numbers that were provided to me. Ultimately I made them public on the Friday. We're talking about the same flow of information here, but at different stages, to different degrees of reliability, leading to different conclusions. Look, my goal in all this, similar to the member's goal in all this, was to try to come to some accurate understanding, within about a week of becoming Minister of Finance, of what the picture was for the previous year. The information I received was hazy initially. Then I was informed about this draft report of the comptroller general, but it was still subject to serious questioning and uncertainty. Then I was informed that the ministry had now gone through that report and felt the numbers were ones that they had some confidence in. I want to reiterate this: "had some confidence in" -- still as a forecast, subject to change. I don't want to give any impression to the member that, even at this point, these are certain numbers. That's why we have a public accounting system that -- the member may want to believe in technology -- still takes a good number of months to come to finality and certainty, because there are all these complex issues around accruals and attribution of revenues to one year or another, and various accounting systems interacting, etc.
I felt, yes, on the Friday the member referred to, following the budget, based on the advice I received from staff -- it's more staff advice -- that the numbers that had been prepared by the office of the comptroller general now had enough degree of certainty to them in the eyes of staff to constitute a legitimate forecast. As the member said, I then felt an obligation to share that forecast information publicly, and did so.
G. Farrell-Collins: For this moment, anyway, I'm not questioning what happened in the period of time the minister is referring to -- from mid-May to the end of May to the end of June. I think we've established what's taken place there: the minister's version of what happened in that period of time and how that works.
The question I'm asking, where I'm taking this and why I'm raising this issue
Hon. A. Petter: I think I've gone to pains to try to explain. The report the member is referring to is an interim reporting-out that does not have the same degree of accuracy or expectation of accuracy. It does not account for accruals in the way that the final year-end report would. In the procedure I'm talking about, in which information is shared, as the member says, towards the last two weeks of May and then assimilated, it isn't just the last two months of the year that's being shared. It's the entire year that's being shared by the Ministry of Forests and other ministries, regarding their revenue.
I think the member is making some kind of incorrect assumption here that somehow this same process goes on at each stage in which reports are produced. It doesn't. It's an end-of-year process that takes place to try to come to an accurate assessment of the previous year's accounts and ultimately does result in a final public accounts report. I don't think you can equate that process -- which takes place in that window we talked about, late May right through until August -- with the earlier report, which is simply a status report based on the information at hand to that time. It does not have the same expectation or degree of accuracy or follow-up that takes place on the information that's shared towards the end of May.
[9:45]
G. Farrell-Collins: If I'm misguided in how that information flows in, perhaps it's because I asked the minister how often reports are made. I was told it was done on a monthly basis. Now, if there is a different process that takes place in the May-to-August period for the full year, then that's a different matter. But certainly there is information that comes to the comptroller general on an ongoing basis which goes into the makeup of these types of documents. This one comes out mid-March and gives us an estimate. Does the minister not believe that from the time this information comes out -- from the end
[ Page 1087 ]
of January, all of February and into mid-March -- there's a process that goes into place that determines what those figures are, plus or minus a certain amount?
Is there no ongoing monitoring at all by anybody in the Ministry of Finance or the comptroller general's office, from mid-March through to the end of April, of what the receipts are doing, what the Forest revenues are doing? Does nobody in the entire government of British Columbia pay attention to what the forest revenues are doing in that period of time? Does the minister expect me to believe that from the day this thing comes out in mid-March until mid-May, when the year-end receipts come into the comptroller general's office, there's nobody in the province of British Columbia -- of the 30,000-some FTEs that we pay for -- who actually sits there in their office and monitors the forest revenues? Is there nobody who does that? Is there nobody in the Ministry of Finance who does that on an ongoing basis?
Hon. A. Petter: The Ministry of Finance did, as I've already indicated, produce a report on March 20 for the purposes of budget preparation. That report indicated that forest revenues to that date were $5 million ahead of projection. There's also the factor I've referred to a number of times before, in which the pattern over previous years had been for there to be a ballooning of forest revenues as a result of accruals towards the end of the year. Attention is certainly paid and was paid at that time. The same comment about the pattern of accruals would apply to the report that the member has referenced. But the fact of the matter, as I'm informed by staff from the ministry and from the comptroller general, is that, yes, monthly reports are done, but they're not regarded as providing the same basis of accuracy as the year-end reports that are produced by ministries, forwarded to the comptroller general, and that then provide the basis for the production of the public accounts.
F. Gingell: Has there been any change in the procedures by which forest revenues -- billings -- are recorded from what was in practice in the first few months of 1995, and in 1996, that would have caused this difference, in this balloon having no gas in it this year?
Hon. A. Petter: No. I'm informed that in the general
F. Gingell: The diminishment of revenues that has taken place over and above the makeup of the $1.603 billion that's included in these
Hon. A. Petter: It's principally in small business.
F. Gingell: Can the minister -- I hope you have the information available -- tell us what triggers the preparation of an invoice for small business?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I'm afraid I can't, even with the assistance of staff, tell the member what triggers it. But I'm sure that the Minister of Forests, with his staff during his estimates, can provide that answer.
F. Gingell: The additional balloon that you expected to come along through year-end accruals, which I presume
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that it tends to be, or has in previous years tended to be, across the board -- that is, in all categories.
F. Gingell: When this statement for the ten months ended January 31 was prepared by the office of the comptroller general, did the comptroller general's office express to any of the officials around the Minister of Finance or to Treasury Board concern about forest revenues?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, not having been the minister at the time, I will do my best. The best answer I can provide is that in the preparation for the estimate for '95-96 provided in the previous minister's budget that was introduced, she was advised of the internal forecast of the Ministry of Finance, which I've already referred to, and by the deputy of the day, which would have come through the Ministry of Finance. My understanding is that that was the advice she was provided, and that additional advice would not have been provided based on the report referred to by the member, because of the advice she would have already received based on the internal documents.
F. Gingell: Something that didn't dawn on us until two or three days later was the fact that your budget speech of June 26 had expunged all references to a balanced budget. Can the minister tell the committee whether a first draft of the speech had been written that did include references to a balanced budget? Or did the speech at all times, in all its drafts, exclude any reference?
Hon. A. Petter: My recollection is that the original draft or drafts did include
F. Gingell: Did?
Hon. A. Petter: Did include reference to the previous budget and being the second balanced budget.
F. Gingell: When was the decision made to expunge those references?
Hon. A. Petter: It would have been made in the finalization of the speech on Tuesday. Given my uncertainty around the state of the previous year's budget, my feeling was that I did not wish to claim the previous year's budget as a surplus budget in the face of uncertain information, so I removed it during the course of reviewing the draft. My recollection is that it was finalized and sent to the printer Tuesday afternoon.
F. Gingell: My recollection is that you delivered the speech on Tuesday afternoon.
[ Page 1088 ]
Hon. A. Petter: The speech was delivered Wednesday, but I'm not sure a lot turns on that. I likely would have removed the reference prior to the Tuesday because of advice I had received that the forest revenue forecast could end up being lower than previous, even before the Tuesday. But the speech, as I recall, was signed off in final form on Tuesday afternoon.
F. Gingell: The press release that you put out on the Friday, and the following
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. Those numbers were based on the draft report of the comptroller general I referred to, and that report still included the $47 million, I'm informed.
F. Gingell: I take it that the comptroller general has given you an opinion that those revenues are properly includable.
The Chair: Hon. members, it's my understanding that there's a vote in the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A. I'll inform you if we're needed there.
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I would ask that this committee recess for five minutes.
The Chair: I will accept a motion to recess for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 9:57 p.m. to 10:06 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, let me first of all just introduce another official who joined us during the course of this interesting and detailed discussion: Vic Skaarup of the office of the comptroller general.
I think the member's question was concerning the $47 million and the comptroller general's draft report. The comptroller general's draft report, I think I indicated, included the accrual of $47 million, but I don't think it would be fair to say that that reflected an opinion of the comptroller general. In fact, it is during the production of these kinds of draft reports and as the information flows back and forth that these final determinations are made, after consulting with the auditor general and other ministries.
I think that what we can take from this is that the office of the comptroller general built that into the draft report, based on advice received from Social Services about the claim in question. But I think what the member's question points to is the very iterative nature of this process: the comptroller general produces draft reports; they are subject to scrutiny, input, correction and alteration, which is why we don't end up with a final figure on public accounts -- and won't -- until sometime hence.
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, I was wondering if the minister could make available to the committee or to this member, reasonably quickly, any information that might have come from the director of revenue policy, Lois McNabb, to Treasury Board or to the minister's office with respect to these various revenue sources. It is that position that is responsible for keeping a watchful eye on these issues on behalf of Treasury Board. That would be most helpful to us.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, it's my understanding that that forms part of the information that the deputy minister is assembling in response to my request for him to do so, and requests from others, and it will be made available in due course.
F. Gingell: Just to go back again briefly to the issue of the $86 million that's been included as hoped-for corporation income tax arising from countervail refunds, was this $86 million included in the original estimates that were prepared in the spring of 1995 for the 1995-96 fiscal period?
Hon. A. Petter: I am informed that we believe it was, but for the sake of certainty and accuracy, I think I would need to double-check. I can get that information, as I have before, for the member concerning whether in fact it was and to what extent.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I want to come back to a couple of questions that I was asking before. I don't recall if I got an answer to my question. I apologize if that's my fault for not being here to hear it; I was called elsewhere. If the minister didn't give it, then perhaps I can get it; and if he did, then perhaps he can indulge me by giving it again.
The question I asked was: in the time period from about mid-March until the beginning of May, was there no one in the Ministry of Finance who was monitoring the forest revenue forecasts to see whether or not they were indeed doing the neat little bulge that the minister talked about? Or in fact were they doing what one would normally expect, which is to accrue in a normal straight-line manner?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I can add much to what I already indicated, and that is that when the budget was prepared by the Minister of Finance, it was based on the internal reports of the Ministry of Finance that were
G. Farrell-Collins: It was an awfully long delay for an answer that was already given.
The minister expects me to believe -- or perhaps the minister's staff expects him to believe, or perhaps somebody in the Ministry of Forests expects the Ministry of Finance to believe -- that from March 20, the date at which the snapshot was taken, the crystallization took place: the dart hit the dartboard on the figure that was going to be put into
[ Page 1089 ]
the budget figures for the May 3 or April 30 budget -- I can't remember the date -- and in the intervening period there was nothing that happened. The minister expects us to believe that there was a drop-off in anticipated forestry revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars -- millions and millions of dollars -- and nobody in the Ministry of Forests told anybody in the Ministry of Finance, and nobody in the Ministry of Finance told the Minister of Finance. Do you mean to tell me that in the forest revenues as of March 20, everything was looking great, like we were going to shoot up; in fact, it was looking better than normal; in fact, it was looking like it was going to be even better than we thought a year ago; it looked like we were going to overshoot our estimates a little bit? And in the intervening period, the whole thing collapsed, and nobody told the Ministry of Finance or the Minister of Finance? You expect us to believe that? I suggest that it is beyond belief that nobody in the government of British Columbia recognized that those revenues were dropping off precipitously, and nobody passed that information on to the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance before she tabled her budget.
[10:15]
Hon. A. Petter: What I'm suggesting, and I've gone through this before, is that there is a high degree of uncertainty, based on the fact that, in the past, patterns regarding the accruals in the final two months -- I think the major reason has to do with unbilled scale and projections around those -- have varied from forecast. The Ministry of Forests forecasts have not been reflected in the pattern of actuals reported out in public accounts. There has been this ballooning towards the end of the year, so there's a high degree of uncertainty, particularly at year-end, in trying to predict how the monthly actuals will translate into a final figure. I'm not saying at all that there were not warnings or information or reports being shared; I'm sure there were. I'm sure there were lots of reports going back and forth throughout this period. There are, within government, numerous reports prepared, and members referred to some of them. What I'm saying is that there is, in this period, a difficulty in coming to final and determinate numbers because of these various factors.
What I've explained to the member is how the information was presented to me when I became minister. I was informed that, yes, there was uncertainty around forest revenues, that there was concern around forest revenues, but that there was still such uncertainty that it could not be finally determined how that uncertainty would resolve itself. So I can say that in the period when I became minister, there was certainly concern. I'm sure there were reports and views expressed that reflected that concern, but those concerns had not been resolved to a point that I felt I could share them until I did share them on the Friday following the budget.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'm thrilled to hear from the Minister of Finance that there were reports going back and forth between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Finance leading up to, on the day of, and after the budget day at the end of April and beginning of May of this year.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, that's what the minister said. I mean, you can't stand up and say one thing and then stand up and say: "No, I didn't mean that; I meant something else." The minister said that there were reports going back and forth between Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Forests officials on an ongoing basis, day after day, throughout the year. If that's the case, hon. Chair, how can the preceding Minister of Finance not have been aware that there was a precipitous drop-off in forest revenues as she approached the end of the year. How could she not possibly have known that? How could she not possibly have known that between the end of the fiscal year and the time she introduced her next budget?
With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 29 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Plant | |
| Stephens | de Jong | Coell | |
| Anderson | Nebbeling | Whittred | |
| van Dongen | Penner | Neufeld | |
| Barisoff | Krueger | Masi | |
| Coleman | Chong | Weisbeck | |
| Jarvis | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| Reitsma | J. Wilson | ||
|
NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Petter | Miller | |
| G. Clark | Dosanjh | MacPhail | |
| Sihota | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, for the purpose of trying to plan how we shall proceed this evening and what subjects we might deal with, would it be possible to get from the Government House Leader some idea of what the schedule may be? We don't want to get started on some particular subject and stop halfway through. Can the Government House Leader give us some idea of what the schedule may be? We don't want to get started into some particular subject and then stop halfway through,
Hon. J. MacPhail: It really is, I guess, the business of the opposition as well. I anticipate going for another hour or so, at least.
F. Gingell: To the Government House Leader, I don't quite understand how it's something to do with us. Some of us have Public Accounts tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock, a very important part of our responsibilities here. As we get older -- you will discover it as you get older -- we need our sleep. I find this a rather uncivilized way of carrying on the business of the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to come back to my earlier question. The Finance minister talked about this
[ Page 1090 ]
the minister tell me how many past years we are talking about? Did this happen every year for the last ten, the last two, the last one or the last five?
Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps I will use the occasion to also clarify a response to the member's previous question. I'm informed that it seems to be pretty consistent over the past five or six years, in any event. I have a figure for the last three years suggesting that it is certainly consistent over the previous three years. Again, I'd be happy to get the figures for the member and provide them to him in writing or in some other form.
In response to his earlier point, the point I was
Some ministries correct for what they perceive as systemic patterns in other ministries. That's what has happened here. Sometimes they are right in doing so; sometimes they are proved wrong in doing so. The member was asking: was there no information or data or people carrying information? I'm sure there was information going back and forth from various ministries reporting on monthly bases. Ministries would interpret it, as they often do, in light of these historical patterns, etc., and forecasts would be done from time to time, based on all of that. I just wanted to clarify that point.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would suspect that the minister is correct in his assumption that that information goes back and forth all the time. I am sure that having been Forests minister, he would be aware that that information goes back and forth.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: He's not aware, having been Forests minister. I suspect that he is now aware, having been Finance minister, and he probably wishes he had been aware when he was Forests minister.
If I remember correctly, the current Minister of Finance was the Minister of Forests -- I'm trying to think -- up until mid-February. Is that correct? It was after. February 19? Whatever. I can't remember the exact date.
An Hon. Member: The 23rd.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you -- February 23. The member for Yale-Lillooet remembers, because he got passed by that day. It was Passover in Yale-Lillooet, I guess. He remembers that day because he bought a new suit that day, I guess. It was a big day. All in good humour, hon. member.
[10:30]
I don't quite know how to phrase this. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the information concerning actuals is fed into the central accounting system, and reports are prepared on a monthly basis regarding actuals.
I want to go back to the basic point that I made earlier to the member, and that is the way in which information was actually communicated to the previous minister, as it's been reported to me, surrounding the budget based on the report on March 25 that was communicated to her and was the subject of some discussion that we had earlier.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad I'm taking notes because last time the minister said March 20, and now it's March 25. Is there a different report that went to the Minister of Finance on March 25, as opposed to the one that went to the minister on March 20?
Hon. A. Petter: The member is very observant. A report was prepared on March 25 -- a note was sent to the minister seeking direction, based upon that note, on the forecast for '95-96.
G. Farrell-Collins: What sort of direction was being sought from the minister with regard to forecasts? It would seem to me that the information or the advice would go the other way, not coming from the minister to the people compiling the forecast.
Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the member, if he had been here earlier on when we had this discussion with the opposition
G. Farrell-Collins: If the ministry sent a report based on March 20
[ Page 1091 ]
options there for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance tell us what that range of options was?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have that information precisely, but my information is that the minister chose a midrange option.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's critical to find out what that range was. Was it a range of $2 million? Was it a range of $200 million? Was midrange exactly smack in the middle, or was it somewhere near the top half or the bottom half? I think that's pretty important information to find out at this stage of the game, as to how predictable those forecasts were.
With that, hon. Chair, I move that the Chair do now leave the chair.
Interjection.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
G. Farrell-Collins: The motion has been made. It's a non-debatable motion. There's no provision in standing orders for this House to recess while the small House is doing any business.
The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
G. Farrell-Collins: I move that the question now be put. It's a non-debatable motion. I've moved that the Chair do now leave the chair, and I believe that motion is in order.
The Chair: The motion is that the Chair do now leave the chair, and I would put the question to the House.
A division has been called. The House will now recess until the division in Committee A has been resolved.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Chair. The division has been called. The time is not running. I would ask that the time be
The Chair: You requested a division; I haven't rung the bells yet.
The division in Committee A has been completed. I would now call the House to order for division in this House. The motion before the House is that the Chair do now leave the chair.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 29 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Plant | |
| Stephens | de Jong | Coell | |
| Anderson | Nebbeling | Whittred | |
| van Dongen | Penner | Neufeld | |
| Barisoff | Krueger | Masi | |
| Coleman | Chong | Weisbeck | |
| Jarvis | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| Reitsma | J. Wilson | ||
|
NAYS -- 36 | |||
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Stevenson | Bowbrick | |
| Goodacre | Giesbrecht | Walsh | |
| Kasper | Orcherton | Hartley | |
| Petter | Miller | G. Clark | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Sihota | |
| Brewin | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
[10:45]
D. Symons: I wonder if we might have a recount of those in favour. I believe I missed a name there.
The Chair: I would advise the member that the names have been called. If there's a specific challenge you can certainly make that challenge now. Your name was read, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice, in going through the summary of ministry responsibilities that was released by the Premier's Office in June of this year, that under the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations there's an interesting responsibility, which I believe the minister has inherited from the Ministry of Government Services, and that's the coordination of appointments to boards, agencies and commissions. I just happen to have a list of some 840 appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, which I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance some questions about.
The Finance critic from the opposition has gone home for the evening, so perhaps we'll stick to these items, and we can move through here with some capacity. I imagine it could take us some time; it may take us some time tomorrow, too.
There was a comment in the 1993 annual report of Auditor General Morfitt, when he examined OIC appointments. He made some comments that many of the appointments that were made by the government to the agencies, boards and commissions were made in a dubious manner and shielded the backgrounds of individuals, and he mentioned the possible abuse of the appointment system and appointment structure.
So I'd like to start at the A's. Mr. Enzo Accardo is a member of the Labour Relations Board who was appointed in February 1994 and is a member of the New Democratic Party. Can the minister tell us a little bit about the gentleman's qualifications for that position and how long he's been there? It's at the A's; you can probably look in your book. It's Mr. Accardo. Perhaps the minister can tell us what the background of the gentleman is and how he qualifies to be on the Labour Relations Board.
Hon. A. Petter: I think these kinds of detailed questions would be most suitable to respond to in writing. If the member wants to put it to me in writing, or in this case, if he wanted to put the question to the Minister of Labour during Labour estimates, I'm sure he could get a specific answer. If he wants some general information regarding appointments, I'd be happy to answer those if he'd put them to me in writing.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the interesting ways this House works is that the government gets to sit as late as they
[ Page 1092 ]
want, because they have a majority. They can make the House sit as late as they want, but the opposition gets to ask the questions that they want.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, this is very much in order, hon. Chair. Well, if it's not in order, raise a point of order then, Mr. Premier. Otherwise just sit there and let it roll.
The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is responsible for coordination of appointments to boards, agencies and commissions -- a portion of the ministry which the minister inherited from the former Ministry of Government Services. And Mr. Pollard, the patronage czar and friend of the ferry workers, works in that capacity.
Perhaps I can simplify the questions. Why don't we start right at the top? Why don't we ask the minister about the qualifications of Mr. Pollard for his position as the patronage czar for the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. How much are the people of British Columbia paying him to do his job?
Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that Mr. Pollard doesn't hold the position the member is referring to.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier tells me he works for the Premier. Isn't that interesting? Then maybe the minister or the Premier made a mistake, one of many, when he put out the summary of ministry responsibilities. We know that, really, everything belongs to the Premier, because that's the way he operates. I'm looking here, and it says "Premier." Maybe the Premier can tell me if this is not a document put out by his government: "Summary of Ministry Responsibilities -- June 1996." Under the
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we know everybody reports to the Premier.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, he's got a new job. Well, then perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us who is the new patronage czar for the people of British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: I reject the characterization by the member of patronage czar. If he wants to reframe the question to appropriately reflect the position, I would be happy to provide the answer.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us (a) the title, (b) the name and (c) the salary of whoever the person is in the province that's responsible to make sure all the NDP hacks get jobs.
The Chair: Shall vote 29 pass? The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, perhaps the Minister of Finance didn't hear me the last time. Can he tell me (a) the position, (b) the person and (c) the salary of the person who works for the province and who appoints 800-and-some New Democrats to various agencies, boards and commissions in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: The member insists on asking a loaded question that contains assumptions that are completely incorrect. If he had asked me what he perhaps intended to -- that is, who is the person in charge of coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions -- I would be happy to answer the question. The answer in that circumstance would have been that the acting director is Sheryl Kozyniak.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sheryl Kozyniak? I notice that the member for Yale-Lillooet has her name down tight even better than the Minister of Finance.
H. Lali: I know everything.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the member knows everything, it can only be a matter of days before he moves into cabinet, because there are many members there who know almost nothing. I'm sure he's qualified, and I'm sure he'll find himself there any day now. Certainly the talent level within cabinet is sinking to the level that this member will slide right in there and fit right in, just like normal. I think we'll wait and see what actually happens. I can't wait to grill that member.
The other part of the question is: how much is that person paid?
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to get that information provided to the member. I don't have it at hand.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can tell me what Sheryl's qualifications are for that position.
