(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1996
Morning
Volume 2, Number 8
[ Page 1131 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: I see in the gallery a face that is familiar in this Legislative Assembly from some time back, an old friend from Powell River who is currently the mayor of Powell River and was a member of this assembly, Don Lockstead. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and, hopefully, the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Small Business.
In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
On vote 29: minister's office, $348,000 (continued).
F. Gingell: Yesterday in the course of these estimates, I identified two other areas where I would suggest that last year's budget is at risk. One is the issue of corporate income taxes that will flow from countervail refunds, and the other is to do with the $47 million that's been withheld from federal-provincial transfers. I was most intrigued by the minister's quoted remark to Les Leyne at the famous February meeting, when he said: "Well, I was waiting for someone to ask me the question." I guess I'll ask the question of the minister now: is there any other item, besides forest revenues and the issues that they won't have dealt with entirely yet on federal-provincial transfer holdbacks and income taxes arising from countervail refunds, that puts the budget from last year at further risk?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I don't want to reopen a debate, but I do want to correct the record on that statement. I did make the comment that I had been waiting for someone to ask me the question. It was taken out of context as implying that I was holding back in providing an answer -- waiting for that. All I meant by the comment at the time was that, having been pummelled with questions on every other topic, I was surprised that a question hadn't come forward on this. But it was removed from that context and requoted liberally for a different purpose.
Having said that, I think those are the two major areas of concern, and they are being reviewed as part of the process between the comptroller general and the auditor general. The question of the $47 million and the $86
F. Gingell: We all want to get the last punch in; the bell hasn't rung yet. I mean, we really didn't believe there were any questions to be asked. The government had stated with such finality that the 1995-96 budget was balanced and that we'd be in a surplus. They had run an election campaign on that basis; they'd promised it to the people of British Columbia. I suggest that it was a major plank in the platform, a major foundation stone in the wall, and it turned out over time that it wasn't true. It also turns out, I would suggest, that there was sufficient cause from the beginning that it wouldn't be true. I'm not talking just about forest revenues. The $133 million that comes about through corporate income tax and the holdback would have already converted the $16 million surplus into a $117 million deficit. The issue isn't just forestry revenues; it deals with other issues, too.
Having said that, I'd like to move on to the debt management plan. The debt management plan set out projected revenues and expenditures for five years. As we all remember, it was originally tabled as part of the budget reports -- an important part of this government's statement of their status of responsibility in their 1995 budget. When one looks at what was tabled in 1996, the expense side of the future projections have all been increased.
[10:15]
A year ago, in 1995, you said: "Next year's expenditures we anticipate being in the region of $20.210 billion." That was part of the foundation of your debt management plan. But in fact, this year's estimated expenditures are $20.572 billion, and that's after you've taken some portions out. Let's recognize that. I know it isn't a lot, but you've taken $45 million, or something, out of the motor vehicle branch and moved it into ICBC. If that hadn't been done, your expenditures for this year would be estimated to be in excess of $20.6 billion and would have been in the region of $400 million over what you planned on them being a year ago. So my question to the minister is: how comfortable do you feel in having to adjust these projections of future expenditures up by $400 million for the first year? How comfortable are you with your projections for the following three years, up to the year 2000?
Hon. A. Petter: The only prudent answer is that I won't be comfortable until we meet them. Many of these questions and the member's previous comments illustrate what this debate has been about for some time now: that hindsight is 20-20 but foresight isn't. We've set some milestones for the year 2000 in the debt management plan and some steps to achieve that milestone, and those steps get adjusted. I won't feel comfortable, particularly in light of last year's experience -- which I want to say to the member is a disappointment to me as a new Finance minister and to this government, that we did not achieve the surplus we had projected for last
[ Page 1132 ]
strong institutional resolve to exert the kind of discipline necessary to achieve those debt management milestones for the year 2000 and to ensure that the steps along the way are met as closely as possible or exceeded where possible.
F. Gingell: Let's recognize that we didn't do very well the first year. The simple equation in relation to the surplus or the deficit is that revenues minus expenditures equals a surplus if revenues exceed them and a deficit if they don't. I'm not trying to be funny, but if you are out over $400 million on the first year and that trend continues, your only option is to increase revenues. What other option is there?
This government has made all kinds of promises about freezing income tax rates. In fact, you've passed the bill to freeze all these things; you've gone outside the normal purview, in my opinion. It's very good for taxpayers, and, as a citizen, I appreciate the freeze of my residential hydro rates and my auto insurance premiums. But I don't see
Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I think the member knows, there are a number of components to the debt management plan. I think the one that is of greatest concern is the direct debt component. That is obviously directly influenced by our failure to achieve the surplus target we set last year. It is that vulnerability, that concern, that I think the member is addressing himself to, and I think there are a number of approaches that can and should be taken to deal with that. One is on the constraint side, in terms of expenditure, and that's what the program review is very much designed to achieve: looking at ways in which we can reduce the size and cost of government without impairing core services, certainly, but assisting us in achieving the targets that have been set on the direct debt side.
In addition, reducing the overall capital expenditure, which will reduce debt-servicing costs, will be a helpful contribution on the direct debt side and also in terms of total- and taxpayer-supported debt. In addition, as part of our program review, we have to look at valuable assets that may be held by government that could be better managed or held by the private sector, and that can also produce revenues that could assist in paying down the direct debt. That won't be an unfamiliar concept to the member, because I know that he has proposed such things in the past himself.
That is the range of options available. I guess I can just reiterate, member, what I said before. I'm not going to be satisfied, particularly in light of past experience, until we achieve these targets. But I am going to do everything in my power, and I've given those three potential strategies to achieve that. There is also, hopefully, the potential for revenue growth due to growth in the economy, which will produce additional revenues in the form of income tax, etc. But I think the focus has to be more on the constraint side, the reduction in overall capital expenditure, and on the potential that may exist for realizing some return from assets that perhaps more appropriately could be transferred to the private sector.