[11:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to provide that information to the member, along with any other information he has about specific appointments. If he just provides it to me in writing, I'd be happy to return the favour.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would suggest maybe -- and the minister may want to move the motion -- that if he wants me to have the time to write all these questions out for him, then obviously I could spend the rest of the evening doing that and have it available for him sometime tomorrow, and he could go through all of them and get that information back to me. But I suspect that, similar to his predecessors and similar to just about every other question that's been written on the order paper in this House over the last five years that I've been aware of, no answer would ever be forthcoming. It's similar to the comments made by the then Minister of Labour in the very first year of the last parliament in interim supply debate,
[ Page 1093 ]
where some hour-and-a-half's worth of oral questions were given to the minister, never to be seen again. Despite his solemn and honest assurance that they would be, the answers never were forthcoming.
That's not the way this House works. We don't give you written questions, because you don't answer them. We give you oral questions, and you don't answer those, either, most of the time, but we feel better when you at least try. The reason we feel better is that we know right away that we're not going to get an answer and we don't sit around waiting on the front step for the mailman to come by and give us a letter. I'll avoid breaking out into song, because it would really clear this House.
Certainly there are a number of people who fall within the minister's purview -- literally thousands. I think the former Premier used to talk about 4,000 appointments to agencies, boards and commissions that were in his purview and that he would make from time to time. In fact, that's why Mr. Pollard was brought in. We could go through them, and I expect we shall, but there have got to be some that the minister knows something about. These are people who are responsible and accountable. The work of that commissioner is accountable and responsible to the Minister of Finance. Certainly you would think that the Minister of Finance could give people some indication of the qualifications of these various people for these jobs. More importantly, indeed, you would think the minister would be able to give us some indication of Sheryl's
An Hon. Member: Kozyniak.
G. Farrell-Collins: Kozyniak, thank you. I don't want to misstate her name. I want to make sure I pronounce it properly.
An Hon. Member: It's Irish.
G. Farrell-Collins: It doesn't sound very Irish to me, but who knows?
Certainly one would think that the Minister of Finance would have some idea of her qualifications for the position. I guess she's acting. Was there a nationwide search done for people qualified to appoint New Democrats to agencies, boards and commissions? Or is this something that requires such expertise that there are only a small number of people in Canada who qualify for such a powerful position of seeking out the brightest and the best New Democrats from across Canada, to bring them into British Columbia and parachute them into various jobs? Maybe that takes decades and
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, go ahead.
...to do. Maybe that's a skill that one builds up over years of practice. I don't know; I'm asking. If the minister would give me the answer, then I wouldn't have to speculate. Perhaps Ms.
But getting back to the topic, because I really do want to stay relevant to the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us of the decades of practice that Sheryl Kozyniak -- it's actually a nice
An Hon. Member: Ms.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...that Ms. Kozyniak has had in searching nationwide, high and low, turning over rocks in New Democrat provinces across Canada, looking for New Democrat members and finding those people who know the NDP constitution from A to Z and the B-I-N-G-O in between, the members of the New Democratic Party from far and wide -- from the three people in Newfoundland to the four in Prince Edward Island to the who knows how many in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick -- and plucking those people, the brightest and the most talented, flying them, all expenses paid, to British Columbia, to the beautiful city of Victoria, and saying, "Have I got a job for you," and then telling them what it is that they've got to do for two hours a day, five days a week, how much money they're going to get, what their pension package is going to be and what they get to do when they retire.
L. Reid: Severance.
G. Farrell-Collins: Exactly. I forgot. The member for Richmond East tells me about the severance
An Hon. Member: Parking.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...and parking passes, and where they get to park their cars.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet asks if I'll vote for him. If he tells me what he's running for, I'll tell him whether I'll vote for him.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us about Ms. Kozyniak's qualifications for this job. I know it must be somebody that everybody has a lot of faith in, because when the NDP was looking to cover up the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal yet again, they searched far and wide -- maybe he can tell us if Ms. Kozyniak was involved in this one -- and found Allan Blakeney from the province of Saskatchewan to come out here and do a really interesting investigation and an even more interesting report that said that everything was fine, that they hadn't done anything wrong, that everybody had operated in good faith, except for a couple of people a couple of decades ago who might have maybe done something wrong, and that it wasn't anything we had to worry about. That was an interesting report.
At the same time he was doing this, the RCMP were raiding the New Democratic Party offices in storm trooper
[ Page 1094 ]
costumes, looking for documentation. Perhaps that's the kind of person Ms. Kozyniak is recruiting from across Canada, or perhaps the type of people she's looking for are people like the renowned, the amazing, the absolutely incredible, the unparalleled, the Mario Lemieux of Hydros, Marc Eliesen, who came into British Columbia after soaking the people in Ontario for millions of
An Hon. Member: And Manitoba.
G. Farrell-Collins: And Manitoba, I'm advised. He comes to British Columbia and soaks the people of B.C. Hydro. I'll never forget the day that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the now Minister of Education, Skills and Training and Labour, stood in the corridors and told us how lucky we were because we had grabbed the Mario Lemieux of Hydros. I suspect that we didn't quite get the Mario Lemieux. I don't know who the person is that we got, but I suggest it was somebody with the salary of Mario Lemieux and the talent of Mickey Mouse. About 18 months later the gentleman got fired; he got bailed out. And, boy, did he ever get a present on his way out. I can't remember what it was. He got a pension worth well
An Hon. Member: $675,000.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...$675,000. I think that was the severance package. The severance package was $675,000 for 18 months' work. Holy smokes! She must be good to be able to find somebody who can come in and work for 18 months, completely screw up the largest Crown corporation in British Columbia, get fired, get bumped off into some other agency of government, and take $675,000 with them.
L. Reid: Taxpayer dollars.
G. Farrell-Collins: Taxpayer dollars. But maybe it wasn't Ms. Kozyniak who was responsible for that. In fact, I don't think it was; I think at that time it was still the hero of the ferry workers who was running the show.
The member for Yale-Lillooet nods again, so perhaps I should ask the member for Yale-Lillooet about forest revenues and estimates. Maybe he forecasts, maybe he knows something about what happened there, given that he is from a forest-dependent community. Maybe it was Mr. Pollard who actually pulled Marc Eliesen in from Ontario.
I'm going to sit down for just a minute or two and ask the Minister of Finance if he can tell us what Sheryl Kozyniak's qualifications are for this amazing, incredible, just fantastic position she's got now, in which she goes and plucks those people from across the country and brings them to British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: While the member's diatribe may be amusing to him and others, I think it's regrettable that he would use the time available to discuss estimates to engage in this kind of rant against everyone and sundry, including slagging of public servants and others. But I guess that's what the member wants to do.
I think we could make better use of Finance ministry estimates, and I've already indicated to the member that if he has specific questions about the qualifications of any particular individual that I am responsible for, I'd be happy to provide that. I think if the member checks with the Finance critic for the opposition, he'll find that my record of responding in follow-up to oral questions during the course of House proceedings is a pretty good one. Perhaps he could get down to the business of debating estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: The understood time for discussing estimates expired at 10 p.m. It seems that the Government House Leader decided, of her own accord, that we are going to sit later. As I said, the government may choose to sit, because they have the clout, they have the numbers -- and they can do that -- but it's up to the opposition what questions they choose to ask. All the questions that I've asked so far have been completely relevant to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, and in fact, there are a great deal more.
I'm sure if the minister and his staff peruse the comments that I've just made in the last little while, they'll find that there is a whole series of questions in there, that I expect, if the minister's word is good, I'll get answers to.
I've got a whole series of questions to ask. I've got a whole book of members of the New Democratic Party who managed to find themselves good jobs on the payroll of the people of British Columbia. Don't misunderstand me; my intention is not to in any way demean those members of the civil service who are professional civil servants, who work tirelessly for long careers, whether in British Columbia or elsewhere, and, quite frankly, build up a real expertise in what they do, and work diligently and long, hard hours for the betterment of the people of British Columbia. Rather, just the opposite is true. I want to congratulate and commend those people. In some small way, I suppose I am defending their market share, because for every hack that is appointed, it means that there is one less job for a legitimate civil servant.
So I would suggest to the minister that it is he and his government who offend, slag and demean the role of members of the civil service in the way his government has run roughshod over the appointment and selection process and in the way his government has abused the civil service by parachuting in New Democrat members and supporters, regardless of talent, from across the country to some of the more senior positions within the civil service in British Columbia.
[11:15]
I don't mean to say that just because individuals may have worked for a government of another political stripe, they fall into the category which I am describing. Many people have excellent talents that they have used in other jurisdictions for governments of various stripes and have brought their talents to British Columbia, and they may well take them to other provinces in the future. It's not those people, either, that I have concerns about, but I do -- along the lines of the comments made by the auditor general -- have grave concerns about the appointment process that this government has used to stack and to stockpile New Democrat members into positions of authority, positions of influence, and quite frankly, rewarding positions in the civil service in British Columbia at the agency, board and commission level. That's not to mention those at the bureaucratic level, who have managed to find themselves temporary appointments in various ministries, only to find after some period of time that they in fact have got a permanent job. They're originally hired as auxiliaries, and then they are moved into the civil service as full-time permanent employees. There is certainly a litany of those cases there for people to see.
Before the minister chastises me for casting aspersions on a neutral civil service, I suggest he look at the record of his government, look at the records of his former Premier and his
[ Page 1095 ]
current Premier, and look at the record of the office which now falls under his jurisdiction. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he indeed feels strongly about the role of neutral civil servants and the way that they need to be recruited, and the difficulty of their job and the meaningful way in which they perform their jobs and their careers, he -- now being responsible for agencies, boards and commissions -- would follow the recommendations of the auditor general and institute some sort of a formal selection process that would ensure that it was the best and the brightest of all Canadians that we had in those positions, rather than just the best and the brightest of New Democrats from across Canada.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure the member is aware -- but in case he isn't, I'll simply tell him -- that the vast majority of those 3,800 or so people who are appointed on citizens' boards have no partisan profile whatsoever, and some of those have a partisan profile that draws from different political persuasions than those of this government. I think we saw this the other day with the appointment, jointly with the federal government and local government, to the Fraser Basin Management Board of Iona Campagnolo, a very well qualified British Columbian and former Liberal. We've seen the appointment of former members of previous governments such as Mel Couvelier, and in my own area, Don Amos, a founding president of the Saanich Reform Party, who has been appointed to the Camosun College board, I believe it is. I think of people with associations to members opposite, including Catherine Vertesi, I think it is, who has been appointed to the College of Massage Therapists. So there have been appointments from all quarters to these various boards and agencies.
In addition, just to correct the member's perception, or perhaps misperception, the majority of appointees -- well over 50 percent -- do not receive any remuneration beyond out-of-pocket expenses. In fact, in some cases members do not even receive out-of-pocket expenses. I know people on the Provincial Capital Commission, for which I've been responsible for the past four or five years, who serve on that commission without any remuneration whatsoever, and do so simply out of a sense of public service, goodwill and contribution towards their community. I feel that if the member met with the members of the Provincial Capital Commission -- he could talk to his colleague down the
It is demeaning to those members to be treated in the supercilious and cavalier way the member treats all appointees. Perhaps the member for Saanich North and the Islands could inform the member of the kind of dedication and hard work that go into that commission by people of varying backgrounds and previous, perhaps even current, political persuasions that I'm not even aware of. To paint them with this brush, as the member does, is, I think, most unfortunate, and it discourages people from wanting to come forward and serve in public agencies. If the member is truly concerned, as I am, about getting the best and the brightest to serve on these agencies, he would think twice about these broad-based, highly evocative caricatures he paints, which discourage well-meaning citizens from coming forward for fear that they'll be tarred by the very brush that the member wields.
Let me just say as well that only 2 percent of members appointed to public bodies serve full-time and receive a salary -- a very small percentage -- and most of those serve on the Labour Relations Board or Workers Compensation Review Board as nominees of business or labour. I know it's fun to stand up and filibuster around these kinds of things, hon. member, but you should think through the consequences of what you say, because what you say can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you, through your caricature, so tarnish the reputation of those people who do come forward and serve on these boards and commissions, you run the very danger that you want to avoid -- namely, having only those people come forward who are prepared to be subject to your caricature.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would put to the minister that that's not just my caricature; it's the caricature that the New Democrats in opposition -- a party which the Finance minister currently sits as a cabinet minister for -- made repeatedly of the former administration. Colleagues made those various comments in this House. They were right then, and I'm right now. Those people, the members of the New Democratic caucus, in the lead-up to 1991 when they were in opposition, who made comments, who made strong statements in this House about the way patronage works, about special deals for friends and
I would hazard a guess -- I'm pretty sure I'm right, but the minister can perhaps tell me if I'm wrong -- that in 1991 more than one piece of campaign literature came from the Minister of Finance when he was running as a new candidate, and soon to be a new MLA, that talked about no special deals for friends and insiders. I have failed to hear that minister, subsequent to the 1991 election, stand up and chastise his own government for doing not just the very things that were done previously but refining to a fine art the special deals for friends and insiders -- whether it be the special jobs that are given to people, the appointments that are given to people, not necessarily remunerated financially but certainly with
So I find it just a little bit difficult to have the minister stand up and raise those types of concerns. It's interesting also that the minister stands up and talks about the various other people, the non-New Democrats, that have been appointed to agencies, boards and
L. Reid: I think he got to two.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, I think he actually got to three or four. Maybe the member for Richmond East missed a couple.
Without looking like I'm throwing down the gauntlet, I would challenge the Minister of Finance to continue listing them. And for everyone he lists that he can identify from another political party, I will list 40 that are members of the New Democratic Party. We can do that. We can go through the list, and we can see the government's record for friends and insiders. We can see the government's record, under the agencies, boards and commissions, for appointing its friends not just to positions of financial remuneration but to positions of influence -- influence on public policy, influence in associations and boards where perhaps that influence isn't warranted.
There is a whole gamut of debate that can take place here this evening, and we can go through the list. As I said, I've got
[ Page 1096 ]
some 800-and-some members
Perhaps the Minister of Finance can address those comments and tell us how it is that there's such an imbalance. He talks about trying to reflect British Columbians in these agencies, boards and commissions; he talks about trying to reflect the political spectrum of British Columbia in those commissions. Perhaps he can tell me why there is such an imbalance on agencies, boards and commissions between members from political party X and the current government's political party. There's a huge imbalance there, and if that's not special deals for friends and insiders, then perhaps the Minister of Finance can explain why it's not.
Hon. A. Petter: I think this is getting into a general debate that goes pretty well beyond the scope of estimates, hon. Chair. But I'll just respond briefly, because I do think this is an important point, and I know that the opposition member likes to score political points.
I want to talk a bit about my personal experience as a minister over the last four or five years and about some of the key boards I've been involved with in order to give a sense to the member of what is at stake here. When I was Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, we set up the B.C. Treaty Commission. It's difficult to get people to come forward and serve on a high-profile, stressful commission of that kind, and I'm very proud that we established a commission -- we did it with first nations, the federal government and the province -- which has been overseeing the treaty process. There has been no suggestion whatsoever that this commission is anything but highly qualified.
When I was in Forests, we established a number of agencies. The Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee drew upon different representatives of the forest sector, which in turn gave rise to Forest Renewal and the Forest Practices Board. These are people who put in time and energy, in many cases for not only no remuneration but no payment whatsoever -- not even for expenses, in the case of the Forest Sector Strategy Advisory Committee -- for putting in tireless hours.
It's simply too cavalier and irresponsible for the member to stand up and tar these people and these boards with the brush that he does. It's difficult enough to get people to come forward. He, I believe, is playing politics to the very opposite end that he purports to want to reach -- namely, to attract well-qualified people who are outside any political point of view.
The regional health boards, which I had limited exposure to when I was Minister of Health, in my experience represent well-meaning people from all over the province, who also received no remuneration whatsoever. Whatever you may think of those
Interjections.
Hon. A. Petter: ...I think it is really unfortunate to demean, as the members do through their catcalls, the people who have put in tireless hours trying to work to establish a regional health model.
I go back to the Provincial Capital Commission, because it's the one I've been closest to over the last five years, and the kind of people in the capital region who come forward and serve on that commission. Some are from municipal councils, and some are provincial government appointments. It's simply not right or fair to tar those people with this brush. In this case, they receive no remuneration whatsoever -- not a penny of payment for per diems or whatever.
I just wish the member were a bit less cute, a bit less partisan and a bit more sensitive in his comments. I've given you six different agencies that I've been directly involved with, all of which have done tremendous public service, and all of which we should be thanking. The members who have participated in them should receive our thanks; instead, we receive these kinds of political diatribes from the member opposite. I just think that's regrettable.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing that the minister could say that with a straight face and accuse me of focusing on the agencies, boards and commissions in a partisan manner. How dare I talk about partisanship when it comes to agencies, boards and commissions!
Hon. Chair, I'll tell you how I dare. I've got a binder here of 120 pages with at least ten individuals per page of people who have been appointed to the agencies, boards and commissions and are members of the New Democratic Party. I would challenge the minister to show me the list of people who have been appointed and who come from other political parties. So for the minister to chastise me -- with a straight face, no less -- about partisanship in the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions is humorous, I think, if nothing else.
The thought that everybody who serves on an agency, board or commission is partisan in nature or has been appointed because they're a friend of the government is a false one, and I wouldn't make that assertion. In fact, there are good people who sit on agencies, boards and commissions, who are there working, thinking they're doing the best job they can for the people of British Columbia and doing so to the best of their ability -- and congratulations to them. But there are also an awful lot of people -- over 800 -- who are there and are members of the New Democratic Party, have a background with the New Democratic Party or are political activists with the New Democratic Party. They are there because they are members of or activists with the New Democratic Party.
[11:30]
That's exactly the kind of thing that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin railed against when he was in opposition. If you like, I'd be glad to pull out the Hansard with all the comments made by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin with regard to appointments to agencies, boards and commissions and read them back into the record for the Minister of Finance. I know that when the Minister of Finance campaigned in 1991 as a New Democrat, he railed -- I know what a good speaker he is, and I can imagine what a good stump speaker he would be during a campaign, although I've never campaigned directly against
[ Page 1097 ]
ing his estimates, talking about how terrible it is that a member of the opposition would raise the issue -- would even think to raise the issue -- and cast an aspersion that there would be some partisan influence on determining who sat on agencies, boards and
C. Hansen: During the course of estimates on the Ministry of Finance, I did some research and was planning to ask some very serious questions, but I'll save those for regular, normal sitting hours of the day. Given that it's now 11:30 on a Monday night -- I throw that in for the benefit of those who may be watching this broadcast, thinking they're watching a
The other side of it is that many of us are new to this chamber. We have just been elected for the first time, and there's a certain discipline I think we all have to learn when we're dealing with estimates and the proceedings and debates in this House. For all our enthusiasm, for all the research we've done and for the thousands of questions we have, we recognize that there are only so many hours during the normal sitting time of the Legislature to ask those questions. So we've had to rein in some of them.
I'm coming to my specific question shortly, hon. Chair. But the benefit of having sittings that go past 10 o'clock at night is that a lot of us who are new to this chamber have all these questions and may not be at the top of the priority list. So at this hour of the night, it gives us the opportunity that we wouldn't have otherwise had to ask those questions.
Specifically to the estimates, I want to refer the minister to page 259. Actually, before I get into this, these specifically pertain to the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. I know that the minister has four very tired-looking officials with him; they may want to go home to have a sleep. The only person that might be relevant to have here tonight would be Sheryl Kozyniak, but I understand she's not available, so I'm sure the minister can assist us with these questions.
I was noticing, in looking at the expenditure and FTE
I would like to run through these changes listed on page 259. As a transfer from the office of the Premier, we see that the expenditure last year was $3,000, and that has been transferred into the Ministry of Finance this year. Continuing down the list, there is a transfer from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs of $9,000, again for coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. That's $12,000 so far. What I find interesting -- I would like to come back to this later in the debate tonight, and the minister might keep this in mind as I go through this list -- is that in each case, what did the $3,000 do? When it comes to the operations of a department, $3,000 doesn't seem to be very much, yet it is obvious that there was $3,000 in the office of the Premier last year for this purpose. As I mentioned, in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs it was $9,000. The next one down is a transfer from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that actually doubles the page total. We get to $12,000 in that ministry alone, for a total of $24,000 so far. We then come down to a transfer from the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration -- and it's for the same line item: coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. This I find very surprising, because here we have an allowance of $38,000. And I'll stop trying to add them up as I go, because I do have a total once I get to the bottom here.
The next item as we come down this list is the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. I see that the minister is here, so he may be able to assist the Minister of Finance on this number. Although he wasn't the minister at the time this money was expended last year, we find the same line item, under coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, of $53,000. Of course, it's getting higher as we're going down here. Actually, what is interesting when we get to the bottom is that the numbers don't add up. I think I have an explanation, but I would like to ask the minister about that when we get there.
As I mentioned, Education, Skills and Training was $53,000. What we get next is the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and there we have $20,000 for the same line item, the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Next we have a transfer from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and again there's the same item, but now it's only $10,000. As I mentioned earlier, I'd like to go through each of these with the minister and get a sense of what that $10,000 accounted for. What did that buy? In terms of it being brought into your ministry, how do you separate out the interests of these various departments within the ministry?
The next one is actually quite interesting, because it's the Ministry of Government Services and the Ministry Responsible for Sports. There we had the transfer of all the functions of the ministry, including such things as the Purchasing Commission and the government communications office, that are now coming into the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
What is quite interesting here, when you get down to the last item under that ministry, the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, is that there is no money. There was no dollar value transferred in from that ministry last year, and yet there were five full-time-equivalents, which I'd like to come back to because I think this is really important. I assume that one of those five is Sheryl Kozyniak. I hope somebody has given the right spelling to Hansard by now. Would you like to respond to that as far as I've got? I have a few more, and actually there is
Hon. A. Petter: If he can tell me what his question might be, then I will answer that question.
C. Hansen: There is an important point that this comes down to at the end.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the chance to intervene, because the member's question is based on a misunderstanding of what these figures represent. As I understand it, the practice in years past was for the services provided by the coordination agency, with respect to boards and commissions,
[ Page 1098 ]
to essentially bill various ministries for the costs of the services provided by the coordinating agency, based on the activities of the ministry and the numbers of board and commission appointments that were required. So, in a sense, the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions was funded out of various ministries based on the activities of those ministries that required support from this agency.
In this year's budget, instead of doing that rather complex transferring-and-billing procedure, what happens is that prorated accounting is reflected now in a transfer of revenues from each of those ministries. Instead of that taking place through billings on an annual basis, it takes place in the budget by transferring from those ministries the same amounts that would have been billed into the budget, so the budget more accurately reflects the way in which this is funded.
The member's assumption that this was doing some specific service is incorrect. What it was doing was funding the activities of the coordinating agency with respect to appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. It's now doing the same function, except that it's being transferred within the budget, so the budget reflects that more directly. It isn't done through a transfer of funds, which also accounts for the fact that the item he refers to next -- the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions -- doesn't have a contribution. That's because it doesn't make a contribution to itself. It is that agency that is being funded by these contributions from other agencies, which are now being transferred over to this ministry so that that funding will take place in a direct way and show up in the public accounts in a more explicit way.
C. Hansen: In other words -- I just want to see if I've got the minister's answer correct from the point that he's making -- if I add up all of these numbers, and I take the total number of appointments to boards and commissions, then basically I should be able to determine the cost per ministry. Just as an example, let's take -- what's the biggest one here? -- the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing: "coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions" of $74,000. You're telling me that if I take that number as a percentage of the total budget that was allocated for the coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, and I divide that in, I would come up with a percentage of the number of appointments that have been made by that ministry?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that it's a formula based on the number of appointments and on the effort required, the degree of difficulty and the background work, etc., that's done with respect to particular appointments. But it's an attempt to distribute in an accurate way the cost to ministries of providing the support service to ministries, and now that cost is being transferred over directly so it doesn't happen by way of billing between the ministries.
C. Hansen: Is it also a factor in terms of the value of the appointments? When you say the time that it takes to recruit somebody for one of these positions, is it that the more one of these things pays in terms of a per diem or salary, the higher the chargeback to the ministry?
[11:45]
Hon. A. Petter: No. There may be a correlation between remuneration and the degree of search that goes on, qualifications and stuff. It's not a function of remuneration, if any, that's provided for the appointments; it's a function of the activity and effort that go on in support of those appointments by this agency.
C. Hansen: Could you
What I would like the minister to explain
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there is a detailed pricing formula that applies in this case, and I'd be happy to provide the member with information concerning that, once staff are able to get their hands on it. It's not the kind of detailed formula that we have to hand here or that I can provide orally, but I'd be happy to give him all of this information if he's truly interested in getting it, as opposed to occupying these hours. I'm sure I can provide that information to him in a useful form.
C. Hansen: Actually, in all seriousness, I would like to get a copy of that formula in terms of how these numbers are calculated. One of my concerns is that these numbers are obviously done in advance of the fiscal year, and I'm wondering how you can anticipate the amount of time and energy that would go into recruiting a particular person within a particular ministry as one of the factors.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, this can be part of the information the member receives in respect of his inquiry, which I've already referred to. I think what has happened is that the information has been based on the previous experience with respect to the number of appointments in various ministries and on the application of a formula based on the previous year's experience.
C. Hansen: In the case of what was then the Ministry of Government Services,
Hon. A. Petter: That's a good question, actually. As best as I can make out the answer, it's because the agencies, boards and commissions, the office we're talking about, were in Government Services. The transfers were all into Government Services at the time, and then when Government Services came over and was integrated into Finance, there were no contributions back. The whole idea here was to transfer from other ministries into Government Services, and now Government Services has been absorbed into Finance, at least in this respect to make Government Services, and now Finance, whole in respect to these activities and other ministries. Whether or not Government Services, and now Finance, will end up getting a small subsidy as a result of all that, I'm not quite sure, but it's worth pursuing and looking into, if that's the member's point.
C. Hansen: I'd like to pursue that. It appears to me, on face value, that the former Ministry of Government Services was in fact getting every other ministry in government to pay for the work they had to do in the area of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. They had five full-time-equivalents in that ministry, and they weren't paying one
[ Page 1099 ]
nickel for those services. They were charging it all off to everybody else.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member makes a good point, in the sense that it appears that the Minister of Government Services was, in entrepreneurial fashion, funding the activities of agencies, boards and commissions, in respect of its own agencies, boards and commissions, out of the contributions that were received throughout government. Maybe the incremental cost became zero once it reached that point. I don't know what the economic explanation would be, but I think the member is right. I hope the member knows that Finance is making a contribution, however, in this new formula. I think the member makes a small but good point: it appears that the formula did not take account of the internal costs of appointments within Government Services. If that's his point, I think it's well taken.
C. Hansen: As you go through this list, of course, the one cost that is not being transferred into the Ministry of Finance is the Ministry of Finance cost. So what we have on this listing is the amount that has been charged off to all those other departments over the past year except the Ministry of Finance. I'm wondering if the Minister of Finance could enlighten us as to what that number would be, had it been included in this list.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed it's $23,000.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
D. Symons: I'm glad you came up with that number, because that's the number I came up with too. I was worried that maybe my calculator wasn't working properly, but obviously it is. If you run through all of these numbers and add them up, you come up with $427,000 that was charged off to other ministries. In fact, when we look at page 131 of Estimates, we see that they restate it last year as $450,000, which, of course, accounts for the $23,000 difference.
I have a quick question, and then we'll see if we want to proceed with others at this point. Could the minister explain the relationship between John Pollard -- who, as you mentioned, is on staff in the Premier's Office -- and Sheryl Kozyniak? They obviously have overlapping responsibilities, and I wonder if the minister could explain where those responsibilities overlap and how they work together in this responsibility.
Hon. A. Petter: Obviously the member doesn't have enough to do; he gets into this detailed calculation. I'm very impressed he came up with the $23,000. I'm glad we've reconciled that.
The relationship is that Ms. Kozyniak is the acting replacement for Mr. Pollard in this position.
C. Hansen: We've talked about reconciliation on the expenditure side -- although I do have some questions to come back to -- but I would like to talk about the FTE reconciliation here. Five FTEs have been transferred from the Ministry of Government Services to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. I wonder if the minister could first confirm that Sheryl Kozyniak is one of those five FTEs and also advise us what the other four FTEs would be responsible for.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I can confirm that she would be one of those five. The others would be responsible for working with her under her direction, providing services in terms of identifying potential candidates and doing recruitment searches, etc., for the various agencies and ministries that make those appointments during the course of the year.
C. Hansen: I do want to come back to the expenditure reconciliations. Something doesn't click with the explanation the minister gave earlier tonight, with the formula. I am looking forward to getting a copy of that formula. Even given the explanation that he's given us tonight, the ministry that just doesn't click is the Ministry of Women's Equality. I know for a fact that it has a significant number of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions, yet that ministry was charged only $1,000 last year for that service. That seems totally out of line with the work that's done by that particular ministry and the number of appointments it has.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to include that in the information that we gather and provide for the member in pursuit of this very interesting line of inquiry.
C. Hansen: I guess the other one that jumped out at me, a ministry that strikes me as very strange, is one we actually may be able to get an answer on tonight, because you may be able to consult with the Minister of Social Services. Again, I know that a significant number of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions are made in the Ministry of Social Services, and we have both the minister and the previous minister in the House. In fact, the establishment of some of those boards and commissions has been topical in the last few days, yet we see that only $2,000 has been charged off. I wonder if the minister might be able to give us some answers to that, in consultation either with his cabinet colleagues or with his officials.
[12:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I think all of these questions are really repetitions of the earlier question, which is: how does this formula work and apply to the various ministries? I've indicated to the best of my understanding how it does, but I'll be happy to make sure that the member gets that information, along with the other information he has sought. I'm happy to look at it myself, because I'm interested to see how this formula works as well, now that he's drawn it to our attention.
C. Hansen: Perhaps this is a more general question that doesn't require that amount of detail, so the minister could answer it. Are any of these allocations that are made as charge-offs to these other ministries negotiated? What kind of flexibility goes into deciding that one ministry would be specific to the formula and the other would be totally aligned with the formula? It just doesn't seem to be appropriate, and I wonder if ministries that have tight budgets, for example, are able to reduce this amount and let it be charged off to other ministries.
Hon. A. Petter: The numbers the member is referring to were the chargebacks for 1995-96, and there was no room, as I understand it, for bargaining around that formula. Of course, what we're doing now is establishing a fixed transfer and allocation, so there is certainly no negotiating for '96-97, this year's budget, by the very nature of the process of transferring over the funds that is now taking place.
C. Hansen: I have another real concern, which is that one of the advantages of charge-off to certain ministries and a
[ Page 1100 ]
user-pay philosophy, which is what this seems to be for these various ministries, is that if you have those kinds of charges to other ministries, there isn't the temptation for them to use the services any more than is absolutely necessary. My concern, now that this has been consolidated in the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, is that there is no incentive for these ministries to not use up more than their fair share of the proceeds. So my question to the minister is: how, under this new structure where it is all charged off to his ministry, do we ensure that the other ministries don't overuse the service of appointments?
Hon. A. Petter: I take the member's point that it may well be desirable to have a chargeback system in order to discourage free riders, inappropriate use, etc. In this case, though, the amounts are relatively small. The administrative costs of having the chargeback system likely outweigh whatever incremental benefit there was in adhering to a strict user-pay philosophy. I'm confident that the way in which the services are provided will be such as to discourage overuse of these services by a minister.
With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:04 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 6:40 p.m.
On vote 53: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
J. Weisgerber: I want to pick up from the comments between the member for Peace River North and the minister, with respect to 16-wides. I understood the minister to say that the parliamentary secretary is undertaking a review of the situation with respect to 16-wides and was going to meet with interested groups or affected groups. Could the minister tell me first of all, perhaps, to start at the beginning: is this going to be a formal process? Are there going to be some terms of reference? Is there going to be some clear understanding of what will happen with the recommendations when they come back from the parliamentary secretary? And will the terms of reference that he's given be public?
Hon. L. Boone: We will be doing some terms of reference, but it's not going to be a really formal process that he's going to be doing. He's not going to be going out and holding hearings or anything like that. He will be coming up, and I would suggest that if you have groups that you think he should speak to in your area, you suggest that to them. But there won't be public hearing-type things or
J. Weisgerber: I guess it's fair to say that this issue has been studied in some exhaustive detail, going back to 199~1-92. A pilot project was conducted in 1993-94 or '94-95, in that time frame -- a very, very successful project. An independent contractor consultant was brought in to study the situation and make recommendations. I raise these points because certainly there is going to be a sense of anticipation from people who have been longtime lobbyists for 16-wides -- and a certain cynicism. There's no doubt about that, and I won't include myself in the group that are going to be cynical about it. But the fact of the matter is that the processes that have gone on don't seem to have been very effective in bringing about some change.
First of all, I want to make sure people understand that if another look at this is announced, then certainly there's going to be the expectation of changes or of some reintroduction. I guess it's fair to remind everybody involved that the pilot project was extremely successful from an operational perspective. The difficulties seemed to arise once the various manufacturers located in other parts of the province got into the act. It wasn't, or didn't seem to be, a question of whether or not you could move a 16-wide safely and effectively and efficiently into the Peace region from Alberta. The question really was: was the industry going to be well served or badly served by the change?
It seemed to me that this was far more a political decision and far more an economic decision than a safety-related decision. I know that in the announcement made by the former minister to cancel the project they cited safety concerns and comments by the RCMP. Both my colleague from Peace River North and I made it our business to contact all of the RCMP agencies in the region, and we were unable to find one person who had even spoken with ministry officials about safety concerns. Everyone that we spoke to told us that they could find no reason and no safety concerns to raise, should someone ask them.
[6:45]
I hope that this is part of a fresh look, and I take the minister's word for it, genuinely. I think it's something that should happen, and it's something that I expect will happen and I believe will happen. The question is whether it's going to be this year or next year or five years down the road, but it seems to be absolutely inevitable that we will have 16-wides ultimately, and I hope that it comes sooner rather than later. Can the minister tell me whether or not this study by the parliamentary secretary will include hearings or meetings with groups in other parts of the province who may feel
[ Page 1101 ]
affected by a decision to change the status of movement of mobile homes or manufactured homes in the Peace?
Hon. L. Boone: There will be no formal hearings; I thought I made that clear. Yes, he will be meeting with people from the manufactured homes group and affected parties.
I'm not guaranteeing that there's going to be a change out of this process. I know you're saying that people will read that there is going to be a change, and that may very well happen. I want to get a look from another perspective, from the hon. member who is there right now. As you know, he will be going out and speaking to people and coming back with some new, enlightened information and making some recommendations to me that I hope can address some of your concerns.
J. Weisgerber: Could the minister tell me: will that report be a public document? Will it be something similar to the outcomes of the other undertakings by the ministry on this issue, where there have been people come and, whether they hold hearings or simply have informal meetings, will there be a written recommendation from the member to the minister, so that people have an opportunity
While I don't want to discourage the minister, I want to be able to go and say very genuinely that there appears to be a process in place that we are going to recommend to people that they participate in and cooperate in with the minister, the ministry and the parliamentary secretary. We have to have some confidence in what's going to follow from it.
Hon. L. Boone: I just want to reiterate: no hearings, no huge public meetings or what have you. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca will be meeting with individuals and groups and talking to them confidentially, so that he can get their impressions and ideas, and then will bring forth a report to us. And yes, ultimately -- eventually -- that report will become public.
J. Weisgerber: In a somewhat similar vein, my colleague the member for Peace River North undertook to have officials from the motor vehicle branch conduct a series of meetings. Again, they probably weren't formal hearings, but there were meetings in both Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson to deal with a whole range of issues that were very similar in nature -- and, in fact, included the 16-wides -- and to talk about the ongoing difficulty of transportation across the border with Alberta. They covered a whole range of topics, from long trailers, five-metre-wide loads -- which were 16-wide trailers -- as well as tanks and other similar kinds of loads and axle weights.
It was a very good process. People came out and were very impressed that finally they actually had people from the ministry coming to listen to their concerns, to hear about the frustrations that they as truckers, farmers transporting
But again, I guess the flaw there was that there didn't seem to be any follow-up to it. There didn't seem to be any process whereby this information gathered in Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek was digested, recommendations made and considered, and a response given. Perhaps the minister could tell me what's happened as a result of that series of meetings and whether there is some anticipated response from the ministry.
I don't know all of the people who were there with the ministry; Mr. Claire Eraut was one of the people there. Again, people were very much encouraged by the meetings and the willingness to listen. What was a little frustrating, I guess, was that it was pretty obvious at that point that the officials knew that the 16-wide project was going to be tubed and continued to hear submissions on it, when it was pretty clear within a week or two that they were there knowing the decision had been made. I recognize some of the difficulties that it would have presented for those individuals.
Again, perhaps we could get some sense of the responses: who are they going to go to and are there going to be a set of follow-up meetings? I know there were lists of attendees circulated. Will they be advised? These things are good, but they're only good if they come to some conclusion.
Hon. L. Boone: I understand that this was sometime in March, and since that time a lot has happened. We've had an election, and we've twice had a change of ministers, so things have sort of not caught up with me yet. I understand that within a short time we'll be getting some briefings and information on that, and then we'll sit down and try to figure out where we are going to go with some of those areas.
Of course, the information that's within those documents pertaining to the 16-foot-wides we will immediately pass to a member who will be doing the review. It's not going to sit on a shelf somewhere; we will be dealing with it and looking at some of the information and concerns that your residents have.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to prolong this, but will there be some formal response? There were minutes set out by topic. Is it fair to anticipate that there will be a response under those kinds of topic headings?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
J. Weisgerber: One of the other longtime issues for people, particularly those living in the Peace, is the whole question of the rural grid road system. The minister, if she's spent any time on the Prairies, knows that they lay out grid roads two miles in one direction and one mile in the other. It's a very clear pattern of roads. There wind up being many, many miles of rural roads, and they've been deteriorating as long as I've been a member of this assembly. It's not a problem that's unique to the last five years of administration.
The fact of the matter is that the roads are deteriorating much more quickly than they are being rehabilitated. I know that back in the mid-eighties the regional manager at the time, Stan Gladysz, was forecasting that it would take $1 million a year for each of the constituencies, over at least a five-year period, simply to bring the roads back to some acceptable level. According to my memory, in one of those ten years we actually did spend $1 million on gravel rehabilitation in each of those constituencies.
Can the minister tell me, in the overall scheme of ministry objectives, where and how this particular problem, which I think is somewhat unique to the Peace region, fits into the ministry's overall plans?
[ Page 1102 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I am well aware that rehab is a priority with me, partially because I sometimes drive on the same type of roads that you drive on, hon. member.
I want to tell you that we have, in fact, met the objective for the $1 million a year in the Peace. This year, in your area -- you're giving a little bit so that your member next door can get a little bit more -- there's $849,000 being spent on district gravelling. In the North Peace, it's $1,258,000. So we have, in fact, met our objective there.
I know there's been a problem with regard to the quality of gravel, and the ministry has been dealing on a pilot project up there to try and deal with getting some better-quality surfacing. I know they've discussed this with you. I recognize that we need to do more in rehabilitation. I guess it's just a matter of trying to hold on to those dollars and make sure that Treasury Board recognizes that this is important to all of us as well. I certainly intend to take that message and make sure they listen to me -- hopefully.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to sound like we're moving the goalposts, but I would talk about $1 million a year sustained over a five-year period. I just want to reinforce that that was a projection done in the mid-eighties, 12 years ago, when $1 million worth of gravel went further down the road than it does today. I don't know what the increase would have been in gravelling costs, but I suspect that they're quite significantly higher today than they were. But credit where credit is due: it's probably the second-largest commitment to gravel rehabilitation in South Peace in the ten years that I've been a member, so it would be hypocritical of me to be outraged that there isn't more. But again, to bring those roads into any kind of reasonable shape is going to take a significant commitment over a fairly substantial length of time.
Recognizing that there appears to be an understanding of that issue, it brings me into a rather general area, and that is the concerns that people have over private road maintenance -- of which I am a staunch supporter -- and the responsibilities of the ministry with respect to rehabilitation. I think people are often uncertain, for example, with a road that might go by their home, their acreage, their farm or whatever. Is the fact that the road is muddy and difficult to travel a problem of the road contractor, or is it a problem of the government?
You often find people kind of torn, or pushed between the two. They'll call the road maintenance contractor and say, "Gosh, our road is so muddy that I just can't get to town when it rains," to be told: "Well, our job is to grade the road. Our job is to fill in a little patch of gravel if there's a washout or something like that. But it's not us, the road maintenance contractor, who gravels the roads. It's the folks down at the Ministry of Highways." Conversely, people who call the Ministry of Highways and say, "Gosh, my road is muddy and I can't get to town," are often told to give the road maintenance contractor a call if he's not servicing their road.
[7:00]
I guess that's one of the difficulties. But we are well served in the South Peace by a good maintenance contractor, and I was happy to see that Peace Country Maintenance had been awarded another five-year contract for road maintenance. I think that's good news.
But can the minister tell us kind of where that division of responsibility does fall? How far do the contractor's responsibilities go with respect to the quality of the road itself, as opposed to the state of maintenance that might exist on the road?
Hon. L. Boone: The maintenance contract is there to maintain the road and keep it in good condition, as you know. I'm not telling you something you don't know. The rehabilitation is to rehabilitate the road and bring it back to its original state. Sometimes contractors do some gravelling, but that is done just to maintain that road, not to rehabilitate it or bring it back to its original state. There's a set dollar value established in their contract for gravelling; the ministry works with them to determine what areas they will be gravelling. They may say, "This year we're going to gravel a certain road in order to maintain it," so that they know what areas they are going to be gravelling. It's just to maintain it, though, not to rehabilitate it.
J. Weisgerber: Earlier in the debate there was some talk about the amount of contracted day labour that maintenance contractors award and the amount they do themselves. I believe the situation is still such that the maintenance contractor is obliged to maintain the same ratio of in-house work to the work that is contracted out. In other words, if the ministry was doing 15 percent of the work by day labour at the time of privatization, the contractors were obliged to continue to contract out that percentage of work. Can the minister confirm that those ratios remain the same in the new contracts that are being issued? Has there been any change in that?
Hon. L. Boone: Generally that's the case. I guess there are a few exceptions. Is there an exception in the Peace River area?
We don't know. If there is an exception, we'd have to check that out, but generally that is the case.
J. Weisgerber: One of the reasons for the degree of dissatisfaction I've heard around that issue is that while the maintenance contractors are putting out to other contractors the same portion of work, it has quite often been substantially different work. So you find a group of people, independent truckers being the most likely group, where all of a sudden the maintenance contractor brings in a big fleet of gravel trucks, and all the local gravel truck operators sit on the sideline, very unhappy, because the work they had done traditionally is now being done by the contractor. They've instead decided to contract some other function out, whether it be repaving or whatever the work might be. Can the minister tell us whether there have been any steps to ensure that the same type of work is contracted out?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
J. Weisgerber: Then I would just go on record as saying I think that's one of the areas where assurance was given by the government that I was part of that in fact the work wouldn't be taken over by the contractor. It tended to be somewhat misleading for the individuals who were involved. It's small comfort to see your gravel truck parked for the season while somebody else gets a new contract for mowing grass in the ditch. You might say that the same amount of work is being contracted out, but the fact of the matter is it's been quite disruptive for individuals.
I want to go on to a few other topics that are important to me and I'm sure to some others around the province. One is the whole issue -- I didn't hear it raised yet in these debates -- of Adams Lake and resumption. I know that the last couple of Transportation and Highways ministers have been very reluctant -- in fact, have consistently refused -- to use resumption as a way of clearing legal difficulties around road rights-of-way through reserve lands. The classic example is
[ Page 1103 ]
Adams Lake, where the bridge burned out and people have been barging across the lake for almost 24 months now because the government is unwilling to use the remedy of resumption, which it has, to clear the legal entanglements on road right-of-way and build a new bridge. The other is Apex, where the ongoing concern over road blockades and a possible resumption of blockades could, and I believe should, be resolved by the government using its powers of resumption to clear the road right-of-way. I wonder if perhaps this minister has a bit more of an aggressive stance with respect to that particular remedy.
Hon. L. Boone: No.
J. Weisgerber: A tragedy. That's not going to get me anywhere. The fact of the matter is that I think it is a tragedy, a very real tragedy. I don't think there is going to be -- unless the
Hon. L. Boone: Apex is currently in the courts. I guess, rather than taking what you call a more aggressive stand on that, we are still trying to work things out peacefully at Adams Lake. Assistant Deputy Minister Dan Doyle from this ministry and a representative from Aboriginal Affairs have got a date where they are going to be moving into Adams Lake, discussing some options and trying to come to some resolution to that problem there.
I must state that the MLA for that area is supportive of us working in a consultative manner and trying to work this out with the band and supports the manner that we're using right now to deal with this. In my discussions with him, he was of the belief that we should try to negotiate with them, and that we should try to work this out in a peaceful manner.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure the people of Adams Lake agree, and they're the ones who, at the moment, are having to schedule their lives around ferry schedules for the first time ever. Certainly, when I last met with them, which was a couple of months ago, they were feeling very much left out of the process.
I think it's important to say that I don't think resumption should be equated with anything other than a peaceful process. The times that it's been used in British Columbia it's been very successful, and it has resulted in peaceful and lasting solutions to situations of long standing. The whole issue of Mount Currie and the Pemberton highway was as abrasive and as difficult as Apex or Adams Lake has ever been, and the final resolution was resumption. That happened in 1990. Today, almost seven years later, there haven't been incidents on the road that was plagued by and was one of the original sites of a series of road blockades, some of which lasted for a very long period of time.