F. Gingell: It's interesting to hear the minister speak of privatization as a solution. It was something that the people that ran with you kept hitting us over the head with. I'd like to, if I may, get into Hansard a word of caution: the object of the exercise of privatization is not to raise money; that is the wrong way to think about this. The object of privatization is to set commercial operations free from government to allow them to expand, to create jobs in the economy and to do all the right kinds of things -- the kind of things that I personally
I think that if you were to make the right move with B.C. Rail, it would give an economic impetus over the next ten years to the northern interior of this province that would have great economic benefit to the citizens. You simply wouldn't sell B.C. Rail to Canadian Pacific or Canadian National. That would be nonsense; that would be strangling it. You have to ensure that you do these things for the right purposes. If some money happens to come out of them that you can apply to the payment of debt, that's wonderful, but let's not go rushing off in the wrong direction.
In the little report that the minister will find on page 9, under the heading "Fiscal Review and Outlook," which was part of Budget Report '96, you will see that there is an item called "Net Receipts (Disbursements) from Financing and Working Capital Transactions)." The original debt management plan had planned that $300 million would be freed up, if I can use that word, either from the collection of receivables or from slowing down your payments to your creditors. But in the normal operation of a business, you go through cycles where revenues are
I would be fairly certain that your cash management branch have a pretty good grasp of what to expect at some future date, depending on whether it's a Monday or a Thursday and on where it sits within the cycle. When this report, which, of course, had to balance with the final number, was prepared, what the debt was at the beginning of this year and the debt is
As it worked out on March 31, 1996, instead of having $300 million in additional funds available for the purpose of reducing borrowings or paying down debt, you had to come up with another $252 million. You actually had to go out and borrow $252 million. That's a swing of $550 million -- half a billion dollars. Could the minister please advise the committee roughly what that's made up of?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member will indulge me, staff are going to do a little research on this. I will undertake later this morning, as soon as the answer comes to light, to stand up on my feet and provide it to the member as best I can, if that's not too inconvenient to him.
F. Gingell: Well, just so that we're not held up, I'd like to suggest to you that the causes of this are $250 million in forest revenues that you would have presumed are receivables, based on the anticipated income of $1.6 billion for the year from forest revenues. There's $250 million there; there
[ Page 1133 ]
you've paid out to settle VI Gas and which was not included in your debt management plan. Now, all those add up to roughly $550 million. It will be interesting, afterwards, to see if I've missed something that goes in there.
What surprises me is that, for instance, the $125 million for VI Gas wasn't included in your original debt management plan. I appreciate that the payment didn't happen until December 1995, because the banks didn't originally go along with the proposal. But according to a report, the deal was negotiated and finalized on March 31, 1995. Now, someone didn't just wake up on the morning of March 31 and say, "Oh, let's see if we can go and settle that VI Gas issue," rush off, make a deal that would cost $125 million and say that this happened on March 31. That VI Gas negotiation was going on for some time. I'm wondering why, so close to the year-end, so close to the point at which this debt management plan was developed, someone in cash management or at Treasury Board didn't say: "Hang on a second. We're going to be making a $125 million payment on VI Gas." Or was that in fact taken into account? It appears that it wasn't, because of what this says. Could the minister comment on that issue?
[10:30]
Hon. A. Petter: I've provided the member with a letter to help him in this regard; I'm not sure that I can go much beyond that, but I'll try. As I understand it, the negotiations came to a point of completion in the period following the close of the previous fiscal year, but after the budgetary documents had already been prepared for the following fiscal year. So it was able to attribute them back, but they were not taken into account in the new budget documents. For that reason, they sort of fell into this period and therefore had to be accounted for in the 1995-96 budget outside of what was reported in that budget, because they had not been included in that budget due to the time lag and the fact that they were not completed until after those budgetary documents had been completed. That's my best understanding of it, and I think the letter probably more clearly states the exact dates around it.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: About March 31, yes.
F. Gingell: It brings to mind questions about who made the decision and what thought was given to include this $195 million in charges -- $125 million cash and $70 million in forgone future gas royalties, present-valued. Who made the decision to include it in the 1994-95 year, when clearly, all the i's hadn't been dotted and the t's hadn't been crossed until December, when the payment was made? Could the minister explain why it was put in 1994-95 rather than 1995-96, as one would imagine?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm told it has to do with good, conservative fiscal accounting. The event had occurred, the liability could be estimated, and therefore it was prudent to include it in the figures for the 1994-95 year.
F. Gingell: I take it from that that it had nothing whatsoever, under any circumstances, to do with trying to keep major costs out of the 1995-96 year, when you would, hopefully, for the first time -- you failed, of course -- have a balanced budget.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what yes and no to that question means. But my understanding is that attributing it to the appropriate year had to do with accounting practices.
F. Gingell: During the course of my budget speech, I referred to the claim made by the minister that the debt of the province had come down. That claim by the minister really bothers me, not for partisan reasons but for factual reasons. The only reason it came down was that you borrowed almost $900 million that you hadn't planned on borrowing in the previous year, so you reduced your requirement to borrow moneys in this current year. You took $305 million of GVRD sewage, water and drainage district debt and sold it to the Municipal Finance Authority, an arrangement that I agree with. I think that's excellent. MFA seem to be doing a first-class job, or they certainly say they are, and getting the GVRD in there adds to everything. It bothers me that you don't deal with the issue in the straightforward manner that I suggest you should. You're going to borrow $1.08 billion this year -- or you planned on doing it before your freeze -- for all the purposes that you have. Yet you claim that the debt is coming down, and it isn't true. You know it isn't true and we know it isn't true, but you put out papers that suggest it is.