So while we might disagree with the appropriateness of using resumption -- and we do fundamentally -- I think it would be unfair to equate resumption to something less than a peaceful resolution. Perhaps it's not a negotiated resolution, but there's nothing to suggest that a resumption doesn't result in a peaceful resolution. Indeed, my experience would suggest that it provides a very final kind of resolution to problems of longstanding difficulty. I would simply encourage the minister to look with an open mind at some of these situations -- and the two I've mentioned here are two of the likely prospects -- for that kind of resolution.
Hon. L. Boone: I would suggest that it's not final. It's only been used in very selective times. There is a situation in the Fraser Canyon and Boothroyd, and that is being challenged in the courts right now, so it's not a final solution, and it's not seen as a final solution by many. I'm not saying that one would never use it; I'm just saying that we ought to try to find a negotiated settlement. This is fully supported by the member from that area in terms of dealing with Adams Lake.
J. Weisgerber: Well, I've said my bit, so I'm going to move onto another pet project of mine, and that's photo radar. The minister is set to actually start issuing tickets, appropriately or inappropriately, on B.C. Day. I understand that will be the day that the first presents, in terms of speeding tickets, go out from the ministry to the people of British Columbia. Can the minister give me any sense of confidence that the serious difficulties that have been plaguing photo radar with respect to vehicle identification and proper location identification, or assurances that the tickets are actually being issued from where the ticket says they're
They may have been outraged when they got a warning notice and a picture of a 1985 Electra, when they drive a 1979 Omega, saying: "We saw you speeding at some place you weren't speeding." The person may enjoy going to the media and having a little fun with the story. I expect they'll have a lot less fun with it once you're actually demanding money from them as a result. What improvements have occurred over the last little while to give the minister the confidence to go ahead with this?
[7:15]
Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, we ended the contract with ATS, which was the ticketing that did everything electronically. As the former minister indicated, there were some severe problems with that. We have been working
We have put in place provisions to correct those mistakes immediately, so that if, in fact, you do get
I must say that this weekend I went home, and on my way back from the airport I heard on the radio that there was a bad accident involving teenagers in Prince George. It was a
[ Page 1104 ]
car filled with five kids, and a 16-year-old girl was killed. They were not wearing their seatbelts. There was alcohol involved, but there was also speed involved, and a 16-year-old girl lost her life. Also, the night before, a 20-year-old man lost his life in a motorcycle accident. There was no alcohol involved in that; it was strictly speed.
In one night we lost two young lives in Prince George, and that sort of thing happens throughout this province on a daily basis. It's time for us to recognize that we need to take the necessary steps to stop people from speeding. If we can reduce those accidents -- and the experience in Australia shows what happened there, where they were able to reduce the number of deaths on the highways by 50 percent and reduce the number of accidents by one-third to one-half as a result of photo radar -- then I think it's worthwhile.
Every now and then I have had a ticket, yes -- not lately, but I have had a ticket. I don't get enraged when I get a ticket. I get ticked off at myself for being so stupid, but I don't get enraged, because I know I've done wrong. I would hope that the average person out there will look at these things and say: "Yes, I've been caught breaking the law." That's what they are doing. They are breaking the law; they are speeding excessively. These people out there that are going to be getting tickets are people who are going over ten kilometres over the speed limit. They're in high-accident areas. They are people out there causing accidents on our highways, and I think it's time we did something about it. So I don't have a problem in the world with taking a bit of flack if there is a mistake on a ticket, if it manages to save even one life on our highways.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, nobody likes to hear about traffic accidents that cost lives. If the minister believes that the introduction of photo radar would have saved either of the lives that she used as examples this weekend, then I think she's a little bit out of touch with reality. I think the fact of the matter is that most people would examine those situations and tell you that regardless of whether or not that group of youngsters knew there might be a photo radar camera there, they probably would have driven without their seatbelts on, they probably would have driven under the influence of alcohol, and the accident probably would have happened. It's unfortunate, but I just don't happen to share the minister's belief that the introduction of photo radar is going to do a whit to prevent that. In fact, if I did, I would be far less critical of this program than I am today -- and the same with the example of the person on a motorcycle.
The minister raises the point of Australia. One of the ministers -- not the most recent minister prior to this one but the one before that, Jackie Pement -- was very much intrigued, apparently, with what was going on in Australia and came back with this photo radar as a result of a trip there. The minister will know that what Minister Pement and her officials found were a whole host of changes introduced in Australia; not photo radar brought in in isolation but photo radar brought in as a package.
Central to that package, to my understanding, is the whole notion of a comprehensive restructuring of speed limits. There's no point in going out and giving people tickets on the Pat Bay Highway. The last Minister of Highways found that out. I mean, the minister talks with outrage about people who actually drive more than ten miles an hour over the speed limit. But still, someone who was, at least around these buildings, vigorously defending photo radar was zooming out to the ferry after a news conference at much higher speeds than the ones the minister refers to.
I think, quite honestly, that it spells out, as much as anything, a need for us to sit down in an objective way and look at what reasonable speed limits are. That's something that's long overdue. We've got this 90-kilometre speed limit that was brought in in the late seventies and early eighties in response to an energy crisis. It wasn't brought in in response to a highway safety crisis; we were trying to reduce the amount of fossil fuel that automobiles were burning. The United States went to 55 miles an hour, and they vigorously enforced it; Canada followed along by going to 90 kilometres an hour. In fact, we've been stuck in that.
Australia, as I'm sure the minister must know, was in a similar situation, and they dramatically increased the speed limits in some areas. In some areas they dropped the speed limits. I don't want to just be here harping against photo radar, but I do want to come and encourage the minister in a very genuine way to look at the entire package of stuff that was brought in in Australia. I think it's unfair to quote the Australian example when, in fact, you've only taken a very narrow, very select part of the program and implemented it here.
I want to encourage the minister to start a process to look at speed limits in this province. Look at increasing them in areas; look at decreasing them in areas. But if we had speed limits that made sense, then I expect we wouldn't have Transportation ministers nipped by photo radar on their way to the ferry, because common sense would say that you would stick fairly near to the speed limits. Can the minister give me some sense that the ministry has some intention of looking at this area?
Hon. L. Boone: I want to deal with a couple of things first. First of all, this is not done in isolation, and the hon. member knows that, because we brought in legislation last year to deal with a comprehensive package around traffic safety initiatives: the administrative prohibition to deal with drinking; vehicle impoundment to deal with drinking drivers; and the new-driver program, which is a major initiative that will be coming into force in January of next year. The new-driver program will try to deal with not just young drivers, but new drivers, so that they will have their licences removed if they have
As for increasing speed limits, I would be more than happy to look at some of them. I go to Valemount and McBride, where you see three cars in two hours, and it's 90 kilometres per hour all the way. Mind you, you may see a few moose on the way, too, and you have to watch for those guys. One of the things that is happening with photo radar is that they have increased speeds. The sites chosen were chosen by communities who identified sections of roads where there have been bad accidents. They then go out to assess the average speed of 85 percent of the people in that area. If the average speed is between 11 and 19 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, then they assess what the cameras will be set at within that area. But if they find that everybody in a certain area is going 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, then they say: "If 85 percent of the people are going more than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, obviously there's something wrong here; this is not a realistic speed." In two road cases they've already increased the speed limits in those
[ Page 1105 ]
areas. So it's not just a matter of them saying: "We're only here to hand out tickets." They're there to assess what the speeds should be and, in some cases, to increase the speed limits. They're there to get the excessive speeders. They are not there to catch somebody going five kilometres over the speed limit. In fact, that's what the cameras will be set at over this long weekend when they start out. They'll be at the high range.
We're there to try to catch excessive speeders. What we want people to do is slow down. It would really be nice if we had no pictures and nobody out there to send tickets to. Treasury Board wouldn't like it very much, but that is our goal: to have people slow down so that our roads will be safer. By doing so, hopefully we will reduce the number of accidents and the number of people who are dying on our highways.
J. Weisgerber: I would be inclined to say that your goal is about $70 million a year; the fact of the matter is that that's what Treasury Board's goal is. But in reference to the two areas where speed limits have been readjusted, can the minister tell me if both of those have been municipal? Has the ministry actually started to change highway speed limits? Am I perhaps behind the times? Has the ministry actually embarked on a program to reassess and reassign highway speed limits?
Hon. L. Boone: There are two areas that I've talked about. One was on the road going to Whistler, not within a municipality. That was reassessed and -- I think I've mentioned this to you; maybe I didn't mention it in this venue -- it's the area where the slide is. Are we surprised that people are rushing through there? I'm not. I want to get through there fast, too. But they've reassessed that, and that area has gone up in speed. The other was where you come along Pat Bay Highway before you reach Save-On Foods. Before in that area they used to have it go down from 80 to 70 and then to 50, and they found that nobody was doing 70, so they took that one out altogether. So now when it hits the limits there, it goes right down.
[7:30]
But as I said, the ministry has reviewed some speeds. They haven't started a wholehearted review of all the speed limits out there -- you haven't missed anything -- but I'm not averse to us doing such a thing. But that will have to be dealt with later on.
J. Weisgerber: Let me encourage the minister to push for a comprehensive review of speed limits across the province. The minister says she's not averse to it. The fact of the matter is that it's the minister who will decide whether or not it's going to go ahead, or, I expect, she will be in a position to convince her cabinet colleagues that this is an undertaking.
My last question is with respect to, again, a local issue: the Heritage Highway being posted at 80 kilometres an hour. Unbeknownst to me for some long time now, the road is hard-surfaced, nearly pavement condition all the way. There has been a petition and some lobbying done by the municipality to increase the speed limit to 90 kilometres. Could the minister tell me if that's progressing?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know whether it's progressing or not, but I'll have the ministry review that and take into consideration your concerns.
B. Barisoff: Now that we are into photo radar, I've got pages of questions here to go. Some of them are partially answered, but not all of them. My first question is: will the government be raising the fines attached to photo radar from the current level of $100 for speeding to $150, and $150 for excessive speeding -- that's plus 40 kilometres an hour -- based upon the original promises that Minister of Transportation Jackie Pement made on July 11, 1995? She said: "We have said right from the start that there would be an increase in fines with photo radar."
Hon. L. Boone: They're not increasing this year. Any increase in fines would have to go through Treasury Board, and that's not something that I'm anticipating this year.
B. Barisoff: Along with the hon. member for Peace River
Hon. L. Boone: No, the speed limit is there, and it's one's responsibility to adhere to the speed limit. Whether or not you believe it's the right speed limit, that speed limit is there.
B. Barisoff: Why did we not go along with the 85 percentile, as recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers?
Hon. L. Boone: We are going along with the 85 percentile. I just explained to the member that there's an assessment that's done of each and every site that is put forth by a community. That assessment determines what speed 85 percent of the people
B. Barisoff: Actually, when I think about it, it's probably not a fair assessment, because there are some people out there that will actually drive the speed limit even though they know they could go faster. Probably a perfect example is the Coquihalla Highway. I for one, when I drive it, know full well that they're going to have radar out there, but certainly not at the speed limit that you could drive that highway at safely. So sometimes even at the 85 percentile, you'd have to have a serious look at it.
Moving on to some more questions on photo
Hon. L. Boone: We have a fairness code. If you look in the paper -- I'm not sure if it's in the paper now; yes, it was, because I saw it in the cutout thing -- you will see an ad there that says: "Playing fair on the highways" or "Playing fair with roads" or "Playing fair with radar." It's something about fair and photo radar. Then they list the various criteria for the use of photo radar. They mention that you will know the general area where the sites are. You will in fact know that it's not to be done where there's a change of speed -- that there will not
[ Page 1106 ]
be any photo radar established where it goes from 80 to 70 kilometres per hour; it's not going to be set there. We're not trying to entrap people there. They will be in high-speed and crash areas. They have to be both; it can't just be a high-speed area, but it has to be an area that has had crash-related incidents. I'm just trying to think of some of the others that are in that ad; I saw it today.
Here are the criteria. Sites will be selected on the basis of crash history or
I find it incredible that people are so anxious to protect people out there that are in fact excessively speeding. There's a very easy way to protect each and every one of those speeders out there, and that is just to tell them to slow down. Slow down, and you won't get a ticket.
B. Barisoff: Nobody wants to protect the excessive speeders or have anything to do with the fact that, if we can stop
Moving on, but still with photo radar, will the government make public the full contract signed with American Traffic Systems, including the proposal by ATS?
Hon. L. Boone: We have released some of that contract already to the member for Peace River South, and we will do the same for you. We will release more of it as we can, subject to approval from ATS, because there are some commercial considerations with regard to that contract.
B. Barisoff: Why did the government go ahead with the largest implementation of photo radar in the world with a company, ATS, which has recently lost several contracts and has never operated a system of this size before?
Hon. L. Boone: As the member stated, this is the largest program ever. There was no other group out there that had ever done such a large program, because there has never been as large a system as this done before. It was a tendered process. They provided the best services and the best contract that we could have for the tendered document. Unfortunately, they did miss a deadline, and as a result of that, we cancelled that contract.
B. Barisoff: Will the government release the full findings of the audit of the traffic safety initiatives?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
B. Barisoff: Moving on, as a result of past NDP labour legislation, when an employee driving a company vehicle gets a photo radar ticket, the employer has no recourse to the employee and cannot legally deduct the fine from the employee's wages. Is that true?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not too sure. I can't answer your question with a yes or a no with regard to that. There is a nominated driver process, whereby if you are an employer and an employee is driving the vehicle, you can nominate that employee as the driver. The other way, of course, is to stop them from driving your vehicle if they refused to acknowledge that they, in fact, were driving.
As for the labour, I don't know the implications of the Labour Code with regard to the cameras.
B. Barisoff: Do you not think, though, that this is an unfair burden put on small businesses that are forced into the situation of having employees drive their personally registered vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: I think that employers might be happy to know that their employees were in fact driving unsafely.
B. Barisoff: I still get back to the same point -- that the employer has no recourse to the employee. I think that's the key to this. What recourse does the employer have to the employee if this happens? According to legislation that you put in, no recourse will take place.
Hon. L. Boone: I think it has to do with the contract that you have with your employer. If a government employee gets a parking ticket, the employee is responsible for paying those tickets. The same thing would happen with regard to a speeding ticket. As an employer, I think that an employer would therefore say, if they had no such conditions in their contract: "Fine, you're not driving the company vehicle." In fact, that would mean in some cases that they would not be able to do their jobs.
[7:45]
B. Barisoff: I guess it's fine to say that, but if you're in private business and you see what takes place, that's easier said than done.
Moving on from that, if photo radar and the traffic safety initiatives fail to achieve the advertised drop in fatalities of 100 persons after a year of operation, will the government refund all fines paid as a result of photo radar tickets?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
B. Barisoff: After expenses -- including expenses paid by ICBC -- how much money does the government estimate it will net from photo radar?
[ Page 1107 ]
Hon. L. Boone: The estimated net for this year is about $40 million.
B. Barisoff: Does that include the cost of the police officers' training, moving, wages and travel to other jurisdictions using photo radar -- New Zealand, Australia -- and the cost of bringing representatives from other jurisdictions, the cost of the court system in photo radar disputes and the economic loss of productivity for the taxpayers?
Hon. L. Boone: The travel to Australia was done two years ago, I think. ICBC employees went to Australia as well as the minister who was responsible for ICBC at the time.
You know, you're looking at the economic loss; I would look at the economic loss due to the loss of lives. Look at the economic loss of days lost at work when people are injured by accidents. Look at the economic loss to this province of health care dollars spent on hospitals and on ambulance services. Sure, your tow truck drivers will hopefully lose some money, and so will your ambulance drivers, but the taxpayers will save a host of dollars just in terms of the amount of money they're not having to put out for health care costs. You can talk about the economic loss. I don't see it as an economic loss for an employer to save money by having their vehicle not involved in an accident. I don't see it as an economic loss to have an employer know that his or her driver is driving at unsafe speeds. I don't see it as an economic loss to have our accidents reduced so our ICBC rates can remain stable. I see it as a social gain, a gain for our society and a gain for all of us in terms of keeping our streets safe.
B. Barisoff: Then, would the revenue from photo radar be used for driver education, repairs to the roads and things like that? If that was the case, I think people could buy into the program much more readily -- if they knew that the money was going to be spent on improving driver education, repairing roads and doing things properly.
Having been a volunteer fireman for 25 years, I seldom went to an accident on a straight stretch of road, where most speeding takes place. Almost every accident I went to was on a curve in the road, and later on I'll be naming a few in my riding that have cost a lot of lives. But most times, that's where the accidents occur. If that's where the money is going to be spent, I think it would be much easier for the taxpayers of the province to adhere to something like this.
Hon. L. Boone: You're going to have to talk to the Minister of Finance about that, because the moneys go into general revenue, and it's up to him and Treasury Board to determine where the money will be spent. I'm sure some of it will find its way back into some highways, some highway improvements and health care improvements as well. But it does go into general revenue.
B. Barisoff: Will the government make public a comprehensive cost analysis on the implementation of photo radar? At what time will the plug be pulled when expenses exceed revenue if the number of crashes fail to drop and we end up with the same situation as we are in now, taking in $70 million or $100 million, with the same number of crashes? Is the government prepared to look at the situation again and say, "Well, it hasn't served the purpose that it was set out to do," which is to stop accidents?
Hon. L. Boone: By next year it will have been in place almost a year, and by that time we'll, hopefully, have some figures so that we can determine how well it's working. I'm going to say it's
B. Barisoff: I hope the minister is right, because I think we are all looking forward to making our highways safer.
Why has the government failed to implement any other recommendations put forth annually by the RCMP and other traffic safety organizations for other road safety improvements, such as changing slower-traffic-keep-right, keep-right-except-to-pass and mandatory pullouts for slow-moving vehicles? I know this is something you see a lot, particularly in Oregon, where they have a lot of pullouts, and you're actually fined if you have more than five vehicles behind you. I think those are some of the areas that are probably as important to traffic safety as the whole idea of photo radar. The pullouts are another thing that I'll be mentioning later on for Highway 97 through the Okanagan.
Hon. L. Boone: I get as frustrated as you with people in the left-hand lane that aren't doing the speed limit, and I agree that we should be reviewing that. I'm willing to look at anything that will help keep our highways safer. We'll certainly work with the ministry staff for the next few years to find ways we can do that within our budget.
B. Barisoff: Hon. minister, this will be my last question on this section. ICBC has said in the past that points will not be attached to tickets given only to owners of the vehicles. Will the government, or ICBC, be adding points in the future in an attempt to increase revenue, and will ICBC be increasing the penalty points scale premium?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm trying to figure out how I can answer this, but the reality is that I can't really answer something on ICBC. I'm sitting here with an ICBC hat on, but I don't really have that hat anymore. You're going to have to ask the minister responsible for ICBC -- and that is Hon. Andrew Petter -- with regard to what ICBC may or may not be doing.
B. Barisoff: I think the concern is that we're not just going after more money, but that we are genuinely after decreasing accidents.
I just want to touch base on some of the other things that happened earlier on. One of my colleagues mentioned the road to Apex and whether it was gazetted. Now, I've also been told by people from the valley that it's actually the Green Mountain Road, which turns off and goes back down through and hooks up onto the Apex road, that was the gazetted highway into Penticton in the 1920s. That, I think, is the section of road that's of concern -- and whether the road was all gazetted through there at one point in time.
Hon. L. Boone: It is gazetted, but there are some portions in dispute, and that's what this court case is about.
B. Barisoff: Just carrying on, I mentioned the other day, hon. minister, that I was going to bring to you that letter from people who were working on the Vancouver Island Highway
[ Page 1108 ]
"The Asphalt Recycling Corp., or ARC, are hiring Albertans on the old Island Highway paving contract, as reported to this office. There are four or five of them, and they're getting a labour rate of $23.90 an hour. They only pay Alberta taxes and licence fees, and none to B.C."
That was a question I raised to you the other day, and I was wondering if you had an opportunity to look into it, or what's happening.
Hon. L. Boone: The recycling is not part of the Island Highway project. It's rehabilitation, so it's not covered under the Island Highway agreement. The Island Highway is new construction. It's not part of the Island Highway, so they're not covered under that whole agreement -- the local-hire business. But they do have to pay fair wages.
B. Barisoff: It seems reasonable to me. It's not my constituency, but it was said to me as Transportation critic. But that's probably right. Moving on, they've actually sent a petition here with a number of names. This actually does deal with the Island Highway. I guess the constituents in the Horne Lake area near the Bowser subdivision are opposed to it, as it runs through a subdivision. Also, a straight and unpopulated road exists nearby. Future land expropriation on the proposed route for the highway and widening could prove costly. Do you know if that has been looked into at all?
Hon. L. Boone: It's kind of hard to get the question, but from what I understand, we do not intend to upgrade the Horne Lake Road. When we've finished the road, it will go straight through to Mud Bay Road. Therefore, it shouldn't be a problem there. If the member would like to pass that letter over to us -- the petition -- we would undertake to answer it for the constituents.
B. Barisoff: I appreciate that. That would go well.
Just one other question, on the Adams Lake ferry. I think the hon.
[8:00]
Hon. L. Boone: We are working on that. There was a petition tabled in the House with regard to the increasing hours. We're working on that, and we're very hopeful that we can have some good news for them soon.
B. Barisoff: Moving to some highways maintenance questions, if the highways maintenance contracts are being continually cut each year, I'm just wondering how we can possibly maintain the infrastructure we've got out there. I notice in the estimates -- and I'm just thinking of the general contractors out there -- that we seem to be trying to, I guess, do more with less.
Hon. L. Boone: There have been some very slight increases in the maintenance contracts that have been renewed, from 294 to 303, but that's a very slight amount. I certainly recognize the fact that there haven't been huge increases there. I guess it's a matter of us all trying to do more with less, and that goes for everybody, even those in the private sector nowadays.
B. Barisoff: Have there been any claims laid against the ministry due to the -- I shouldn't say excessive -- use of salt on the highways in B.C.?
Hon. L. Boone: No, there have been no claims that we know of, so that's qualified.
The Chair: We'll recess for the vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 8:02 p.m. to 8:13 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
B. Barisoff: Back on the claims of using salt on the roads, I've been led to believe -- I'm guaranteeing where I'm coming from, in the agricultural community -- that there have been some claims against the ministry about the salt and the effects that it's having on crops and in sifting off the edges of the road fill. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
Hon. L. Boone: This is qualified. We do not know of any claims -- that I know of -- from anybody. We are aware of their concerns, and there have been some areas where we've done some studies, particularly in the Williams Lake area, around that issue. I don't know of any claims that have come against the ministry.