I've had a discussion with the auditor general's office about that, and the only reason is
I think that the credibility of the province is at stake in these issues. The Ministry of Finance should be above reproach and above partisan politics, and we should tell it like it is. I'm wondering if, during the course of the minister's short term so far as Minister of Finance, he has given any thought to this issue or if his senior officials have expressed any questions or doubts about the way it was presented previously. Having now gotten a new deputy minister and having a new minister, if you were to re-present that particular schedule at this point, I wonder if you would show it differently.
Hon. A. Petter: Given that this is about the third time, I think, the member has raised this
Accountants have different ways of doing things, I guess. I cannot alter the fact that the money that was raised, which the member refers to, was raised in the previous year. I understand that the way in which the numbers are represented on page 57, which the member refers to, is the way that has been agreed to with the auditor general. It reflects the fact that under total provincial debt, the debt was incurred in the previous fiscal year, and that is the report. The member's complaint seems to be that that is then emphasized by the government in some way, and I'll consider that.
[ Page 1134 ]
If you go to the next line, which looks at taxpayer-supported debt, on which the debt management plan is based, you find that in fact there is an increase in taxpayer-supported debt because of the way that is accounted for. The member can probably explain that better than I can.
If you go through the document, I think it fairly represents what happened. The money was
F. Gingell: Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I have no
My objection is that it wasn't included in the line above as cash on hand, which it was, waiting for relending to Crown corporations, agencies, etc., which it was. Had that been done, the line above the last -- total provincial debt -- would not, for this year that we're in now, as forecast, have come down from $28.53 million to $28.431 million. That's where it shows up, and in your budget speech you removed your emphasis from taxpayer-supported debt, which does go up -- because this amount was not
The $305 million of GVRD debt is the same thing. When you produce estimates and you have moved some things
Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to arrange a briefing on this for the member, because the explanation I'm getting from staff seems at variance with his account of it. As I understand it, if you go to page 56 you'll see that the warehouse borrowing program is fully accounted for in terms of the two fiscal years, and those two numbers are fully accounted for in the total provincial debt line that the member seems upset about. They're not accounted for in the taxpayer-supported debt line. So, in fact, I fail to see where there's any misinterpretation. This is the method of accounting that the auditor general has approved of. One can look on page 56 and see very clearly the level of warehouse borrowing that was incurred in the '96 forecast and that was estimated for '97. Those numbers are fully reflected in the revised forecast in the budget estimates, in the total provincial debt line. They show a decline because of the fact that warehouse borrowing shows a decline.
It's all there, hon. member. I think what you don't like is what has been said about it; I don't like things that the hon. member says, because I'm sure he reads different lines to make his points than the government reads to make its point. But at the end of the day, based on the advice I'm receiving, I would argue that, in fact, this method of accounting reflects what occurs fairly transparently and accurately. Warehouse borrowing took place to the level that it did and is reported in '96 -- at least as a forecast in budget estimates for '97 -- and those numbers in turn are fully reflected in the revised forecast in the budget estimates in the total provincial debt line. Then we get down to what interpretation you place upon that, and the member doesn't like the interpretation the government has placed upon that. He prefers his own interpretation, and that's what politics is all about I guess: how one interprets these numbers.
[10:45]
F. Gingell: Fascinating, because there are two types of funds that the government has. You've got a whole bunch of funds around; a lot of those are sinking funds. These are moneys that you put on one side and that you invest so that the money is available to meet what in the business are called balloon payments: where a debt comes due all at a certain date, rather than having annual payments of principal. Very often the terms and conditions of the loan are that the lender requires the borrower to put money on one side every year. What do you do? You deduct it off. You wouldn't dream of showing the $10 billion gross when you've got $2 billion in sinking funds. You deduct it, and you show $8 billion. It's exactly the same type of situation, except that those funds are dedicated for the purpose of repaying that debt.
The purpose of the $888 million that was sitting there on March 31, 1996, was that it be available for lending to other institutions. What does the line above it say? It says:
Hon. A. Petter: I'll take a stab at this, but we're getting into pretty detailed territory. As I understand it -- and staff will yank me on the sleeve if I get it wrong -- if you look at the line on page 56 that I think the member is referring to -- "Less amounts held as investments-cash for relending by the consolidated revenue fund and Crown corporations and agencies" -- you'll see a very small figure next to that, 0.7, on the two years I think we have at issue here. As I understand it, that refers to situations such as the fact that the First Citizens Fund may, in fact, acquire a government bond of some kind. These are small amounts, and that's what's referenced to there.
The warehouse borrowing program is something quite different. It is an acquisition by government or a borrowing by government for future use, but not for relending, and therefore it is treated differently. So the relending component that the member is referring to, as I understand
[ Page 1135 ]
it backwards. The warehouse borrowing program is the amount that's held for relending. The 0.7 is in the nature of those First Citizens Fund - type bonds that are held and therefore accounted for differently. So I think that accounts for the distinction between the two here and for the difference in accounting.
F. Gingell: All I'll say to end this it is that I think the way you've treated it has distorted it. You shouldn't have included it in the line above. You had lots of room at the bottom of the page to make another line, which would have dealt with it.
There was a decision made that the forgoing of future royalties in relation to the gas that goes through the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, which have been forgone as part of the settlement so that the pipeline will not have to pay those royalties, has been valued at $75 million. My understanding is that these royalties apply to some years in the future, and I was wondering if you could tell the committee roughly what the gross values were that you've discounted, and for what years.
Hon. A. Petter: We don't have the answer at hand, but as before, I'd be happy to follow up with a second letter on VI Gas that would provide that information. Is getting that information in written form something the member would appreciate? Because if so, I will undertake to provide it.
F. Gingell: Just the numbers alone -- I don't need anything else around it.
It does lead us to the issue. I guess the government recognized that they had an alternative of not recording it and just treating it as a tax expenditure. There are all sorts of other tax expenditures which normally relate to perhaps more general groups of citizens rather than the forgoing of a particular royalty to a particular organization. I guess one of the alternatives was to show it as a tax expenditure, but the government decided not to do that: "Let's record it in the year 1994-95, even though we didn't settle it until '95-96. We've dealt with that issue." I don't have any problem with the way you're accounting for it; I think you've done the right thing. But it's completely contrary, in my mind, to the decision that was made by the government to account for the arrangement to sell the Columbia downstream benefits to Bonneville.
Now, I know one is the giving up of future revenue for the purpose of settling a current liability, and the other is giving up future revenue for the purpose of getting cash now. But the result is this: the way that you have treated it in this case, in the years the revenue is forgone, you will show that revenue, you will deduct it from an amount that you have set up in your accounts as a credit in the liability section, and you will amortize it over the period of time when those revenues would have come in. That's what you should have done with the Columbia downstream benefits. It's not exactly the same, because one is dealing with getting cash now for future revenues. Do you record it as income now, or when the income is being earned? You decided, "Oh no, we'll keep it nice and simple. We will charge it off. We will take it into income this year" -- another exercise, I would suggest, in: "Let's show a balanced budget for 1995-96 in case we have to call an election."
But you treated this transaction differently. If one just casts one's mind back to the Columbia River downstream benefits issue, the comptroller general didn't agree with you, the auditor general didn't agree with you. Neither of them would allow you to treat it in the way you wanted to. So you went out and got an opinion from this particular firm of chartered accountants that we have referred to before. Their opinion, if you read it, is full of qualifications, but you took the bits of it that you wanted to and decided that you would include it in last year's budget, even though it didn't come about. This transaction was happening at the same time. I wonder if you went and sought an opinion on the way this has been recorded.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there was no outside advice sought, if that was the question. I'm sure the member will correct me if I'm misunderstanding his point, but as I understand the analogy, it doesn't really hold. This is a conservative practice of taking the liabilities and aggregating them, giving them a net present liability, and ascribing the budget.
If the same thing had been done on the positive side with the Columbia River, I think the member would have screamed that much louder, because what would have been done was not the ascribing of a revenue that was expected in that year and didn't
What happened on the Columbia River was that there was to be a payment in the fiscal year; that payment did not materialize, and it caused some difficulties. The member has been critical of that, and I appreciate that. What's happening here is that the full liability is being calculated and ascribed against the books of the province at the time that it's ascertained. That is just a reflection of good conservative accounting practices.
F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest to the minister that you might think about it just a little differently. What that payment would have been, had it come through, was a payment for power that would be given up in these future years. You would reflect no income from it in the years 1998 to 2028, because, although the power was being delivered at that time or you were giving up your right to take the power back, income that you were going to earn in those years had already been taken in. You had taken it in when you got this prepayment. When I pay my $35 or $40, or whatever it is, for my five-year driver's licence, you don't record all that as income just because it's on a cash basis. It's the accounting policy of this government, it's in your Treasury Board documents, that you are on an accrual basis. If I give you $40, or whatever it is, for my driver's licence -- now I probably have to give it to ICBC -- in the old days you took it in at $8 a year, or whatever the amount was. I would suggest to you that the transaction that was contemplated before was exactly the same.
Moving on to the comptroller general's department, if I may deal with it at this moment, the activity of the internal audit department of the office of the comptroller general is anticipated to be somewhat similar this year to what it has been in past years. But you intend to recover substantially greater sums from billing-out. Could the minister advise the committee if that is the result of a definite decision to charge more for their services or to be more careful about billing-out, or of a change in the type of work that they anticipate doing in this next year?
[ Page 1136 ]
[11:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that it's a reflection of another ministry being added on an MOU: the Ministry of Social Services. There is also more fee-for-service work being done in respect to Crown corporations.
F. Gingell: We and other members of the opposition seek some results of the internal audits through freedom of information. There should be some process whereby the results of the audits that are done in this division don't get widely publicized or widely spread but whereby it does not require us to go through a freedom-of-information exercise to get them. It seems to me that there are various committees of the Legislature which should be aware of many of the issues dealt with by this very competent group of people. If the government lives up to its promise to make the committees more
Hon. A. Petter: The tension here, as I understand it, is that these audits are done for management, to try to promote better management. The danger is that if such audits become too widely circulated, they can become a source of outside pressure for punitive action and the like. That can undermine good management and corrective action.
If the member is making the point that the circle should be cast a bit more broadly, or perhaps that the process for sharing the information should be regularized rather than having to use FOI -- I think that is his point -- particularly in respect of the Public Accounts Committee or the Crown Corporations Committee, that's certainly a matter I'm prepared to sit down and discuss with him, to see if we can provide that information in a way that reflects the concern, which I'm sure he shares, that this information not be circulated in a way that undermines the ability to utilize it to improve and promote good management, but that facilitates that goal.
F. Gingell: Yes, I would underline that. We have to do it in a manner that's focused on good governance and on improving things. As always, the opposition is willing and happy to cooperate with the government on those issues. We sometimes disagree, of course, about what's a good-governance issue and what's partisan politics, and the way you show things.
We have had discussions about the corporate accounting system every year. It has changed its name from GASSP to CAS; I presume it's still called CAS. It's in a special account. I know that within it there is an intention to have a major capital expenditure this year; some $4.5 million is planned. The increase from last year to this year, I think, is a major capital expenditure. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee exactly what that is.
Hon. A. Petter: The allowance that was referred to for asset acquisition was for the acquisition of software and the installation of that software within the accounting system. However, I want to put the member on notice that that estimate was included in anticipation that the system would be fully operational in 1996-97. It appears that it may not be achievable -- likely not achievable fully -- in 1996-97, and therefore that full cost is unlikely to be incurred in 1996-97. A lesser amount, as I understand it, is likely to be incurred in 1996-97.