B. Barisoff: Mine, of course, would be in the Okanagan area, and I was informed that there were some. Of course, I'll double-check again, because you get all kinds of things that come forward. I guess the real thrust of it is that salt is a concern in some of those areas, and with the cost, weighing out both
[8:15]
M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank my colleague the member for Okanagan-Boundary for what I assure him will be a brief question and statement. My question to the minister is one I've raised with a number of her predecessors. She's aware of the horrific transportation problems we've had over the years in the northeast sector. There has been a great deal of work done on a number of projects in attempting to alleviate some of the problems. Just for the minister's information, we are replacing the Bailey bridge, the Mary Hill bypass is being widened, and there's the Pitt River counterflow. All those link into the Barnet Highway project, which is critical for our area. It's ongoing, and I wonder if the minister could tell me when that project is going to be completed, because it is of important concern to the constituents in my riding.
Hon. L. Boone: It will open just after Labour Day.
M. Farnworth: Now I will make my plug, as we're getting near to the opening of the project. As you know, it's an HOV project, and HOV lanes are becoming an increasingly important part of our transportation planning in the province. I feel quite strongly -- and I don't know if the minister has made a decision, but I want her to take my views into consideration -- that we should be starting with two people per vehicle in the HOV lanes. I know there has been a lot of pressure to go to three, but I think the case can be made for
[ Page 1109 ]
two. I think it's a commonsense solution that will achieve a wide variety of public support.
When you're trying to get people from the suburbs to car-pool, to change their habits as to how they get to work and as to how they use transit and transportation, I think you have to sort of wean them onto it. I think that people will be much more receptive to two persons per vehicle than if you try to insist on three. I think people will always be able to find a friend or a co-worker. I think that's easy to do. I think it's more difficult to find two people, and I think what will happen if we ask for three is that people will go: "Ah, what the heck! I can find one but I can't find a second, so I'm not going to bother." I feel very strongly, as do most of my constituents, that the HOV lanes are great. We really think they're going to be part of the solution, but I would ask the minister that it be two people per vehicle. Motorcycles, great; buses, of course; but two people per vehicle, please.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, I was reviewing this, and I will take the member's comments into consideration when I make a decision there. But I hope you mean two plus, and not that we're limiting it to two only.
M. Farnworth: No, not two only. A minimum of two.
Hon. L. Boone: Two plus, yes. I appreciate your comments, and I certainly will take those into consideration when I'm making my decision.
D. Symons: I would tend to agree with the member for Port Coquitlam. I think you'll find if you look back in Hansard over the years that this is exactly something I've been suggesting as well: that if you start at the lower end, there's more incentive for people to look around for a companion to join them in HOV. However, I do think -- and it's one thing I have concerns over -- that the ministry seems to have put all of its eggs in one basket in dealing with transportation issues. Their ten-year plan seems to depend a great deal upon the use of HOV lanes.
I think we can find from our examples, particularly in Seattle, south of us, that HOV lanes have not greatly solved their transportation issues there. We have a great deal of problems with the fact that they've gone from three to two, and still what you're finding is that many of the people using the two-person HOV lanes -- as my wife and I have when we've gone down there -- simply see it as very convenient. The two of you are in the car, so you get to go in that other lane. It hasn't relieved the traffic problems in that sense.
So I think the government must look beyond HOV lanes as sort of the solution to transportation issues, and get a lot more into the issue
I'd just like to emphasize what the member for Port Coquitlam has been saying as far as HOV lanes go: let's start with two, and if that's highly successful and clogs up the lanes, move on to three at that point. But don't depend upon HOV as being the answer to our transportation issues. It won't be.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think we are looking at it as the answer to our transportation issue, but as part of the answer. Part of the new highway system that will be opened up on September 1 also has included bicycle lanes. I was privileged this afternoon to be at the official opening of the new bicycle lanes going along Blanshard Street to the municipal hall there. The whole system, the bicycling system, is one that has been really appreciated by bicyclists. I don't know how anybody has the nerve to drive on the streets here with bicycles. Even with a bicycling lane, I'd still be nervous there, but maybe that's just because I'm not from the city.
We do have to do a lot of different things, and we're certainly looking at them to try to deal with transportation. We don't look at HOV lanes as being the epitome of solving all our problems.
B. Barisoff: There have been some significant cuts in roadside mowing in the last little while, and I think it creates problems with sight and distance for animals coming up over the shoulders. Is anything being done in that area to alleviate that problem?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's like all budgetary things; when we're asked to cut back, we try to look at what we're doing. We thought the maintenance area was an area we could maybe cut back on and still maintain the road maintenance. Unfortunately, there are some areas where safety does become an aspect, as you mentioned. We're looking at that, and we may be reinstating some of the mowing in those areas.
B. Barisoff: One particular example of that is probably the Summerland-Peachland area, where apparently some 59 deer were killed in the last year. That's coming directly from the highways maintenance crew that was in that area. Those are the kinds of things that have to be looked at. It's probably costing us on one side in ICBC, and when we're tying them all together, we're losing one or the other.
Is there something that can be done in those particular areas where there is a lot? Another area in the Okanagan would probably be from the top of Waterman's Hill to the weigh scale. A lot of deer are killed through there; it must be the crossings going down to the lake. Is there any kind of signage, even, or something that can improve that?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we are putting up signage in some areas. We are experimenting with deer reflectors. I've seen them along the sides of the roads; you may have seen them along some of the areas where there are a lot of crossings. The worst area, I guess, is in the Kootenays, where there's the highest amount of road kill. It's a significant problem, and I guess we'll try to deal with it if we can, and in those areas where the mowing is a problem, we will deal with that.
Aside from the loss of the animals, there's an incredible problem, as you state, with ICBC. We're working with them to identify the areas that are the worst. There's a loss of lives, too. You don't hit these animals and come out of them without injuries being involved.
B. Barisoff: Carrying on with highways, I know that salt is an expensive means of taking the ice and snow off the road. I'm just wondering whether there's any stipulation on the aggregate and the size of aggregate. I know that in the last few years, the size of aggregate has probably cost the taxpayers a small fortune in windshields, because at one point in time I think it even went up as high as half an inch. I don't know if that's standard, or what the standard size of sand aggregate is.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think that anybody who comes from the interior or who has a community office there hasn't
[ Page 1110 ]
There's a real problem. We recognize the problem, and we're trying to deal with it, trying to find the right mix so that you're not breaking your headlights and windshields -- there's both of those things -- but you actually have safer roads out there. I remember one occasion after somebody made one of these trips and came back with both headlights knocked out. That was a happy camper, I'll tell you. We're trying to find the right mix, and maybe one of these days we'll actually find it, but right now it's not an easy thing to do.
B. Barisoff: I do know that half-inch minus looks like pretty big rocks when you get out onto the highway. I knew the basis behind what the theory was. I was just wondering whether one offset the other, whether they would put a little
Going along those same lines, we have 28 highway contractors in the province. I'm wondering what kind of consistency the ministry has in making sure that the contractors are actually living up to the particular contract. Are they all basically doing the same thing, or is one bidding to do a little bit less than the other, and that's why there is variation in contracts?
Hon. L. Boone: We do have quality assurance programs that assess the contractors. You're right; there's a difference. You're dealing with private companies here. There's very little difference between the standards of the contracts, but some have to be sat on a little heavier than others. I guess that goes with any area whatsoever. I know what you're saying, because I've been along there and you can tell where one area stops and another contractor starts. I know that happens, and I guess we have to try to recognize that there are some that we have a little harder job making sure they adhere to their standards.
We do have quality control people in the ministry who try to make sure that these contractors all live up to the standards. In fact, we have taken contracts away. Was it four years ago in Quesnel when the contract was taken away from the company down there because they weren't performing? It's not usual, but it's not unheard of, either, to have a contract taken away.
B. Barisoff: I know that we do have maintenance standards. How many people do we have out there in each district actually performing this task to make sure? I guess the major proportion of the year is probably in the wintertime, when, as soon as we get a snowfall, everybody thinks they can't drive -- at least, at the southern end of the province. At the northern end they probably are accustomed to that. How many people do we have out there actually doing that task?
[8:30]
Hon. L. Boone: There are 140 area managers throughout the province, and their main task is to do quality assurance.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to more things to do with maintenance, I'm just wondering whether you could give me some ideas of the recycling paving machines that are out there now: their viability, the economics behind them and whether they're better or worse than paving. I think it's called asphalt recycling. What do they do -- just some basis on that -- and what are the economics behind it?
Hon. L. Boone: This is B.C. technology; it was homegrown, and it has been in place since about the early 1990s. It costs between $15,000 and $30,000 a kilometre, and if we were doing the alternative, the full hot replacement, that would be approximately twice as much. So it is saving us money, and it has improved considerably in the past couple of years. It's something that I think we can be really proud of as British Columbians -- that this is a technology that's working for us.
B. Barisoff: What's the life expectancy, though, versus the life expectancy of a hot-mix pavement coming directly from the plant?
Hon. L. Boone: The initial estimates were between three and five years, but we do have stuff that is lasting longer than that. The other is about ten to 15 years.
B. Barisoff: I guess that's why I raised the question when you were saying one's twice as much. When I look at the five years versus the 15 years, the economics don't seem to add up. I guess the other side of it -- maybe you could check -- is that usually roads start deteriorating
Is there anything else out there that has created some improvements? I know there are areas where these recycling machines are actually ideal: when you're going down a main street of a community, you're done -- that kind of thing. I've watched them work, and I'm actually going to take the time to get out
Hon. L. Boone: They have cold-in-place recycling. The cost for that is $30,000 to $35,000. It looks to be the same life expectancy: three to six years. There are changes. I guess one has to look at the whole package. If you're looking at three to five years as compared to ten to 15 years, it may be that that, in fact, is lasting longer than that. It was an estimate. But you also have to look in terms of what we're doing to save our environment by recycling, by not using new processes, by not having something that we have to dispose of. We have to weigh everything out there.
D. Symons: Minister, again on this same issue, I gather that a lot of it has to do with the oils that the hot-in-place people mix in as they're taking up the old one. Because some of the oils have evaporated and disappeared over the years, it depends on what goes into that mix to lay down again as they move along the highway. It's really the ministry, I think, that sets the standard of what they have to add in there, because basically that's going to determine the price you're paying for that hot-in-place mix.
I wonder if you might comment on whether the expectancy could be longer than that, whether the ministry would end up allowing them to use some of the oils that they know would increase the life expectancy of the road, and also whether the ministry -- just to carry on and save you getting
[ Page 1111 ]
up twice -- has done any studies on whether using a hot-in-place technique and then putting a virgin topping, if that's the term to use, on that would expand the life expectancy of it so that you would get a really good finish job, still at a reduced price. I gather the hot-in-place costs about 40 percent of the regular full job, where it comes and all is relaid as new material. Somewhere between the
Hon. L. Boone: The oils that you're talking about are called rejuvenators. We are happy to deal with contractors in terms of looking at what rejuvenators they would like to put in to extend the life of the product. We'd be happy to work with them and to try out new rejuvenators with them. We've also looked at the process that you were talking about in terms of putting on another layer, and although we haven't actually done it yet, we may in fact be doing that in the future.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might revisit windshield damage for a moment. It's to do with the aggregate size you use for sanding in the winter. I have the study in front of me that was done in 1993 regarding that particular program, where the ministry did a study and came out with the result that 9.5 millimetres was an optimum size to use so you wouldn't have blowing-off and all the rest that they claim. Yet I found, when I was in Saskatchewan and Alberta in January, that those ministries use a much smaller aggregate than we do in B.C. They seem to find no problem with what our ministry claims is the problem of the aggregate blowing off, therefore having to sand more often.
Certainly we have an awful lot of ICBC claims to do with windshield damage, headlights knocked out, paint damage and all the rest, due to the aggregate size that's on our highways during the winter. I wonder how in B.C. we need a larger aggregate than Saskatchewan and Alberta manage to get by with. They seem to have much more severe winters than we do.
Hon. L. Boone: The ministry has done some studies there. They have actually looked at the areas, and they have found that traction reduces significantly with some of the smaller aggregates. One can also look at the Prairies. They don't have the mountains to go up or come down that we have, or the curves to worry about. It's a pretty flat stretch through some of those areas, and they may not have the same concerns in terms of driving that we have. The studies that the ministry has done indicate that we need the larger aggregate. If we could go with the smaller, let me tell you I'd be more than happy, because I've sure lost a few windshields out there in the winter.
D. Symons: I am still not convinced from the minister's answers, and I wonder if it has more to do with availability of aggregate than it does with aggregate size. I know we are beginning to get a shortage of various aggregates in British Columbia, and that might be a factor to do with it as well. This may be tied in with our question earlier on the hot-in-place machines and the surface used on highways. I have here a newspaper report dealing with Highways basically paying a $1.4 million award to somebody who had an accident and became a quadriplegic. I believe it was in the riding of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano where this person had the accident because of the highway conditions and hydroplaning on the road.
I wonder if you might be able to tell us whether that particular section of the Upper Levels Highway had been repaved prior to that accident taking place, and whether the conditions of the asphalt used in that repaving might have contributed to that accident. Apparently the ministry accepted some of the responsibility, as it paid off some of the claim that was involved with that particular accident.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know that. I would be reluctant to say anything in terms of legal liabilities later on, but we would be happy to get that information for you.
D. Symons: I'd appreciate that, because after the claim went through, Highways apparently repaved that particular portion of the highway. It would seem that this might somehow be a tacit admission on the part of the Highways ministry that indeed there were some problems with that particular section of the highway.
I wonder if we might backtrack a bit and go back to the estimates book. I have a few questions relating to the various entries in the estimates. The first one deals with the first line there, administration and support services. I note that between this year and last year, there is roughly a $2 million reduction in it, but at the same time, I notice that in STOB 1, which deals with base salaries, there is a $2 million increase in that amount previous to last year. And if we carry on to STOB 2, which basically is supplementary salary costs, there is a 70 percent increase there. I am wondering if the minister might explain to me why the administrative and supplementary salary costs should increase, when the total amount of spending in that particular STOB seems to be decreasing.
[8:45]
Hon. L. Boone: That is 35 employees who were moved to the ministry from BCSC.
D. Symons: That's from B.C. Systems. I'm still not too sure, because it would seem to me that the mandate of the ministry is to supply services, and if you are supplying increased costs on the administration side, that's not increasing services to the public as far as Transportation and Highways goes. I would have criticism, then, if that's the answer to the question.
If we can look at the next line, I find in highway planning and major projects, way over in the contribution side, that we have a rather large increase in STOB 82, in contributions, of $4,315,000. I'm wondering if the minister might explain to whom that contribution went.
Hon. L. Boone: Can you tell me what area you are in? We can't find it.
D. Symons: Line 2, "Highway Planning and Major Projects." Under STOB 82, under contributions, it says $4.315 million. Am I not correct in reading the lines here? I didn't see such a large contribution last year, so I'm wondering where that came from this year.
Hon. L. Boone: We went through that earlier, actually. The maintenance that has been transferred over to municipalities with incorporation is $3 million. Then there's capital that was transferred over there, which is $365,000.
D. Symons: I apologize, then, if I'm going to be asking some questions that have been answered before. If you can tell me they're in the Blues, I will look them up and save us the time here.
[ Page 1112 ]
The next line is for highway operations. I notice that under STOB 42, which deals with statutory notices, we have a figure here that is half of last year's figure. I'm wondering what statutory obligations we had under advertising this year, since it's only half of what it was the previous year.
While we're at it, I guess I can cover another one at the same time you're answering these, because it has to do with advertising. If we look under "Highway Rehabilitation," I notice that under STOB 40 you have an advertising budget that now is ten times what it was last time. Last year it was $37,000; this year it's $377,000. I'm wondering why those advertising costs are up considerably this year under "Rehabilitation" and why they're down considerably under "Operations" and the statutory notices. We'll cover two at once there.
Hon. L. Boone: The increase reflects commitment to communications for the Iron Workers' Memorial Bridge, Barnet-Hastings-lower mainland HOV lanes and the Vancouver Island Highway project. The cutback in the operations budget was just from directions from Treasury Board to reduce our costs.
D. Symons: Again, I just find it difficult when it says in the instructions that STOB 42 stands for statutory notices and non-discretionary advertising and publications. I read "non-discretionary" as items that you must do, so I'm wondering how you can get direction to cut expenses on things that are statutory requirements. To the extent that this cutting was taking place, it's 50 percent of what it was before. How can you cut 50 percent out of what are statutory requirements?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's related to the work that we do. As you know, we have a freeze on right now, so we won't be doing as much work as we anticipated before. We will, in fact, be saving those dollars.
D. Symons: Thank you, and I'm assuming, then, from that answer that it depends upon how the government wants to interpret the word "statutory" at any given point in time.
If we can go back to STOB 40, then, on your highway rehabilitation, I'm wondering why you can count some advertising to do with renaming the Second Narrows Bridge the Iron Workers' Memorial
Hon. L. Boone: It's not the renaming. It has to do with the rehabilitation work that's going on and the information that we had to put out with regard to the work that's currently being done there.
D. Symons: A similar amount of work took place on the Oak Street Bridge last year and you managed to get by with, I would say, 10 percent of what you're spending this year for similar work on the Iron Workers' Bridge. I'm just wondering again why you managed to get through on the Oak Street Bridge at a figure that was 10 percent of the advertising cost for the Iron Workers' Bridge?
Hon. L. Boone: It wasn't just the Iron Workers' Bridge. There was the Barnet-Hastings-lower mainland HOV lanes and the Vancouver Island Highway project.
D. Symons: Again, either of those particular projects the minister mentioned were ongoing projects. I haven't noticed anything different in the amount of information that had to go out last year -- compared to the coming year -- that would indicate that degree of change, unless an awful lot of changes are coming up in the next few months compared to the months that have gone by. So I'd be curious, and I will be watching intently to see whether that's the case.
To carry on, then, we can take a look under "Highway Capital Construction" at STOB 2 again. I notice that there's quite a change in that particular line. A lot of that may have to do with the fact that this is now covered by the TFA. But I do notice that STOB 2 has gone from $6.7 million last year to roughly $2 million this year -- so it's one-third of that particular supplementary salary cost. Yet STOB 1, which is the basic salaries, stayed essentially the same. I'm wondering how the supplementary costs can reduce by such a large figure, whereas the basic salaries seem to stay the same. There seems to be a discrepancy there. I would think if one goes down, the other would go down correspondingly, and that didn't seem to happen.
Hon. L. Boone: What we've done is brought it in line with the actual. It was overstated in the budget, and this has brought it in line with what was actually spent last year.
D. Symons: Thank you. I wonder if we can go back to line 1, administrative support services. I notice a rather interesting figure here under STOB 80 for grants. I find a $2 million grant there. I wonder if the minister might explain what this $2 million grant is under STOB 80, under the administration and support services line.
Hon. L. Boone: That was here with the former minister. He was responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust. That's now no longer with this ministry. The former minister is no longer here, so he has taken that area with him.
D. Symons: What you seem to be saying, then, is that the former Minister of Highways had in the Highways ministry a $2 million amount that came from the Columbia River Trust fund, and that when he changed from being Minister of Highways to Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he was able to take $2 million out of the Highways ministry and take it with him over to the Fisheries ministry. Is that what you're telling us?
Hon. L. Boone: No, this was not Highways money. This was in the Highways budget because he was the Minister of Highways and also the minister responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust. Those were moneys that were there for the administration of the Columbia Basin Trust, and those moneys went with him. I'm not sure if they're in his budget this year or not. They're not in our budget, because I'm no longer responsible for the Columbia Basin Trust.
D. Symons: So the Columbia Basin Trust appears in the line ministry statements of whoever happens to be responsible for that trust at that particular time, and therefore this $2 million, although it appears under administrative support services in the Ministry of Highways, it is not a Ministry of Highways expense; it just happens to appear there. Is that what you're telling me?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. It's now been transferred. It has gone over to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
D. Symons: Well, I do find that this particular government's way of doing bookkeeping is rather interesting, if
[ Page 1113 ]
that's the case. It would almost look like ministries can move millions of dollars from wherever they want on the basis of saying that if this fellow moves, he takes the money with him. A curious arrangement, I must say.
[9:00]
I wonder if we might just go on to a few other items. One thing I would ask the minister to do, if she wouldn't mind, for both myself and the
I have here an advertisement from August '95. It says:
I'm wondering if the minister might explain to us what exactly is entailed in this idea of trying to have people doing research on road tenure issues.
Hon. L. Boone: This all has to do with getting information and research on roads in aboriginal areas. We need to have somebody who can research, who can give us information if we should have to go to court or if we have to do some negotiations -- or whatever it is. That is what it is about.
D. Symons: There were questions earlier during the estimates debates here regarding the Apex Mountain situation. I gather the ministry has the right to expropriate a certain percentage of aboriginal land for road purposes if it so needs it. Would that have been the case for the Apex Mountain situation? Could you have expropriated the land that's under dispute here quite legally, according to the statutes of this province?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we do have the right. It's a right that was given to us under OIC 1036 to expropriate one-twentieth of the land, but we have chosen to negotiate rather than do that. We think the situation would be exacerbated if we were to take that move, and that we would find ourselves in a worse situation than we are currently in. So we have chosen not to use that, and we have chosen to negotiate instead.
B. Barisoff: Do you not think that we've put Apex Mountain in an untenable situation, where the government of the day has recalled their loan? We've put them in a situation that is probably far worse; the uncertainty of what has taken place over the last couple of years -- and what has taken place in the last couple of weeks -- has really put them in quite a situation, too. I think there should be an explanation from the other side of it, too. If we have that opportunity to have that right, we should certainly look at both sides of the coin.
Hon. L. Boone: Well, I don't know if you're asking me to debate the minister of everything's estimates, but I'm not going to do that now. I'm not going to get into an argument with you as to whether or not that loan should have been recalled. I'll tell you that we've done whatever we can to keep that road open. That road has not been closed. I think it's almost two years now that the road has, in fact, been open. So the situation has nothing to do with that road.
D. Symons: I would tend to beg to differ with the minister on that particular answer, because it seems that over the last year there have been numerous occasions when the band there has used the threat of closure of that road in order to push their particular point on that issue. If you had used that right of expropriation, the whole problem that has gone on for the past two years could have, in one sense, from that viewpoint, been settled.
Certainly, as you say, it would have raised some other problems. They may not have accepted the fact that you were expropriating it, but the fact that the government has now taken back a loan they had given that particular
Hon. L. Boone: That road has not been closed down. Yes, there have been threats. But there would be threats of closures, anyway, and you'd still be faced with going to court with an injunction to keep it open. We have an injunction to keep that open. So if the band decided they were going to close that road,
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might agree, though, that the threat that was offered at that particular time and that has been put forth many times by the band concerned here has had a really negative effect upon all involved with that particular project on the mountain. Indeed, the ministry's failure -- if I can call it that -- to deal with that particular problem upfront, but rather, trying to play a conciliatory role in there, will have emboldened many more of those particular issues to happen all around the province as a result of the minister's handling of that particular affair.