F. Gingell: The auditor general has been quite critical -- "questioning" is maybe a better word -- about where we are, where we've got to, the value of what's happened to this point. I was wondering if the minister could give us an update on CAS as it's seen from the position of the office of the comptroller general, who is responsible for this program.
Hon. A. Petter: This is obviously a complex area and one that's new to me. The best thing may be to offer the member a briefing on the status of CAS. As I understand it, some of the slowdown reflects an attempt to respond to some of the auditor general's concerns, but there are other issues involved in this that I think could be better communicated to the member through a direct briefing by staff. I'd be happy to facilitate that, rather than spend the time of this House trying to get each piece of information integrated into a succinct and accurate answer.
F. Gingell: I think that it has been worthwhile for us to discuss this area during estimates, even though it's been for relatively short little bits, because it does give us a history on the record of where we're going. This is a really major, major exercise, and I wonder, on occasion, whether the project has the enthusiasm, determination and grit that's needed to get the damned thing done. It's been going on for a long, long time.
Last year we had a discussion about the number of ministries that were on line. I was wondering if the minister does have available the number of ministries that are on line now and the number that are yet to go on line. It's a little difficult to keep track of these things as you continually change ministries, change the responsibilities of ministries and move programs from ministry to ministry. Perhaps you can give us an update on where we currently stand.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that two or three ministries are on line.
F. Gingell: Have any new ministries come on from last year? How many ministries do you anticipate getting on this year?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the three -- previously four --
F. Gingell: This $4.5 million, or thereabouts, expenditure on a software package for
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sending over to the member an update on the corporate accounting system which hopefully will assist in answering some of the questions that I can't. But
[ Page 1137 ]
the answer as I understand it is that in the original plan, yes, this expenditure would have been anticipated in this fiscal year.
F. Gingell: I would have to go back. I must admit, from memory, I don't immediately have recall. My impression from earlier discussions was that we were sort of anticipating a $5-million-to-$6-million-a-year disbursement until the project was completed, and this takes us up to $13 million. But I thank the minister for this. I will try and make it lunchtime reading, and maybe it will answer any further questions I have on that subject.
[11:15]
Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, there is now included in his ministry a cost category called the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. I was wondering if perhaps, first, you could give me a brief broad-brush description of what it actually does. I have read the stuff that is in here: "coordination of strategic policy initiatives and public consultation activities for the Premier and cabinet; coordination and management of key corporate initiatives; and planning, coordination and implementation of communications programs and policies." That sounds wonderful and fine, but I really don't understand what they do. I was wondering if you could tell us what they do.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. It will be broad-brush, and I'll get staff here to give me more support in providing any detailed responses beyond that. As I understand it, this is an attempt to consolidate in a more efficient form functions that were previously done by, I think, three agencies: planning board secretariat; PIC, the public information coordination office, I think; and government communications. The idea is that within this single
This is the agency that will assist in terms of corporate planning, government planning, program planning for government as a whole -- assistance to cabinet and cabinet committees for planning support, government communications coordination, which was previously done by government communications out of this same operation, and issues-management activities relating to cabinet and government decisions. So what was previously done by three different agencies is being integrated into a single agency. The idea here is to provide the same services to cabinet and government, but in a more efficient and integrated fashion.
F. Gingell: The date is July 30, so we've gone through April, May and June. Can the minister advise what projects this secretariat has been working on for the first three months of the year, so that we get some idea of what it actually does?
Hon. A. Petter: I'll give some examples which I think will give the range without disclosing anything that I can't -- cabinet secrets, for example. This agency would do things such as ensuring the simple information flow of cabinet documents to cabinet -- ensuring that they're being presented in an orderly fashion and in a way that goes through all the necessary screens, so that good information is provided to cabinet for decisions that have to be made by cabinet. In addition, the agency, in its planning function, would be involved in the establishment and implementation of the capital review that's being undertaken and in the program review that's being undertaken, in coordination with the Ministry of Finance. Also, the secretariat would provide support to cabinet in developing strategic priorities for government over the course of this term of office. This is an agency that would assist in providing cabinet with options, strategic support and direction, so that decisions can be made about what strategic priorities should be pursued and in what time frame, etc.
F. Gingell: The Ministry of Finance does quite a bit of advertising. You know the usual stuff: debt up, jobs down, budget unbalanced -- the sort of messages that you continually get out. Are those costs all accounted for? Or whereabouts within your ministry budget are the costs for that advertising placed?
Hon. A. Petter: In the example the member gives, the savings bond example, that would not show up as an expense of the vote pertaining to cabinet policy and communications. That would show up elsewhere in the Ministry of Finance, in the appropriate program area. I think, in the case of savings bonds, it's incorporated within the cost of the program. The communications on the sale of those bonds, and the associated advertising, are some of the program costs that are accounted for in the cost of delivering the savings bond issue, in the ministry's budget. In other words, it does not get accounted separately to this communications vote.
F. Gingell: During the months of March, April and May, there was substantial advertising done by the government with government logos on it -- all of that -- about financial issues. Can you tell me where those costs are accounted for within your vote?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I want to correct the member. There was no advertising done by government in the month of May, because that was the election period, and advertising ceased. As I understand the member's question, it has to do with advertising by the Ministry of Finance or through communications activity. I'm advised that the only activity, particularly the Finance ministry's as distinct from government communications writ large or other ministries, would have been some prebudget householders or leaflets that were circulated, I understand. Those would have shown up in expenditures out of STOB 40 within the ministry.
F. Gingell: Sorry, I don'
Hon. A. Petter: Well, they would have shown up as communications items within the ministry's communications budget.
F. Gingell: I take it that one would have to look for communications and advertising expenditures through a whole series of subsections of vote 30.
Hon. A. Petter: I want to correct this, because I have some better information now.