Hon. L. Boone: No, I don't think so. I think that had we chosen to expropriate land here, we would have seen roadblocks throughout British Columbia. Not just threats of roadblocks; we would have seen very real roadblocks and very real road closures throughout British Columbia. Those bands that are negotiating in good faith would have seen this as a really strong sense of this government's need to not negotiate in good faith. I think we would have found those bands that are reasonable -- and there are many of them out there currently that
D. Symons: I may remind the minister of Douglas Lake, which I think is getting pretty close to her particular riding. If
[ Page 1114 ]
I could just home in now on the Adams Lake situation, I wonder if the minister might fill us in on what the total cost has been to the ministry to supply alternative forms of transportation into the Adams Lake area because of the roadblock that's gone on now for a considerable length of time. Can you give us a ballpark figure, if not the exact figure, on the cost to this government of operating a ferry and of the other situations involving police and so forth over the period of time that that particular blockade has taken place?
Hon. L. Boone: I want to point out to the member that we're in that situation there not because of what the aboriginals and the province have done but because the federal government failed to do due diligence and actually pass the section 35 order-in-council that would have brought that land into government's hands. That was done by the federal government. This is costing
An Hon. Member: We're paying.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. It is their problem because they failed to act on this thing, and we are paying the price as a result of that.
G. Abbott: I would also like to briefly canvass the Adams Lake issue. I want to preface my remarks by expressing my appreciation to the minister and her staff for their cooperation in my discussions with them on this subject. I certainly don't want to get into the broader issues of who's at fault at Adams Lake. It's a very complex situation and one that's going to be difficult to resolve in any event.
What I would like to ask the minister about is the one item under her specific purview, and that's the provision of ferry service. I know that the provision of that service has been under discussion in recent weeks, and I would just like to ask the minister whether at this point there is anything to report as a result of that discussion or review.
Hon. L. Boone: With regard to the increased service -- I think that's what the member is talking about -- I think we have a resolution that you will be happy with and that we'll be able to announce shortly. At this particular time we can't officially announce this, but
G. Abbott: I'm delighted to hear that, and I appreciate very much the tenor of those remarks. Would you dare to define what "shortly" might mean? A couple of weeks,
Hon. L. Boone: Perhaps, if the member could see me after this, I could talk to him quietly, because this is a very sensitive issue.
D. Symons: The minister will define shortly then, no doubt. We appreciate that. I recognize the sensitivity of that particular issue and agree with the minister's way of handling it.
I wonder if we might skip back to the Island Highway for a moment -- again, I will apologize for asking questions that have been covered when I haven't been here in the committee. The figure put out and maintained by the government is that the Island Highway project is going to cost approximately $1.2 billion by the time it's completed. In the old way of doing things, what happened was that each year a particular government would allocate so much money to the Highways ministry and they would use a certain sum of money for capital projects. That money was up front that particular year and that was it, whatever came out of general revenue that particular year.
Now we're going through the Transportation Financing Authority and doing long-term financing for such projects. So if you're able to downsize the project, as has currently been done, and stretch out the time a bit so you can stay within that particular framework for the cost of it, what will $1.2 billion accumulate to by the time that project is paid off? We are going to be paying interest on the borrowed money. It's going to be taking 20 years or a longer period of time until the whole highway is paid for. In the old way we knew exactly what it was costing, because we were putting dollars in each year to pay for the highway as it went along. Now that we're financing it, we have finance charges that are really part of the total costs of that highway. What is the total cost of that highway going to be? It's not $1.2 billion. I suspect that it will be more than $2 billion by the time that highway is paid for. Can you confirm the total cost, which the ministry must have calculated, of that particular highway?
[9:15]
Hon. L. Boone: In the past, you did debt financing so you were paying interest on the debt. As the ADM for the Transportation Financing Authority told us last time he was here, the debt financing is within the budget and it's at $1.296 billion, so it's not that much higher than what we were at before -- a slight increase, but not a whole lot. As I said, we did debt financing before. The TFA people aren't here right now, so their figures are not around. If you have specific things with regard to transportation financing, I would like to take those questions and get those exact figures back to you later on.
D. Symons: I'd appreciate it if the minister would do that -- if the TFA could give me what they are projecting the total dollar figure will be for the highway by the time they've done all the amortization of the borrowing that they're currently doing to pay for that highway. It's sort of like working out what your mortgage is going to cost you by the time you've paid the whole mortgage off -- that's precisely what we're doing on the highway there. What's the total mortgage cost of that highway going to be? If the minister would get back to me on that in written form, I'd appreciate it.
I have another one, and I'm assuming this is just simply an error on the part of the newspaper. It's a column by Vaughn Palmer written a year ago February, when he talked about a gas hike of 1 cent a litre on Vancouver Island to pay for the Island Highway. I believe the 1 cent a litre was provincewide, for the Island Highway. So did Mr. Vaughn Palmer get that wrong when this tax was put on a year ago? Or is there 1 cent a litre on Vancouver Island and it's specific to Vancouver Island?
Hon. L. Boone: It's 1 cent a litre in the province, but it's not just for the Vancouver Island Highway; it's for all the Transportation Financing Authority's dollars.
D. Symons: I think it's one of the few instances where Mr. Palmer may have made a factual error in his column. Mr. Palmer is usually fairly good in his research, I've noticed, and
[ Page 1115 ]
as long as you're government I'm agreeing with him. When we're government, we might change our view on that point. But he does seem to do fairly good research, and I was surprised when I read that article. That's why I thought I might check it out to confirm my belief that he was wrong in that case. I think we can skip that one.
If we can just stay for a moment on the
Hon. L. Boone: Zero in wages. I don't know about the other items in the contract. I'll have to get back to you if there are any changes on that.
D. Symons: If the minister would be so kind as to do that, I'd appreciate it. Besides the wages that in some cases seem to be due to downsizing and new wages in some of the unions involved in the other areas outside of the Island Highway, it seems that those wages are a little higher than other places in the industry. But there were quite a few clauses in those contracts that brought in some extra benefits, which I think are beyond what is common in the industry, that had to do with training and other things. If the minister could tell me if any of those have changed, I'd appreciate that greatly.
The next item deals with an OIC that came out fairly recently, and I don't have the date of that here. I believe it has to do with the transfer of lands from the Ministry of Highways to the Transportation Financing Authority. Basically, it's transferring ownership to the Transportation Financing Authority from the ministry, and I believe a lot of it has to do with a particular transfer. I'm wondering if the minister might give me an idea of why this transfer of lands is taking place. It now seems that the Ministry of Highways and Transportation no longer has title to the land; rather, it is being transferred to the Transportation Financing Authority.
Hon. L. Boone: They are lands that were purchased by TFA in our name. They are now surplus to our needs and are being turned back to TFA.
D. Symons: Many of these purchases of land resulted from expropriation procedures, by the Expropriation Act. I believe that for lands that are expropriated for a particular purpose -- building of a highway -- you must only expropriate what is needed for that particular project, and if you go beyond that project, then the owner of the land has first recall, if you can call it that. I'm not sure what the term is because it's not my field. But they really have claim, I guess, on the excess lands that have been expropriated. So I am wondering if this is a way of getting around that.
My concern here is: is the Ministry of Highways or, indeed, in this case, the Transportation Financing Authority going to be able to use the expropriation process as a way of buying more land than they possibly need for a particular project, then use that land that has been got through expropriation for, let's say, real estate ventures that will end up paying for highways? Are the public and the holders of land in this province having their land expropriated in order that the Highways ministry can make ends meet?
Hon. L. Boone: No, there is no insidious plot there to have a development corporation come through TFA to have new development properties there so that we could -- not a bad idea, mind you -- pay for our highways.
You mention expropriation. Some of the land is expropriated, some of it is not; some of it is agreed upon, and we purchase it. Therefore some of that land remains in excess of our needs. If the land is expropriated, the owner has two years of first refusal to purchase back that property.
D. Symons: First refusal was the term I was searching for before -- in purchasing back what has been taken from them. Indeed, I know of some situations where people were concerned that the ministry was buying only a portion of their property. They felt the remaining part was useless to them and wanted the ministry to take all or none. So I can agree with the first portion of your answer.
But it seems that on the Island Highway, maybe this particular one was a lot of concern to people who had homes they had lived in for a period of time, and who basically felt they were kicked out of them for this particular project. There seemed to be a lot of feeling that people were not getting due process in the process of their land being expropriated from them.
For instance, there is a situation here where the ministry apparently was offering to a lady a figure far smaller than the assessed value of the land. The fair market value for the business was set at $260,000 by her lawyer and accountant, and the government sort of evaluated only $57,000, roughly. A good number of
So the amount of money that seems to have gone into legal fees involved with some of these expropriation things seems to be far in excess of the difference between what the ministry was offering and what the person felt was fair market value for what was being taken from them. That seems to be a negative return on our dollars and not the best use of our dollars, if we're going to end up in a legal battle that is going to cost considerably more than the difference between the two figures involved in the expropriation process.
Hon. L. Boone: I understand what the member is saying there: why are we paying more money in legal fees; why don't we just pay the cost? Why don't we just pay this person what they are asking for? However, if we did that, then you'd be standing here saying: "Why have you paid more than what the estimated cost is for this?" I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to try and pay a fair market price, but not just roll over and pay whatever anybody asks for a piece of property.
So that is what we do, and sometimes it costs money to actually make sure that we do that. It's unfortunate, but if we didn't do that, then it would soon become pretty widely known that, in fact, the ministry would pay whatever you were asking, and we'd be getting outrageous prices from people. There are some people out there who would really hose the government on this, you know. There are some who want to do that.
D. Symons: I'd hate to
[ Page 1116 ]
be a patsy. Is that all right, or is that a sexist term nowadays, because it's a name attached to women? I hope not; I retract it if that indeed is the case.
There seem to be situations, though, where the government was negotiating with people on expropriation and, in the initial stages of dealing with the particular person involved with the property, was offering considerably less than even the assessed value -- and that assessed value is placed there by government assessors. This just seems to be a patently wrong approach, where a government assessor has assessed the value in past taxation years at considerably more than the government negotiators were offering the persons. It almost seems that they were using very high-handed tactics in some of the negotiation processes that have been brought to my attention in those first few stages. Unless the person was very sophisticated about what was going on, they were likely to end up giving in to the government's negotiators. I'm wondering if somehow you can't begin a more fair process in the beginning stages of dealing with them.
I'm referring to a particular one. I don't think people will mind: the case in Nanaimo of the Dunns, where they actually put a huge sign up on their home indicating what the government was doing to them -- shafting them in a certain way was their interpretation of what was happening to them. From what I gather from them, it became not so much a case of the dollar figure involved, that they were arguing with the government, as much as the way the government was treating them. The process of the whole thing bothered them a great deal and therefore got their backs up. They were just going to fight every inch of the way, because the way it was handled was totally inappropriate.
[9:30]
Hon. L. Boone: As I understand it, with the Dunns -- I would not normally mention a particular constituent or case here, but you did -- we had an assessment done; we offered Mr. Dunn the assessed value of the property, cut the cheque, and gave it to him. He cashed it and then still continued to demand more. So you have to question those tactics, hon. member.
D. Symons: I guess tied in with that was, I believe, that Dunn's wife's side of the family had given a fair amount of land in the Nanaimo area to the government in years past, and so I guess they felt there was maybe something owing due to that gift they had given to the government. It might have complicated the whole matter in that particular case.
I must admit that I only spoke to Mr. Dunn on the phone once while all this was going on. But during the election campaign, I'm out campaigning, Burma-Shaving on one of the roads in Richmond, and this fellow came and stopped where you cannot stop on Highway 91. I told him: "You can't stop there." He wanted to talk to me. I thought he disappeared, but ten minutes later this guy had parked three blocks away and walked up to me. It turned out to be Mr. Dunn. He wanted to thank me -- that I had at least showed some sympathy for what was happening to him -- so the man was obviously quite upset with what had happened through the ministry.
I've had, I guess, a half dozen people along the route of the Island Highway that had similar feelings about the way they had been treated by Highways. A few had lived on their property for a good length of time and, I guess, felt some ownership of that particular property, and then had ownership taken from them in what they felt was a really high-handed manner.
I wonder if we might just move on to another, totally different question than this particular one, although again dealing with the Island Highway. It deals with something that was in the news in June of this year. It had to do with the Island Highway project
Hon. L. Boone: The area you're talking about is the Kingfisher Creek area. That was caused by extensive runoff that was unusually high. That can happen at any time; I don't think it necessarily had to do with the construction work that was going on. Some of the sedimentation of Kingfisher Creek before the work was
No further damage has occurred at Kingfisher Creek, and hopefully none will. We've got new plans involved there right now.
D. Symons: So what I'm hearing, then, is that it was not a matter of the contractor involved in this case not following what was laid out for the contractor to do. Indeed, somebody didn't anticipate Mother Nature going on the rampage in that area at that time.
We have had other cases of rocks from blasting showering homes and a number of those types of things taking place during the Island Highway construction. Again, are these contractor faults, in the case of rocks near Victoria, or is this another case of requirements placed on the contractor being what the ministry said but not adequate at the time?
Hon. L. Boone: You're correct in the first one. Kingfisher Creek didn't have anything to do with the contractor not doing the work properly. The other two issues with the rock explosions, etc., were, again, not due to the contractor not doing due diligence but due to a fault in the rock. It therefore broke apart in a manner that was not expected. There has been no indication that the contractor was doing anything other than the job as it should have been done.
D. Symons: I'm just looking for some confirmation, I guess, of what I felt: that a lot of the problems that have taken place were not the fault of contractors. Maybe part of the reason I'm asking is that as opposition we seem to have
[ Page 1117 ]
frequently had the government side throw at us: "You don't want what happened on the Coquihalla happening." In many cases what happened on the Coquihalla had very little to do with the contractors per se; cost overruns and what not had more to do with the government in charge at that time deciding how they wanted the project to go ahead, regardless of weather circumstances and other things. So again, I'm just trying to find out whether that's what's taking place on the Island Highway. You've at least relieved my concern that it's contractor fault that these things happen; there could be other things involved. I wish the government would be as lenient, I guess, in finding fault with the construction of the Coquihalla Highway. They seem to have similar situations, where it wasn't the contractors, as they keep implying it was. Indeed, it seemed to have more to do with, in that case, weather conditions and the government insisting it was going to go ahead come hell or high water.
I wonder if we can jump around a little now to some other topics while I'm on my feet here and have the floor. This has to do with the Coquihalla Highway and a particular problem that occurred last summer, when there seemed to be shortage of water in the area of the tollgates and, to put it gently, toilets in that particular area were not flushing properly. What the government has done, because it seems to
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we've increased the water supply there and been more diligent on the maintenance.
I just want to go back, though, and make it perfectly clear that at no time have we ever suggested that the contractors were at fault on the Coquihalla. We've always said that it was the government's fault -- always. So let's make this perfectly clear. It was entirely the previous government's fault what happened on the Coquihalla, and it certainly wasn't us.
D. Symons: That certainly isn't the impression that I got from the previous minister responsible for the TFA, and now the Premier of the province, who seemed to be telling the story. It seemed to be always that somehow there were cost overruns and prices were wild, and that was why they brought in Highway Constructors Ltd. on the Island Highway to stop just that very thing happening. I'm glad that this particular minister has taken that sort of thing away -- basically, it's the basis that the current Premier was using for setting up Highway Constructors Ltd. So you've indicated that what he was doing was giving us a snow job all that time, and I appreciate the minister clearing up that little problem. So thank you very much for that. You've maybe not done the Premier a favour in that.
I wonder if we can skip on now since we're on the Coquihalla Highway. If we can just move a little further afield, up into Peachland, there seemed to be some differences with the city council or town corporation of the district of Peachland on Highway 97, compared to the majority of communities along Highway 97 in the Okanagan, about four-laning that particular project. I've got a bit of material supplied to me over the years from people on Highway 97 who are very happy to see the whole highway four-laned all the way from the border up to Highway 1. What we find here is that the district of Peachland apparently has some problems and they want to keep it two-laned through their particular community because, I guess, it's not a bypass situation that's happening there. Can you give us maybe some flavour of the ministry's feeling on what they're going to do with the area around Peachland and Highway 97 improvements?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, we don't want to get involved in this battle, so we're not going to do anything there right now. No, it's not a high priority right now. The growth area is not in that particular part of the Okanagan. As you know, there are some areas that are having incredible growth and the pressures are on those areas. So this is not a high priority at this time.
D. Symons: While we're moving up into the interior regions, I have a few questions that sort of move around the province. One of them involves the issue of Cranberry Hill in Prince George. Do we have our member for Prince George here? No. I'm
Hon. L. Boone: I'm very familiar with it. It's a city's project. It was a city that was suing the company, and I think they may have settled now. But we did in fact put money in through federal-provincial infrastructure to help upgrade it. Every year I look at that side of the mountain wondering if it's going to stay there -- hoping. But it is a city problem.
D. Symons: I have noticed the cut going up the hill there, and it looks like it may have been better to have gone around the back side. Indeed it does show up, and if it starts slipping it will be obvious to everybody, I suspect. As a matter of fact, you can see the remediation is rather obvious as well.
I have two or three other questions here that deal with the area of Surrey -- getting close to the lower mainland here. There were, I believe, some problems or discussions of intersections at the King George Highway -- Highway 99 -- and 24th Avenue, and I believe there was another discussion about 32nd Avenue and 152nd Street. I'm wondering if you might give us some idea of what's occurring. Are they caught in this particular government review process? Are those projects going ahead, or where are they at?
[9:45]
Hon. L. Boone: We're in the planning process with that, working with TFA and the municipality. It's strictly at the planning process, and we'll continue meeting with them; but there's no time frame in terms of when it will start or be completed or any of that stuff.
D. Symons: Staying in the lower mainland area, the South Fraser perimeter road is certainly one that I think is foremost in the minds of the ministry. I'm simply reading from a study that was prepared for the ministry by Reid Crowther and turned in, I believe, in March of '95. It says:
"The addition of the Highway 10 or Serpentine corridor to the South Fraser perimeter road would not significantly improve the level of service in the study area relative to the
[ Page 1118 ]
additional costs and impact. The additional user benefits in terms of time savings under options B and C would not justify the significant increase in capital
As you read on here, you find that they're basically saying this should be a priority item with the ministry. I'm wondering whether the minister might give us some ideas, since it, again, seems to be caught in what's called a review process of where that south perimeter road is -- whether they've looked at other options besides debt financing for building it: going through public-private partnerships or dealing with people along the route that would have significant improvements in their financial condition because of it, Fraser Wharves being one of them, and whether you've looked for some partnerships with them in order to minimize the cost to governments of constructing that particular road. I think it's really something that's past its time and the government needs to seriously address it.
Hon. L. Boone: I did answer this -- you said you would look in the Blues. I did answer this question about the south perimeter road during the estimates, last Friday I think it was.
D. Symons: Can we move to Vancouver Island, just up-Island on the highway going to Swartz Bay here? An on-again, off-again sort of project up here has been the Island View interchange and the Keating Cross Road connector. It keeps coming up, but it keeps getting postponed and studied and so forth. So what are the current thoughts of the ministry on which it is going to be? Will it be Island View Road or Keating Cross Road where your connector will go in? And is that caught in the freeze and review? The ministry must have a preference for one or the other. Where is that and when is it likely to happen, if ever?
Hon. L. Boone: Keating Cross Road is not proposed; Island View Road improvements were cut in cost reductions in 1995.
D. Symons: Getting closer to home, in my riding is the Morey Channel crossing at the Middle Arm Bridge in Richmond. It is a major connector to Highway 99 and Highway 1 -- and, indeed, to the United States and the rest of Canada -- and for Vancouver International Airport. That airport has done a tremendous expansion of its facilities, and after that expansion has been open only a month and a half now, already the terminals or connectors, I guess you call them, for the planes to connect to are full, and they're going to build more there. Yet we have not got an adequate connector to Vancouver International Airport, an airport of world stature as a west coast connection and the gateway to the Orient. We do not have an adequate connector to the rest of Canada and the United States. So when will that Morey Channel crossing take place? I believe the airport authority and the city of Richmond are working hard with the government on that, but we still see no movement on the part of the government to get that bridge really started.
Hon. L. Boone: That's in the freeze, so it will be reviewed with all the other projects.
D. Symons: It's fortunate, I guess, for the economy of this province that such things as the airport expansion were not subject to a freeze, because that's gone ahead and has been a tremendous success. It would seem prudent, I think, for this government to consider not having this particular project in a freeze.
I wonder if we can go back and take a look -- and you might have answered this -- at the Lions Gate Bridge for a moment -- I don't see our members here at the moment for that. When this particular project was first mooted by the minister responsible in 1993 -- I'm reading from a news release of May 7, 1993 -- he said: "We need to maintain a strict timetable if we're to have a new or revitalized transportation link in place within the next five years." Hon. minister, we are now in the third of those five years, so I'm wondering: when is the government going to finally make a decision? The election is over; you can do it now. You probably didn't want to do it before the election, because you were going to upset either the North Shore or downtown Vancouver. For goodness' sake, let's get on with that particular project.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, it's in the freeze and it will be reviewed. If you look in the Blues, we did extensive discussion on the Lions Gate Bridge with the member for North Vancouver.
D. Symons: While we're bridging that particular topic, I wonder if we can look at another bridge that was mooted by the now Premier of the province back in February of this year. He indicated that the NDP would spend $300 million to twin or widen the Port Mann Bridge. Can the minister maybe tell me what has happened to that particular promise by the Premier?
Hon. L. Boone: Once we remove the freeze, we'll be looking at some options around the Port Mann Bridge. That issue was also dealt with, I think, on Thursday or Friday -- I can't remember when. We've dealt with most bridges in the province so far, I think, except that nobody mentioned the John Hart Bridge or the twinning of the Fraser River bridge. I want both of those twinned, and I'm wondering when the ministry is going to do that.
R. Neufeld: Well, you've got it on the record.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
D. Symons: If I may ask the minister if she will look into those particular projects, I'm sure that will be of great interest to her constituents.
I have concerns that on February 21, 1996, the Premier was making these promises to the people. It was quoted in the Maple Ridge News at that particular time, and it now seems to be frozen. We've covered that one, so we've gone over that bridge.
Another bridge that's up for discussion, and maybe it has come up in the House, is the Kelowna crossing of Okanagan Lake. We have had a discussion on dealing with the improvements to that particular crossing. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us not only about the crossing in question, but also whether we have a Westshores Road heading up north and whether we have on the east side of that bridge a northwest connector that would take traffic out of the downtown part of Kelowna and feed it into the highway going north to Vernon. Can the minister tie all three of those things together -- a west-side road, an east-side bypass route and the highway itself over the lake? They're probably caught in the freeze, I suspect, but the ministry must have at least some studies done and know where they're going to go when that freeze is taken off.