Apparently, there was a contribution toward the printing and distribution costs of the Ministry of Finance prebudget householder mailer from the government communications office, which would indeed have been out of the cabinet policy and communications envelope as opposed to that of the Ministry of Finance. That is not what I said earlier. I just want to make sure that I correct the record in that regard.
F. Gingell: Can the minister advise the committee roughly how much money was spent in the month
[ Page 1138 ]
there was no advertising during May, because the election was on, how much money was spent in the month of April, and how much money is budgeted for the whole year?
Hon. A. Petter: In terms of the Ministry of Finance, as distinct from the CPCS, I'll have to get the information for the member and get back to him. In terms of CPCS, as I understand it, there was essentially about $30,000 worth of contracts entered into in the months from January to April. In addition, there was this prebudget communication in April, when the government communications office contributed about $240,000 towards the printing and distribution costs of a mailer. What the Ministry of Finance's contribution was towards that and what that represented in terms of a share of the ministry's annual budget, I think, is the member's question. I'll have to get the information, as I don't have it to hand.
F. Gingell: I went into my new office and found a book there called an MLA briefing book. It contained different sheets for each constituency, saying what programs were expected, and there were speech notes and all kinds of things. But I had better be careful. Hon. Chair, I am not being as truthful as I should be. There weren't sheets in there for every constituency; there were only sheets in there for NDP constituencies. I've never seen one of these books before, and I've been in this Legislature for five years.
It seems to me that the Ministry of Finance has been preparing a briefing book that contains speech modules and all sorts of information about capital projects, etc., within their constituencies. That's only for half the world. It brought back into my mind the rallying cry of this government during the election: "Whose side are you on?" It indicated that you're only on the side of those constituencies that return government members; you're not going to put information in the hands of opposition members that allows them to do their job properly and to have information available. So question No. 1: was the minister aware that this was the practice within the ministry before he became minister?
[11:30]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not clear on what the binder is the member is referring to. But speaking from my own knowledge as an MLA, it could well be one of the binders prepared by the NDP caucus that often integrate material that is obtained from various ministries, as I'm sure there are binders prepared for the Liberal caucus which integrate material that is obtained from the various ministries. I'm certainly aware that that is done on behalf of MLAs by caucus communications. At times, information is generated and shared on a constituency basis, but I'm not particularly familiar with
F. Gingell: I will be happy to make the briefing book available to you. I will do that with due dispatch. I hope this sets an example for the speed at which we would like some responses to the briefings that went on in relation to forest revenues that we spent so much time discussing yesterday.
The next item that I'd like to discuss -- and I think we have time to deal with this before we break -- is the special operating agencies. Now, you have created four, as I understand: tourism, registries and vital statistics. That's three. Why did I think there were four? Oh, I included motor vehicles, but I guess they aren't. Yes, motor vehicles has been moved out. So there are registries, tourism and vital statistics. A special operating agency, in my parlance, is a government program or a government department where the umbilical cord has been cut, and the chief executive officer of this organization is given the freedom to operate in the most effective and efficient manner that he or she can. Would the minister please advise the committee, in general terms, of the contractual arrangement or the deal between the chief executive officer and the ministry in the one that applies to this ministry, that of registries?
Hon. A. Petter: The member, I suspect, is being overly modest, in that he is pretty familiar with this stuff. I know that through Public Accounts he's well aware of the initiative of the deputy ministers and the auditor general to try to increase accountability and efficiency. This, of course, is one outcome of that. He could probably brief me on it as well as I can brief him.
Having said that, each agency operates somewhat differently based upon its business plan and on the negotiated performance measures for success and accountability that it reaches with government. There are four agencies right now, and I think the member named them: vital statistics, corporate and personal property registry, Tourism B.C. and the Royal British Columbia Museum.
The idea is that from government's point of view, what we seek from a special operating agency are some targets to improve performance measures -- they have to be measurable targets, something I know the member believes in, because we've talked about it -- a set of key performance measures and indicators that can therefore be monitored; a clear sense of the objectives and the mission of the agency, as well as organizational and client requirements; a clear statement of authorities, including legislative authorities and lines of accountability; full cost-accounting, including recognition of overheads; and good financial and operating planning and reporting, involving business plans, annual reports, performance reviews, etc. So those are the goals from government's point of view.
Some examples of negotiated performance measures for success and accountability that are being applied in the case of operating agencies are, on the input side, identified expenditure savings; identified administrative costs; FTEs -- although the member and I have talked about whether that is a legitimate goal, and it may be in some cases and not in others. Outputs -- volume increases, inquiry increases and revenue increases are all potential outputs, depending on the nature of the agency and the services it provides and its business plans, which are being measured and looked to.
In terms of efficiency measures and goals, there are unit costs; productivity, in terms of service volume; FTEs; percentage cost recovery; and total revenue expenditures. Benchmarks against similar programs in other jurisdictions are sometimes used as a measure. Service quality: I won't go through all the indicators, but things like customer
Here's something -- I don't know what it means, but I'll read it because it fascinates me. "Avoid the silo effect," it says here, hon. members. I'll find out what that is. That's listed as one of the strategic outcomes.
[ Page 1139 ]
I think it's a matter of negotiating with each operating agency, based on its mandate and the goals government has for it -- a set of clearly defined objectives that are measurable, and then using some of these indicators to establish the criteria against which those goals and objectives are then measured.
F. Gingell: I am sure the minister realizes that the estimates are also an opportunity for us in opposition to try to get you to talk about things that we support, in the hope that your members are listening and that support for these programs becomes widespread.