[ Page 1119 ]
Hon. L. Boone: There is the Okanagan transportation plan, but I would urge the member to review the Blues from Thursday and Friday. You'll find that most of the capital projects were dealt with in depth when we had the Transportation Financing Authority people here.
D. Symons: I guess I missed some of that. I was here for a good part of the Transportation Financing Authority, but I must have missed those particular questions. I will look them up in the Blues and be back to you if I don't find the answers I want there.
I'm wondering if we could look at one more issue relating to the same sort of thing. It's dealing with the area of Maple Ridge. From roughly a year ago, or a year and a bit, we have a news release dealing with how the government intends to begin -- the key word I'm going to emphasize here is "intends" -- local property acquisition in Maple Ridge to protect future options for the development of the northeast sector transportation corridor between the Lougheed Highway and the Trans-Canada Highway.
There were some real problems at the time because the ministry was putting pressure -- I guess that would be a polite way of putting it -- on the governments in that area to restrict development in certain areas because they wanted to put in a transportation corridor at some future time. They wanted to preserve the transportation corridor but not put any money up, and the courts said at the time, when some landowners took it to court, that the ministry must basically put up or shut up.
It seems that this news release last year relates to the particular issue where the government intends to begin local property acquisition, and I'm wondering how far along the government has carried that intention.
Hon. L. Boone: We purchased the critical lands that were going for development.
D. Symons: I wonder if, noting the time, we might just feel
[10:00]
The Chair: Hon. members, a division is about to be taken. Before putting the question to the committee, I wish to remind all hon. members that it is understood, pursuant to the sessional order establishing Section A, that members who are voting and who are not permanent members in Section A have received the permission of their Whip to substitute for the permanent member for the purpose of this division. Independent members have received permission from the permanent independent member assigned to Section A to substitute for the purpose of this division.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Barisoff | Dalton | Gingell | |
| Krueger | van Dongen | Reitsma | |
| Symons | Neufeld | ||
|
NAYS -- 10 | |||
| Calendino | Gillespie | Giesbrecht | |
| Sawicki | Lali | Robertson | |
| Farnworth | Kwan | Brewin | |
| McGregor | |||
R. Neufeld: I want to go to my constituency and ask a few questions about some of the roads. I'll start with the Sierra-Desan road. I have a couple of questions. The first one concerns the B.C. Rail bridge. Is there a charge from B.C. Rail back to Transportation and Highways for the use of that bridge? Second, what involvement does the ministry have other than carrying out the maintenance contract? Does the ministry actually negotiate money or expend money on that road in any way?
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: As for the bridge, we're not sure, so we'll have to get back to you on that.
The first 15 kilometres of the road are maintained by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; the balance of the road is maintained by a mix of the Ministry of Employment and Investment and private industrial users. That's because it was formerly Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. So it's a mixed use on the other one.
R. Neufeld: As I understand it, the number of dollars budgeted to maintain that road is approximately $300,000 a year. I understand that this year we are cut back to $200,000 and expect to be out of funds by this fall. I know the minister administers the contract for maintaining that road, and I just wonder what steps the minister is going to take. Or is the ministry going to leave it up to the Minister of Employment and Investment and just back out of it?
Hon. L. Boone: You're going to have to talk to the Minister of Employment and Investment when his estimates come up. That's not an issue I can deal with here.
R. Neufeld: Then the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will, at the time the money is expended, just discontinue maintenance of the Sierra-Desan road. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: The Ministry of Transportation and Highways does not currently do the maintenance on that road. We do the first 15 kilometres, and the last part is done by the Ministry of Employment and Investment and private industrial users. So the last part of the road will be up to the Ministry of Employment and Investment and that mixture there. You will have to take this up with the Minister of Employment and Investment.
R. Neufeld: I realize that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is entirely responsible for the first 15 or 17 kilometres of the road and you administer the contract for the Ministry of Employment and Investment for the balance of it. That's my understanding. It involves about $300,000 and about $200,000 has been budgeted. They expect to be out of money by this fall. Can I ask the minister to confirm that for the balance of the road -- not the first 17 kilometres, but the balance of it -- by this fall, when it is expected that the money will run out, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways will no longer administer any maintenance on the Sierra-Desan road?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, you are going to have to deal with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. They are
[ Page 1120 ]
putting up the money for that section of the road. If you're asking me if I'm going to subsidize the Ministry of Employment and Investment at this particular time, I'm not willing to say yea or nay on that. You would have to ask the Minister of Employment and Investment whether in fact he is going to find moneys within his budget -- and then we would maintain it; we will keep our contract with them. Don't ask me to subsidize another ministry.
R. Neufeld: I know this is an ongoing battle between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and what used to be the Ministry of Energy and Mines about who is going to maintain it. You ask me not to ask the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to maintain the road. I want a commitment on whether the Ministry of Transportation and Highways would maintain a road out there,
I do understand now that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, when the money has run out, will totally discontinue maintenance of the road. Could the minister tell me -- and this has been ongoing for a number of years; I think it was before this government came into power -- whether they have defined a "resource road." Yearly I've been promised a definition for resource roads and an explanation of how we're going to deal with them in the province, and I'd like to know if that definition has been made yet.
Hon. L. Boone: No.
R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me -- and I know I heard other people ask for a time frame -- when she expects the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the government to come up with a resource road definition?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I can't give you a time frame.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister then explain under what definition the ministry is working with Quinsam Coal on their road and dock facilities?
Hon. L. Boone: That's a TFA project, so as I stated last time, we will get that information to you in written form.
R. Neufeld: Then, I understand the minister will get back to me and let me know how we work a resource road of that type, yet we have no definition. Roads in the northeast, which access great mineral wealth also, are
Could the minister tell me the amount of rehab -- I asked the question earlier -- for the highways in the district of Peace River North?
Hon. L. Boone: That letter is being worked on -- we promise that to you, and we will get it to you shortly.
[10:15]
R. Neufeld: I would like to know, even approximately, what the rehab dollars are. I don't expect the figure to be right down to the cent, but at
Hon. L. Boone: It's $1.6 million.
R. Neufeld: It's $1.6 million. That would include approximately $1 million for the Milligan Creek Road, and I assume that the balance of $600,000 would cover rehab for the other 2,000 kilometres of gravel road and 700 kilometres of pavement in the constituency of Peace River North. Would I be correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Approximately, yes.
R. Neufeld: Is any of that money presently frozen?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
R. Neufeld: Is there a strategic plan in place for the gravel roads in the constituency of Peace River North to bring them up to even a poor man's pavement? I noticed lots of discussion about asphalt and a little bit of discussion about sanding gravel roads in other parts of the province, where people are concerned about rock chips and cracks in their windshields. My goodness, in my constituency there isn't a vehicle around that hasn't been pepper-sprayed from gravel roads. I know that many people living in my constituency would appreciate even a little bit of poor man's pavement, let alone hot asphalt.
I'm just wondering if there is a strategic plan in place to look at all the gravel roads. If we look at the Milligan Creek Road, there is going to be about $2 million expended to bring ten kilometres of road up to a gravel standard. There are 2,000 kilometres of gravel road. I just wonder what the plan is. If we go about it this way, it will be a hundred years before we get through the process.
Many of the roads in the northeast were built in the fifties and sixties, and we've not had very good practices. We've allowed, through time, heavier loads, bigger trucks, a lot heavier transportation, a lot more traffic than we've ever had before. Yet there seems to be no plan other than an ad hoc one that when we have an extra million dollars -- and they're not saying they won't take it -- we fix ten kilometres of road, or something, here or there. There has to be something in place, at some point in time, to look seriously at our infrastructure in the north. I'm not talking about parties. I'm not talking about
The Chair: While the minister is contemplating her response, might I just remind members that they're not allowed to sit in the public gallery.
Hon. L. Boone: We have reviewed all the gravel roads in your area, and I believe that you've had input into some of the reviews that have taken place. They have been prioritized, and now it's just a matter of finding the dollars to make those improvements.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that -- finding the dollars. But, you know, we can continue every year to say we're having trouble finding the dollars. That response to the people, to the industry up there, gets a little dog-eared, to be blunt.
The committee recessed from 10:20 p.m. to 10:29 p.m.
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
[ Page 1121 ]
R. Neufeld: As we were talking earlier, the minister responded to one of my questions about a strategic plan and starting to do something with the 2,000 kilometres of gravel roads, some of which are in terrible condition in the constituency of Peace River North. The minister's response was that somehow we have to find the money to recognize the problem.
[10:30]
As I started saying before we were called in to vote, it's getting to be a bit dog-eared, to be continually telling people that buy 4-by-4s -- either farmers or people that work in the oil and gas industry, or loggers, or people that generally live in the countryside -- at $30,000 to $35,000 a pop, only to have to trade them off within two or three years because they're shot, because of not just broken glass in the front end that's all hammered up with rock
I want to relate to the
Hon. minister, it is dog-eared to continually tell these
What I'm saying is that we obviously have a plan in place for the lower mainland. I want to know when we're finally going to get around to get a plan for the rest of British Columbia, so that these people can start driving on half-decent roads. They don't want it done overnight. They've been driving on these roads for the last 30 years, so they will expect it to take a while. But maybe the minister could tell me: when does she expect to have a plan in place for the rural part of British Columbia, specifically the constituency of Peace River North?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not going to stand here and defend the fact that we are spending money in the lower mainland and a lot of money on the Island. Those are areas that have some incredible needs. If you've been here for any length of time, you'll know that every section, every area and every nook and cranny of this province has a pet project they want and that incredible money needs to be spent. I recognize your concerns, and I'll be doing what I can to work with you to see if we can address some of those problems. But I cannot promise you that we will be meeting all your needs this year or next year or whenever it is, any more than I've been able to promise any of these members over here that I can give them their overpass or their interchange or their exchange or their underpass or their bridge or their roundabout -- whatever it is. I mean, good Lord, we could spend the entire provincial budget doing these things.
But you know, hon. member, I must say I'm very sympathetic to what you're talking about. I also know that there are pressures coming from every section of this province because of the expansion and the growth that's going on. What we're trying to do is balance what's happening and meet those concerns, and I'll work with you to deal with some of the problems you've got.
M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I move that the Chair do leave the chair.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Barisoff | Dalton | Coleman | |
| Krueger | van Dongen | Hawkins | |
| Symons | Neufeld | ||
|
NAYS -- 10 | |||
| Calendino | Gillespie | Geisbrecht | |
| Sawicki | Streifel | Robertson | |
| Farnworth | Kwan | Brewin | |
| McGregor | |||
D. Symons: I have a rather interesting letter here from a person who spent a holiday in Hawaii. I'll simply read the letter in, and I think the minister will get the flavour of it as I read. It says:
"A recent holiday in Hawaii brought to my attention a striking example of a situation where the public assumes responsibility for the environment. Perhaps the project has a wider application -- for instance, to us here in British Columbia. Along the highway on the big island are signs that read as follows" -- and here's the reason I'm reading it into the record -- " 'Adopt a Highway -- Litter Control Next Two Miles'. Below the sign there has been placed another on which is shown the name of the individual, organization, service club or company which has committed to the cleanup of the next two miles of this highway."
Well, maybe in British Columbia we may make it five kilometres to make it appropriate for our numbering system.
The committee recessed from 10:44 p.m. to 10:53 p.m.
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee to order and recognize the member for Peace River North.
R. Neufeld: With all the votes, I'm not exactly sure where we broke up.
I do believe the minister said she has some sympathy for my constituency in trying to get some plan together. I know
[ Page 1122 ]
that there's no possible way in one or two years, and I'm not asking for that kind of commitment. But what I would like is some kind of commitment that we will look seriously at an ongoing program -- and if it has to be through the Transportation Financing Authority, fine -- for five years or eight years at least, so that there's a dedicated amount of money spent each year to bring into shape the main gravel roads, so that people can actually see something happening.
You know, when I talked about road tax earlier, the Alaska Highway, for instance, from Mile 87 to the Yukon
We have, as I stated, the Milligan Creek Road which is in terrible condition. A road, from Wonowon out to Prespatou, is used for the oil and gas industry, for forestry and for farming. There's a school in that area that goes from K to 12. Over 1,000 people live out there. I wonder if the minister thinks that that main artery, that main road -- where, when it rains, people either drive in the ditch with their 4-by-4s or in places pull them with the tractor to get to town or back home again -- is acceptable in our rural road system. I would think not and I would hope not. But there are times when that takes place, when you cannot drive on that road. People drive in the ditches because it's safer. We recently had a person killed on that road.
You can continue to say that we're going to have some plan at some point in time, but we have to, realistically, start looking at these major arteries and fixing them up. I just wonder if it is satisfactory with the minister that we have to have, on our main gravel roads, four-wheel drives to be able to drive when it's raining and, in some cases, we pull vehicles with tractors. Is that acceptable in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: Obviously, it's not acceptable and, as I said, I will work with you to develop a plan to deal with the conditions that you have there. I'm glad the member recognizes that we're not going to fix everything within the next couple of years. But I'll make a commitment to you that I will work with you to see what we can do to try and deal with some of the issues that you've got. That's all I can do, hon. member, at this point in time.
R. Neufeld: Road bans. Presently in the constituency of Peace River North in the springtime, our road bans go off, or are brought to 100 percent, on average about three weeks after Alberta, directly east of us. The countryside is the same; it's no different. You're not talking about southern Alberta. I'm talking directly east of us. But the road bans go off about three weeks earlier than ours do. That creates some problems. I can't imagine that the frost further west comes out of the ground slower than it does further east. So there must be something that we can look at seriously about the road ban situation.
There's one other thing I want to bring to the minister's attention. Our main gravel roads are in such poor shape that last summer, after the road ban stayed on until early summer, in the middle of summer, in August, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways applied road bans. That's how poor our roads are, and we expect people to continue to work in those conditions. That's just a side issue. But road bans in the middle of summer -- I've never heard
Hon. L. Boone: Certainly, we'll look at it. We want to minimize road bans. I know what road bans do: people can't operate in construction and the logging industry can't get through on those things there. We will review what is taking place in Alberta and see what we can do to coordinate our efforts there.
[11:00]
R. Neufeld: Does the ministry work closely with the forest firms -- Canfor, specifically, in Fort St. John -- about where their logging plans are in the future -- I mean in four or five years' time? Do we correlate some of our expenditures on our roads with that, or do we kind of fall in after the fact? I just find that there is one specific road now, the Upper Halfway road in at 147, and a good part of it was constructed by the residents that live in that area and not by Transportation and Highways.
There's going to be about 10,000 loads of logs come out of there over the next number of years. Canfor, the company, is very good. They're going to expend a fair amount of money -- in fact, a lot more than government is -- on the road. The government is going to upgrade it some. Now everybody has been really good to this point; Canfor, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the maintenance contractor have all had meetings with the people up there, which I attended. I would just like confirmation from the ministry that when it's all said and done and we're finished logging out of there -- or not even when we're finished -- that that road will not disintegrate to less than what it at least is today, so that the residents that have spent all this time and money building a good part of that road -- and the ministry has done some work in there also -- don't see everyone leave, after the resources are gone from that area with them, having left a goat trail to travel on. I'd like to get that commitment for those residents.
Hon. L. Boone: We'll certainly make our best efforts to keep that road in good condition.
R. Neufeld: A couple of years ago in Fort Nelson there was an old ferry stationed there, stored in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways yard I believe, and it had been used on a commercial project, with some people that supply that type of service in Fort Nelson being a little bit upset with it. At that time the ministry said that they were going to dispose of the ferry. I wonder if the minister could confirm that the ferry has been sold?
[ Page 1123 ]
Hon. L. Boone: We're not aware of that, but we will get that information and get back to you.
R. Neufeld: On another issue, along the Alaska Highway -- as I spoke about earlier, where the province of British Columbia has very few expenses -- there are a number of emergency airstrips that were actually built during the war and have been upgraded and kept in place for many years. They were used during the war to ferry planes back and forth or whatever, but they are substantial airstrips -- gravel, of course -- built to a good standard. The federal government has maintained them up until the last few years. They've gone into both areas, put huge white X's on the airstrips and taken down the wind socks.
I'm wondering if there is some way that we as a province can look at those two airstrips, for a number of reasons. First off, it's a safety factor specifically. A tremendous number of small aircraft fly that whole north country for a variety of reasons, whether it's the oil and gas industry or forestry or guiding and outfitting -- those kind of things -- and the airstrips are pretty handy. The other reason is that the Ministry of Forests uses them constantly to store barrels of jet fuel for firefighting purposes. I know of it being used for emergency purposes. When accidents occur along the Alaska Highway, we have had to have aircraft go in and pick up people who have been badly hurt. You don't have time to ferry them all the way to town. We're talking about quite a distance. We're talking about a distance of 500 miles. One airstrip, from mile 0, is at about mile 220. The other airport would be Fort Nelson at about mile 300 and then one at about mile 400 and some.
These are substantial strips. I've heard that the federal government wants to go in and actually cut ditches across them. I don't think it would take much. I'm not talking about snowplowing them in winter, because most aircraft that fly in that country are equipped with skis. There's no problem with plowing the snow. But every once in a while, in the summer, they need to be graded to knock down the small trees. I'm talking about small trees that grow up. The strips are all gravel, but if we could keep the trees down so that aircraft could land, specifically for fighting forest fires or for taking the sick and injured to hospital -- remembering that it's a long way between
Hon. L. Boone: I think you should be asking the federal government to maintain those strips if they're that important. We're having rough trouble trying to make our budget stretch to accommodate the various things we've got. The last thing I can do is make a commitment that I'm going to take over something that is currently under federal jurisdiction. I certainly know that throughout this province there are airstrips and airports in small areas that are having difficulties in trying to deal with the feds getting out of this and devolving their responsibilities. It's not going to be easy for these people to deal with. We are working with them, but the reality is that we have to put some pressure on the feds to keep those places up. You just can't keep coming to the provincial government asking us to take up the slack when the feds drop the ball. They're dropping the ball in a number of different areas and we just can't keep on picking it up.
R. Neufeld: That's all fine and dandy to say: "Get after the federal government to do all these things." I think I relayed to the minister earlier that there's a major
I just can't quite see that, when your government elected to spend $300,000 and some to advertise how great the Vancouver Island Highway is. I have a hard time believing when you look at that highway -- and it's a good job, it's a good highway, it's a great
I'm only talking about a small amount of money. I'm not talking about grading it constantly, but I am talking about taking those strips over because it is in a rural part of B.C. Maybe people in the lower mainland and Prince George don't understand what it's like to drive 500 miles to a hospital. Maybe we should drive in a 1987 GMC van that's made over to an ambulance and haul them all the way from mile 500 all the way to Fort Nelson, 200 miles. It would be great in the middle of the winter. It's nice to do that.
I'm asking for a small amount of money to occasionally go in and knock the trees down so the planes can at least land in the summertime and in the wintertime, so that access is there. Not only that, your government, the government of promise for British Columbia, uses those airstrips for fighting fires, uses them to store stuff on and for helicopters, but, of course, helicopters can land in one little spot, but not fixed-wing.
There is an issue here. Maybe if I go back to the federal government and tell them about it, they'll say that I should go ask the province because they use them for fire suppression. They use them for doing all kinds of things in the bush that they do every year through Environment. They use those airstrips, so maybe they should be responsible. The ball gets kicked back. Then I come back to this minister and ask the same thing next year.
I'm saying, hon. minister, that people up there pay their fair share, no doubt about it. When we talk a little about this, I'll tell you that it wouldn't take much in that whole northeast region to hold a referendum. You'd probably get well over 90 percent. It would be gone, along with the dam and everything else. It wouldn't take long to get the people there up in arms, because they're almost to that point. They're being left out.
I read articles where the Minister of Finance talks about how British Columbia feels so jilted by the federal government because we don't get our share. It's exactly the same from there down to here. We don't think we get our share.
I hope that the minister would look a little more seriously at the fact that we do have to move people those kinds of
[ Page 1124 ]
miles for reasons that I stated -- that is, if they are injured on the highway and have to attend a hospital. We have ambulance services along the road, but I tell you, I think it's a long drive from mile 500 down to mile 300 in the back of one of those ambulances if you're in bad shape. An airstrip that a fixed-wing could land at and maybe take that person right into Fort St. John or Vancouver would help a lot. It's not as though we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars; we are talking about looking at a couple of airstrips that would service the people along that highway a whole bunch.
Hon. L. Boone: You have airstrips. I have two airstrips in my riding and probably more than 200 miles to get to the major hospital. There are probably airstrips throughout this whole province. I've said before, and I'll say it again, that we do not have the dollars to pick up the ball that the federal government drops in every area. You're talking two airstrips. We do that with yours and it wouldn't be long before it's airstrips throughout the province -- airstrips and airports. Small airports make
[11:15]
The Ministry of Employment and Investment, I think, is leading discussions with the federal government and with municipalities to try to deal with the devolution of those airstrips and airports, but I can't commit that I'm going to have the dollars here to provide services that have formerly been provided by the federal government. We're having a hard enough time providing the services that were done by this ministry in the past. We just don't have the dollars to pick up every ball that is dropped by the federal government.
R. Neufeld: I guess when we're talking about the responsibilities of the federal government, we're going back to war-time. I'm talking long after wartime. The ministry, or the government of the day, has found some money or some way of financing lighthouses. I don't know if that's because there are a few hon. ministers along the coast. That could be. I'd hate to think that the only reason the government of the day would be looking seriously at helping to fund lighthouses is simply by how the people vote. I think that's actually a poor way of looking at the whole situation. Would the minister be willing, then, to take over the airports and let a consortium of individuals look after them?
Hon. L. Boone: I have just told you that the Ministry of Employment and Investment is leading the discussions with the federal government and with municipalities to deal with the devolution of those airstrips and the airports.
R. Neufeld: I'm not going to drag this out much longer, but obviously the minister didn't understand what I was talking about. I'm talking about two emergency strips that no municipality has ever looked after and the federal government hasn't spent that much money on over the years. I'm not talking about the Fort Nelson airport. I'm not talking about the Fort St. John airport, or the 30-some other small airports around the province of British Columbia that are manned. I'm talking about emergency strips along the Alaska Highway that have been there since the construction of the highway and are used now by the province of British Columbia. I don't know how the government of the day would handle it if I went to the federal government, and they said: "Well, maybe we should start charging the province for using those airstrips." I don't know how the minister would feel about that. Would it be acceptable if the federal government started charging the province? The province does use those airstrips at the present time, and has for the last 40 years, for nothing. We're asking for a few bucks to look after them, and the government of the day is saying: "No, we can't because it's a federal responsibility." It works both ways. I'm not talking about the airport issue of the day -- the Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek airports. I'm talking about two emergency strips along the Alaska Highway.