At the moment, I wouldn't imagine that the special operating agency is required by legislation -- or maybe it is -- to make an annual report that will identify the measures, criteria and benchmarks that you and the CEO have agreed upon to be measured, and what the targets are. Can the minister advise the committee how you intend that this would be followed through into the reporting process, not only to the ministry but, more importantly, through the ministry to the Legislature?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the expectation is that there will be a reporting-out of the performance of these agencies in the estimates process. But I think the member raises a good point. I'm not sure how far it has been pursued previously, but let me just think out loud a little bit -- always a dangerous thing for a new minister to do.
I think the member earlier made the point that it would be useful for audit information to be made available in the public accounts to measure how the various agencies are doing. Reading into the member's line of inquiry here, what he's no doubt saying is that if there is to be accountability, it isn't enough for that information to find its way to Treasury Board and maybe be reported out after the fact of the public accounts; it would be useful if there were some reporting structure that involved the Public Accounts Committee and, through the Public Accounts Committee, the Legislature. Given the member's seminal role in pushing some of these initiatives forward, and also just in terms of good public policy, that strikes me as a sensible line of thought.
I just don't know how much has been done in terms of there being an expectation around reports. The business plans are certainly available and can be provided to Public Accounts, but I guess the measurement of those business plans is the next step. What I would suggest to the member is just as I said earlier: I'm prepared to sit down with him and talk about how Public Accounts can get some of the audit information that would enable them to review performance of various agencies that are audited. This strikes me as an analogous situation, and perhaps we can work together in finding an appropriate way that doesn't raise partisan concerns but that promotes good public policy in this context as well.
F. Gingell: I would appreciate receiving a copy of the business plan. Perhaps that could be noted.
As much as I would like to send everything to the Public Accounts Committee, I think we have to think about and recognize what the role of the Public Accounts Committee is and how that differs from other committees. I'd like to suggest to the minister that perhaps we should think about this type of report going to a sectoral committee. I mean, I'd love to deal with it in the Public Accounts, but I don't really think it fits the box. We have to
Hon. A. Petter: Two points. I just got a little bit of better information: in fact, there is an expectation of annual reports being provided by the SOAs to Treasury Board. So that provides an opportunity for us to discuss how that information could be shared.
I think the suggestion the member just made relates directly to some of the recommendations the Public Accounts Committee has made concerning how we might reform the processes around the Legislature to better focus in on various areas of government -- by revising the estimates process and focusing on various agencies. I've talked to the member about that, and I'm certainly prepared to discuss that further as well. I think it's going to require a commitment beyond him and me to resolve it, but I certainly appreciate the work that the Public Accounts Committee produced in a very multipartisan or bipartisan way on this issue. I think it's worth pursuing, and I think we could end up with a much better set of forums in which to examine some of these issues, as a result of the member's recommendations.
F. Gingell: Without question, programs and projects of this type will require champions. I have become convinced, though, over the past year that Public Accounts has been dealing with it, that it has champions within the bureaucracy. And that's the first key. That is well looked after. What it now needs is champions within this Legislature, to give them the support. I happily volunteer my services to your team, or if you want to make me the team leader, I'll accept
Interjection.
F. Gingell: The government has developed four special operating agencies: registries comes under your ministry; vital statistics -- does that come under you or the Attorney General?
[11:45]
Hon. A. Petter: We believe that it falls under Health.
F. Gingell: The museum -- is that still under Small Business, or does it come into the protocol group that has come into the Ministry of Finance?
Hon. A. Petter: No. I believe it remains with Small Business.
F. Gingell: And clearly Tourism does, too. Is it the intent of the minister, in this coming year, to think about other special operating agencies that could be set up? Or are you going to let registries run for a year or a year and a half, see how they work out, and smooth out the bugs before you move on into new, uncharted waters?
Hon. A. Petter: No, it's the intention to continue to find opportunities for creating special operating agencies, so we can have a broader set of examples and opportunities. I can give the member some of the agencies that are being contemplated. I'm not going to commit that they will actually proceed, but it will give him a sense of what's being considered. The B.C. Trade and Investment Office, the investment branch
[ Page 1140 ]
of the provincial treasury, crop insurance, forest protection and the Centre for Disease Control are all agencies which have expressed an interest and are being contemplated. There may well be others that have expressed an interest but aren't yet being contemplated. There seems to be a lot of interest in SOAs amongst government -- at least, that's what my sense is, as a new minister. Those are some that I know are under fairly active consideration as possible special operating agencies.
F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest to the minister that perhaps B.C. Trade, when it was a Crown corporation, was in fact a special operating agency of a type. It had a lot more freedom and had, I would imagine, a more clear set of defined goals and targets. Yet you wound it up and brought it back into the ministry. Was creating a special operating agency within the ministry something that was planned at that time, or is this an afterthought to the dissolution of B.C. Trade?
Hon. A. Petter: If the member wants to pursue in more detail the whole relationship around B.C. Trade, then the Minister of Employment and Investment, during his estimates, can pursue that. My understanding, in general terms, is that government, as part of its efforts to downsize and save costs, took the steps to deal with the previous B.C. Trade office and Crown corporation. The creation of a special operating agency will allow those functions to be performed in a less costly way but with still a greater degree of autonomy and flexibility than would have otherwise been the case if it had simply been integrated into the ministry without the creation of an SOA. The SOA provides some flexibility that, in this case, has facilitated the integration of those functions into a ministry while still preserving a sufficient degree of independence and autonomy to meet the objectives of the agency.
F. Gingell: This is changing the subject somewhat. I hope it's not going to cause you any problems. As one looks at the revenues of the government as they're budgeted and projected for this coming year, the majority of which are your ministry's responsibility to collect and account for, you will note that under the heading of "Miscellaneous" there is an item called "Other Miscellaneous." You had originally estimated that, in 1995-96, this would produce some $87 million of revenue for the government. Your revised forecast for the year-end, which we know to be accurate, of course, without question, is $124.5 million, and for 1996-97 you're projecting that it's going to be $170.5 million. Knowing that you've passed this act that restricts increases in certain taxes, etc., I wonder if the minister -- before we break for lunch -- has the information available that will allow him to advise the committee what caused it be some $37.5 million over budget last year and why he expects it to be an additional $45.5 million in this current year.