Hon. L. Boone: And I'm telling you there are probably hundreds of emergency strips throughout British Columbia. I have two in my riding, too, and I'm not willing to stand here today and tell you that I will assume responsibility for your strips there, because I could then be assuming responsibility throughout the province. The Ministry of Employment and Investment is negotiating with the federal government. That's where the negotiations will take place. I will not negotiate with you on taking over federal responsibility.
D. Symons: Maybe before we continue, I should just remind the minister of a verse I learned as a young child. It goes something to the effect: Early to bed, early to rise, makes a MLA, healthy -- not so wealthy -- but very wise.
I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that it is now 11:15 in the evening; that a good number of the members at this particular Legislature got up before 6 a.m. this morning to catch transportation to arrive here for the afternoon session; that if we were a labour group being treated in the way this government is treating the members of this Legislature, we would be taken before the Labour Relations Board for contempt of the rules of that particular organization. This is a very poor way of running government when you keep people up this late at night discussing very important issues confronting the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, the Premier of the province, when he was in opposition, complained bitterly in 1990 that the Social Credit Party at that time was going into night sittings. He complained that this was no way to do the government's business. "After seven and a half weeks," he said, "we're now into night sittings, showing the government is in a state of chaos."
Well, we are here after three weeks. This government is obviously in double the chaos, because it took them only three weeks to have to go into night sittings to do the business of this province. This is the wrong way to conduct business -- at this time of the night -- and I strongly object to what is going on here.
I'll go back then to where I was reading before I was interrupted by the division bells.
"Dear Sir:
"A recent holiday in Hawaii brought to my attention a striking example of a situation where the public assumes responsibility for the environment. Perhaps the project has a wider application -- for instance, to us here in British Columbia. Along the highway on the big island are signs that read as follows: 'Adopt a Highway -- Litter Control Next Two Miles.' Below the sign there has been placed another on which is shown the name of the individual, organization, service club or company which has committed to the cleanup of the next two miles of this highway. Some posts also have a third sign on which is situated a large logo and 'I Hate Litter.'"I found these signposts so noteworthy that I took several photographs. I don't know the parameters or the duration of the commitment to keep the two-mile stretch free of litter. I do know that there was a pronounced difference in appearance between the highways marked in this way and those roads without caretakers -- and ordinary people were involved. On a late Friday afternoon one such group was out along the side of the road picking up paper, cans, etc.
[ Page 1125 ]
"If such a program can work in a holiday destination whose motto is 'Hang Loose,' can it not work here?"
I would simply pass the words of that particular writer along to the minister. Could B.C. adopt such a thing, and would your government consider it?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, that would be future policy.
D. Symons: Policy? It's simple.
Hon. L. Boone: You're saying "would we" and "could we." Those are future verbs, and that's future policy.
We currently have a program whereby the maintenance contractor is paid to actually do the pickup. They then contract, sometimes with service clubs, to do those things, and they pay the service clubs to pick up. I've seen Girl Guides, Scouts, etc., along the highway doing that sort of thing. It does provide some income to those service clubs. It's not the same type of thing, but it's a similar type of effort.
D. Symons: In this case alluded to by the writer, the idea was that the sponsor would pick up the costs of doing that rather than having a service group obtain funds for doing that.
I mentioned earlier about the organizational flow chart for the ministry. Indeed, it would help, if we're going to continue discussions onto the wee hours of the morning, to maybe have some names to attach to these. Now, I do know who the minister is, but we have four positions under the minister, and we have a new deputy minister, I believe, and I have an old name down here. I wonder if the minister might fill me in on who the new deputy minister is, where that minister came from, when he took responsibility for it and what his qualifications for that position are.
Hon. L. Boone: The deputy minister is John Walsh, former Deputy Minister of Tourism and Culture and of Aboriginal Affairs.
D. Symons: We have quite a few names to go through here, so if the minister will indulge me. I notice that until legislation is proclaimed, I guess, ICBC still comes under the minister. Could you tell me
Interjection.
D. Symons: It's not? So that's out; you only have three people that report directly to you. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: The Transportation Financing Authority reports to this minister now. ICBC reports to the Minister of Finance.
D. Symons: I didn't realize that that legislation, although we passed third reading, has had royal proclamation.
The next one I have here is the Motor Carrier Commission. I believe that stays with us. Could you tell me who is currently in charge of the Motor Carrier Commission and reports directly to the minister? How long has that person had that position, and what qualifications does that person have for attaining that position?
Hon. L. Boone: The chair of the Motor Carrier Commission is Donald Johannessen. He has been there for five years, I think. He is a lawyer, and that's all I know about him.
D. Symons: Did Mr. Johannessen, then, come up through the civil service to that particular position?
Hon. L. Boone: No, he didn't.
D. Symons: Was he chosen for that position through open competition?
Hon. L. Boone: No, he wasn't; it's an OIC appointment.
D. Symons: Would the minister happen to know whether Mr. Johannessen is a card-carrying member of the NDP?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I wouldn't.
D. Symons: Well, I can enlighten the minister: he is.
We can carry on and go to B.C. Rail. Who is the person currently in charge of B.C. Rail? Again, how long has he been in that position, and what are his qualifications for the position?
Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Rail does not report to this minister.
D. Symons: Has there been a change, then? It's down here as such.
Hon. L. Boone: When the Premier appoints ministers, he puts in the various appointments. At the time when I was appointed, the Transportation Financing Authority came over here, ICBC went to the Ministry of Finance and B.C. Rail, I think, went to Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: Just to refresh my memory, could the minister tell me the head of the Transportation Financing Authority? How long has he held that position? What are his qualifications and by what route did he get to that particular position?
Hon. L. Boone: It's Blair Redlin. He is also the acting deputy for Employment and Investment, and before that he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: So I gather he has come through the civil service route to that particular position.
Under the Deputy Minister of Highways, I think, we have more than three positions. We'll go through each of them, if you don't mind. We have an assistant deputy minister of highway operations. Could you identify that person and give me his qualifications, the route he's taken to get there and the number of years he's been in that position? Maybe the person could speak for himself. It is getting late, and we're going to continue quite a while, I believe, on this.
Hon. L. Boone: This is Dan Doyle. He's been assistant deputy minister for eight years, 27 years with the ministry. He's an engineer -- but don't hold that against him.
D. Symons: I think that's a very admirable profession. My son is an engineer also, so I would speak highly of anyone that has that. Twenty-seven years speaks well for the person's endurance, I would think. We wish him many more years with the ministry.
[ Page 1126 ]
I wonder if we could move on. One of the other positions we have is the director of public affairs. I'm not familiar with the name I have down here, so maybe you could fill me in. Does that position still exist? This was a 1994 organizational chart, I believe.
Hon. L. Boone: It was Phil Newton until just Friday, I think it was -- Thursday or Friday -- when he gave us his resignation, as he's assuming a position elsewhere. We will be holding a competition for that.
D. Symons: Would Mr. Newton be going to another position in government, or is he leaving government service entirely?
Hon. L. Boone: He's not in government.
D. Symons: We also have director of internal audit -- I believe that is the position I have down here. Could you fill me in on that one, please? Again, the same questions as to who the person is, how long they've been in that position and their qualifications for the job they now occupy.
Hon. L. Boone: It's Sunny Mathieson, who's on leave, replaced by Alex Mackie, and we do not have a biography here.
[11:30]
D. Symons: I guess it might have been an idea if we'd asked all these at the very beginning of our dealing with the estimates, so we'd know the people we're dealing with, but since we seem to be extending the hours of sitting, it might be an appropriate time to ask the questions. I will continue. We have an ADM of administrative services.
Hon. L. Boone: This is "acting" -- we have a lot of actors around this place. This is Bob Buckingham, bachelor of commerce, UBC, 1974 -- formerly a chartered accountant. You've been with government ten years, is it?
B. Buckingham: Ten years with the ministry.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that. It's very nice to have the individuals here so we can see them face to face and hear their qualifications. We have a superintendent of the motor vehicle branch, and I'm not too sure if the minister can tell me whether that still rests with the minister or whether that indeed has been changed along with the change of ICBC. Does that stay with the ministry until proclamation, or has it already been changed by the Premier?
Hon. L. Boone: Vicki Farrally is formerly ADM with Health and ADM of finance with this ministry. I don't know how long she's been with government, but I would say I've known her for over six or seven years, so it could have been for some length of time.
D. Symons: We have a few more to go. I hope the minister will indulge me. If we can carry it down through the superintendent of motor vehicles, we have an executive director of operations. Again, the same questions.
Hon. L. Boone: Craig Morris. He's been with the motor vehicle branch in various positions for about five years.
D. Symons: There's also an executive director of policy and program development under the motor vehicle branch.
Hon. L. Boone: That's Mark Medgyesi. He's been in this position here in the government for about four years, and before that he was formerly with Saskatchewan insurance for four years.
D. Symons: An executive director of policy and program development, then. How many positions would Mark be responsible for underneath him? If he's an executive director, I assume he has a number of people who report to him.
Hon. L. Boone: There are 32 senior positions.
D. Symons: If we could just backtrack -- because I neglected to ask this question earlier -- to the executive director of operations, Mr. Morris, how many people would Mr. Morris be responsible for?
Hon. L. Boone: About 530.
D. Symons: Oh. I hope their pays are different.
An Hon. Member: Name some.
D. Symons: That's later. We'll get to that.
I gather, then, that the superintendent of motor vehicles would be responsible to the five various executive people below him. Would that be correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
D. Symons: Going down the chart now, we have the director of information technology. I have the same questions as to who the person is, the qualifications and the length of time he's been in service in that position.
Hon. L. Boone: Karen Dellert has been with various positions in government, including Attorney General. The last one was five years with motor vehicles.
D. Symons: How many people would be involved in the information technology reporting to Karen?
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that number at our fingertips, hon. member.
D. Symons: I do hope the minister will be willing to supply that to me at some future date. Thank you.
We have also a director of management services. I wonder if the minister might fill me in on who that person is and what qualifications they have, and how long they've had that position.
Hon. L. Boone: Marilyn Mattson is a CGA, recently moved here from Terrace.
D. Symons: She's a new employee for the government, then -- not moved up through the civil service to that position?
Hon. L. Boone: Moved up through the civil service.
D. Symons: How many people would she be responsible for in that position?
Hon. L. Boone: About 90.
[ Page 1127 ]
D. Symons: At the bottom of that particular chain, we have a director of planning and corporate development -- again, the same questions. Would you like me to repeat the questions?
Hon. L. Boone: The position has been deleted.
D. Symons: Would the minister mind explaining, then, where the various functions taken by the director of planning and corporate development now situate within that particular responsibility of the superintendent of motor vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: This is being transferred to ICBC, and they will be making their changes over there.
D. Symons: This is most interesting; I should have asked these long ago. Under Mr. Buckingham, in our administrative services back in the ministry, we have a director of finance and administration. Obviously Mr. Buckingham previously had that position, because that's the name I have here. Who now occupies that position?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, Mr. Buckingham is just acting in the other one, so he still has this position.
D. Symons: He's doing both jobs?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, doing both jobs.
D. Symons: Two jobs: you get double your money's worth in that case. I'm wondering if the minister might tell me, in his hat when he's wearing it as director of finance and administration, how many people would be in that department that he is responsible for?
Hon. L. Boone: There are 122.
D. Symons: Along with him there is a director of personnel services.
Hon. L. Boone: Barry Wilton, with 35 positions under him.
D. Symons: We have a director of information systems.
Hon. L. Boone: Floyd Mailhot, with 123 people under him. Does he have blue eyes?
Interjection.
Hon. L. Boone: We don't know.
D. Symons: The minister is giving me some ideas, though. I thank her for those suggestions, which we may follow up on later. We're doing the shorter chains now. We'll get into the longer ones in a few moments, and they'll be more interesting, I suspect.
We also have under the ADM of administrative services a director of the freedom of information and privacy program. I've actually had dealings with that particular office, but I've not known the person I'm dealing with in that particular office. So again, if you might, tell me who occupies it, how long that person has been there -- I guess that ties in with the bringing in of freedom of information -- whether he moved up through the civil service and or what qualifications he brings to that particular position.
Hon. L. Boone: Peter Smith is acting, and the position has just been posted.
D. Symons: How many people would be working under that freedom-of-information part of the ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: Fourteen.
D. Symons: We will move now to the director of internal audit, and I see we have a rather large number of people that are responsible and reporting to that person. We have a manager of finance and administration. Who might be occupying that particular position?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no manager of financial services and internal audit.
D. Symons: Does that mean the position is vacant or that the position has been eradicated?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no position.
D. Symons: Oh, I beg your pardon, I'm not following the right chain of command here. I should be going under Mr. Doyle, highways operations. I'll start over on that side. This manager of finance and administration reports to him; I missed a little connection line here.
Hon. L. Boone: Judy Stokes, and she has two positions under her.
D. Symons: Next to that person on this chart, I have a regional director of Vancouver Island.
Hon. L. Boone: Neville Hope, and he has 198 positions under him.
D. Symons: We do have a number of regional directors, it would seem. I have a regional director for the northwest.
Hon. L. Boone: Jon Buckle, 160 positions.
D. Symons: Mr. Buckle has been in that position as the regional director of northwest for what period of time? Did he move into that position from another region or from somewhere else in the civil service?
Hon. L. Boone: Eight years from Victoria; 23 years.
D. Symons: You might call him a career Highways bureaucrat. We also have a regional director for the central-northeast office; again, the same series of questions.
Hon. L. Boone: Kathleen Miller has been with the ministry three years; she came from Transport Canada.
D. Symons: The number of people that Kathleen would be responsible for?
Hon. L. Boone: Two hundred and eighty-eight.
D. Symons: We have a regional director for the Kootenays.
[ Page 1128 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Gordon Sutherland; 228.
D. Symons: The relative sizes of these is most interesting; I find this fascinating. The regional director of Thompson-Okanagan, please?
Hon. L. Boone: Keith Bespflug; 240.
D. Symons: There are some others that are responsible to each of these, which we'll get to in a moment, but we should finish off the various regions first. We have a regional director for the south coast.
Hon. L. Boone: Joe Jensen; 545.
D. Symons: I had heard that Mr. Jensen was seconded to the ministry in another position. Was that just temporary and he's back with the south coast, or is he still working out of Victoria?
Hon. L. Boone: He substituted for Bruce McKeown while Bruce was sick, but Bruce is well now, and he's back in his position. Hon. member, if you are interested, I'd be more than happy to send you over a telephone directory, which has everything you wanted to know, and more, about this.
D. Symons: The minister was second-guessing me about the number of people that Joe is responsible for. We have a project director for aboriginal relations.
Hon. L. Boone: Mary Koyl; 13 people. She has been with us for six years, since 1990.
[11:45]
D. Symons: Prior to the change in government. Thank you for that.
And a chief highway engineer?
Hon. L. Boone: Merv Clark, acting. He has 94 people, and he's been with us about three years.
D. Symons: Mr. Clark was formerly director of highway engineering. He's now moved up, you indicate, to the chief highway engineer, and you say three years. Were those three years in his current position as chief or three years with the ministry in total?
Hon. L. Boone: Three years with the ministry.
D. Symons: I wonder if you might enlighten us as to where he came from if he's moved from director to chief in such a short period of time in the civil service.
Hon. L. Boone: He's acting right now, and he was associate deputy minister in Saskatchewan.
D. Symons: The NDP government in Saskatchewan. Who has now filled his shoes as the director of highway engineering as he's moved up to this acting position?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no director.
D. Symons: We can have a chief director without a director. How about director of bridge engineering then, if you could find that position?
By the way, just going back to the director of highway engineering, when you say there is none, does that mean that as Mr. Clark moved up to the chief position, that position of director has not yet been filled? Or is it a position that's being eliminated under the reduction in the ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: The position has been changed, and we do not have a director at that level anymore.
D. Symons: I will move down this particular chain, and we have a director of bridge engineering. Who would that be? Again, the similar questions.
Hon. L. Boone: We no longer have a director of bridge engineering.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might explain, then. We don't seem to have a director of highway engineering nor a director of bridge engineering. I think those are two rather important tasks that the ministry performs. How are those tasks now being performed if you don't have directors of bridges and highways?
Hon. L. Boone: Very well.
D. Symons: I appreciate that answer, but it's not very enlightening. Is there somebody doing the tasks that these persons performed beforehand? It would seem that the ministry has a big hole in it, if that's not the case.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
D. Symons: I admire the minister's candour in saying that her ministry has a hole in it, but we'll move on to the next one.
We have a director of geotechnical and materials engineering. Has that position also been eliminated?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
D. Symons: Again, I might ask the minister how the geotechnical and materials engineering tasks are now being conducted for the ministry.
Hon. L. Boone: Very well.
D. Symons: Very well -- does that mean that the minister is contracting out these particular tasks to the private sector?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
D. Symons: Well, we do have a conflict here that I think we'll have to explore a little longer, then. They're being done very well; they're not being done by the ministry; they're not being done by the private sector. They must be done by somebody somewhere. I wonder if the minister might elaborate.
Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministry.
D. Symons: Now we're coming to something. Obviously there is a different chain of command here. So I wonder if the minister might explain where these tasks are now being performed and who they are responsible for reporting to if they
[ Page 1129 ]
don't report through the chain in your 1994 organizational chart. This chart had them reporting to the chief highway engineer.
Hon. L. Boone: You asked me earlier to provide you with an updated chart. I'm more than happy to give that to you.
D. Symons: Well, we'll continue along, and I hope the minister's giving me correct answers here. You've indicated three services, which I consider to be rather essential for the ministry if you're going to carry on the tasks that the ministry has traditionally done. You've indicated that there are no positions there, yet the ministry is still doing the work and you're not contracting it out. It's very confusing, I must say. We have a director of properties. Does that position still exist?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's Logan Stewart.
D. Symons: And Mr. Stewart has how many people working with him in the properties division?
Hon. L. Boone: Seven.
D. Symons: Also along this line of questioning, we have a director of maintenance.
Hon. L. Boone: That position was eliminated.
D. Symons: Maintenance is a fairly large item in the line ministries, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wonder if you might tell us which of the assistant deputy ministers in the chain will take care of what was obviously done by a Mr. Bedford before. Where does that responsibility lie now?
Hon. L. Boone: It is still with operations, and it's amalgamated with construction.
D. Symons: We're coming down to that in a moment, I guess. So that's eliminated. We've now got four positions eliminated in here, and some of the tasks are done by
We have a director of highway safety. I wonder if you might tell me who holds that position, how many people are working in that department, what qualifications this person brings to highway safety and how long they've been in that position.
Hon. L. Boone: We no longer have that director.
D. Symons: The minister might explain where the tasks that were formerly performed by the director of highway safety, obviously thought at one time to be an important and integral part of the Highways ministry, are now being performed.
Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministry.
D. Symons: I'm confused again, because we're told that we no longer have a director of highway safety, and yet those tasks are being performed within the ministry. Could the minister enlighten me as to where within the ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: The new organizational charts that I'll get to you will make it perfectly clear to you.
D. Symons: That will be interesting. I still seem to be getting conflicting answers, though, when you say it's not there but it is.
We have a director of construction engineering.
Hon. L. Boone: It's amalgamated with construction maintenance.
D. Symons: Yes, we had that answer with maintenance before. You've got construction and maintenance together, so there must be somebody heading that up. You neglected to tell me the name of the person, how long they've been within the ministry in one position or the other, as they've now been amalgamated, and what history they brought to their particular position.
Hon. L. Boone: Rodney Chapman; 20-some years. I have no idea what history he brought with him 20 years ago.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that clarification, and indeed I think 20 years is a history in itself.
We have a director of highway environment. I believe the ministry would certainly continue to hold that position.
Hon. L. Boone: That position has been eliminated.
D. Symons: I was asking some questions earlier in the evening, much earlier in the evening, regarding environment issues and the ministry. How are you monitoring the work of the ministry regarding environmental issues if you don't have a position or somebody that seems to have that responsibility?
Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministry.
D. Symons: It's another one of these where the position is not there, but you're doing it within the ministry. That's going to become clear when you give me the organizational chart, I assume. So we'll be able to come back to this tomorrow, I am sure. Tomorrow's arriving sooner than we think -- about five minutes from now.
We also have a director, marine branch. I've noticed for a number of years that under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways we used to have ATAP; I don't think that's there anymore. We also had a marine one, and although the position's there -- it's in the phone book and all the rest -- I've tried in past years to find out exactly who does it and in what time frame they do that job. Do we have a person in that position now?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, Ian Smart. How long has it been? Ten years. There are 228 positions.
D. Symons: We should go back to Mr. Chapman, who is now director of construction and maintenance combined. I neglected to ask how many people fall under that particular heading.
Hon. L. Boone: Sixty.
D. Symons: We could carry on. We can go over to the column under the ADM of planning and major projects. We have a director of major projects; it seems that an awful lot of major projects now aren't done within the ministry. But the ministry has a responsibility through the TFA, I gather, of
[ Page 1130 ]
carrying out the projects once the TFA has identified and funded them, so you must still have this position.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's Bruce McKeown to my left here, ADM eight years, with the ministry 27 years, professional engineer; 247 FTEs. Oh, brown eyes and black-grey
D. Symons: Tall, very handsome and very, I think, qualified for the position he's in. Under him he has a director of major projects. You were giving me the ADM of planning and major projects. I apologize to Mr. McKeown, because I'd skipped down to the next one under him on this list, which is the director of major projects. So you might fill us in on the various ones that respond to Mr. McKeown.
Hon. L. Boone: Gregg Singer, Vancouver Island Highway projects, 189 FTEs, approximately 18 years, professional engineer.
D. Symons: I have Mr. Singer down as a project director with the Vancouver Island Highway. Is he also director of major projects? Or is that basically the only major project, so he's filling two shoes?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no director of major projects. He is responsible for the Island highways, and then Brian Stone is the director responsible for the Trans-Canada Highway, the lower mainland and the Fraser River crossing. He's been with the ministry about three years, he has three FTEs, and he's a professional engineer.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if the government wishes to continue this evening with this line of questioning. Apparently so. We could carry on, then.
Also reporting to the planning and major projects ADM, we have a senior manager, major projects, who I assume would report to our director of major projects.
Hon. L. Boone: That's Dave Ferguson. He is acting director, quality management. He is a professional engineer, has been with the ministry about five years and has three FTEs under him.
D. Symons: It seems, from going down this column, that they may have nice titles on the door, but there aren't all that many people working directly under them. We also have a director of planning services.
Hon. L. Boone: That's now incorporated under the director of highway planning and policy. That's Dennis Davis, professional engineer, 25 FTEs, seven years with the ministry.
D. Symons: Manager of finance and administration.
Hon. L. Boone: Sheila Taylor is acting and has been with the ministry about eight years; 13 FTEs.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 12 midnight.