Hon. A. Petter: I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is I don't have the answer to that question, but I will undertake to get it for the member. Apparently, there is a very specific and compelling answer, and staff will get it.
The good news is I have the answer to the question that the member asked an hour or so ago that I undertook to get the answer for then -- just to show that I'm at least trying to keep up with him, if only a few steps behind. That had to do with the $552 million figure. I'm informed that the answer will not be that different from the speculation of the member, but it's due to the following: $120 million for VI Gas; $163 million in revenue expected from the federal government from the Canada Assistance Plan -- that's the $47 million; from the countervail rebates that were anticipated, $86 million; for maintenance of children and education related to aboriginal peoples, $30 million; and $269 million for additional cash requirements for higher accounts receivable and lower accounts payable. I think if you add that all up -- I hope this is right; I'm doing it quickly -- it comes to $552 million. I'll do the same -- hopefully, not the same answer -- in terms of getting the information about the member's last question during this afternoon's estimates debate, if I can do so.
F. Gingell: The only issue that has come up that we weren't aware of before is $30 million for payments from the federal government, in relation to the maintenance and support of aboriginal children. Is there any dispute over this amount, or is it purely and simply a timing issue?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there is a disagreement or dispute, and that's why the figure appears as it does. It's always a dispute, particularly with the federal government. As I understand it, this has to do with the numbers and the ability to demonstrate that the children who are being counted are appropriately counted as a federal expenditure, as opposed to a provincial one, in terms of on-reserve or off-reserve considerations. There are negotiations and discussions going on to try to resolve that outstanding issue in respect of the $30 million.
F. Gingell: I will, then, just add this $30 million to my list of items that put your budget at risk.
Seeing the hour and my notes, this would be a convenient time for the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I so move.
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. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The committee met at 10:11 a.m.
On vote 53: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
[ Page 1141 ]
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
B. Barisoff: Hon. minister, I hope that we're as productive and maybe more productive than we were last night. I'm sure we've covered everybody that works in the ministry, and maybe a few more.
I have this morning -- I don't know if we've touched on these -- some questions that somebody brought from Surrey. The widening of Highway 10 between 166th Street and Highway 15, required because of safety concerns, narrow shoulders and large ditches, to relieve congestion for traffic travelling between the Trans-Canada Highway and Vancouver Island: is there any comment on that?
Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the projects that's caught in the freeze, so it will be reviewed along with everything else.
B. Barisoff: The traffic signal and channelization at the Highway 10 and 168th Street intersection -- safety concerns are paramount, and improved access to the Cloverdale fairgrounds.
Hon. L. Boone: The traffic signal is going ahead this year.
B. Barisoff: The widening of the Fraser Highway at 152nd Street -- apparently this is one of highest accident locations in the province.
Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the ones that's under review as well.
B. Barisoff: Another thing we're concerned about is whether there is a possibility of a new federal-provincial infrastructure program. Is there anything new on that for that particular area?
Hon. L. Boone: We have nothing agreed to on a new federal-provincial infrastructure program.
B. Barisoff: The Nordel Way extension.
Hon. L. Boone: The member for Delta North asked about that. At the time, we advised him it was under review.
B. Barisoff: The South Surrey interchange, and I'll get the other one here, too -- the widening of Scott Road from 96th Avenue to Grace Road.
[10:15]
Hon. L. Boone: The South Surrey interchange was asked about last night. We're into discussions with the municipality on that whole issue.
B. Barisoff: The high-accident-frequency intersections throughout Surrey are a concern to the people of that area. I don't know how many there are, but what's happening there?
Hon. L. Boone: We are working with the municipality, as we do with all municipalities. We have a good working relationship with the municipality there, and we're considering some of the intersections -- some of the areas that are high-accident areas -- and looking at possibilities of funding some of those in cooperation with ICBC and Road Sense.
B. Barisoff: On trucks and commercial vehicles bypassing the weigh scale on Highway 1, by 96th Avenue.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm sorry -- what is the question?
B. Barisoff: I guess our concern is about what's taking place with the trucks bypassing the weigh scale on Highway 1, from what I can gather. They're going by 96th Avenue; I guess they must be bypassing the scale at that point. Is there something being done?
Hon. L. Boone: Human nature being what it is, I guess, there are always people who will try to find ways around it and to avoid checkpoints. It's true that they may do so to try to avoid those areas there. We do send out enforcement officers to do roadside checks and what have you to try to catch those people, but obviously we can't have people sitting there all the time.
B. Barisoff: Coming from the trucking
What is the status of the 72nd Avenue truck ban in Delta?
Hon. L. Boone: We had a five-year ban. It was an agreement with the municipality of Delta, to allow them to develop some alternatives around 72nd Avenue. That five years is up, and we will have to go back to them to see what they have done and how we can deal with the situation there.
B. Barisoff: Efficient, exclusive priority for commercial vehicles crossing the U.S. border on Highway 15.
Hon. L. Boone: What is the question?
B. Barisoff: I guess it's whether that's in effect or what's happening there with them being allowed to have that. Who has the responsibility for commercial vehicles on Highway 15, where they cross the U.S. border?
Hon. L. Boone: I think you should talk to the federal government with regard to that. What happens at the border crossing is not in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Highways.
B. Barisoff: I think what my colleague is probably referring
Hon. L. Boone: Perhaps if you could find out the specific request and write to us, then we can get back to whoever it is that has that concern, as to what the specific request is.
B. Barisoff: I'll do that. Thanks very much.
Moving on to some short-term urgent needs: the King George Highway-92nd Avenue traffic signal and the King George Highway-20th Avenue traffic signal.
Hon. L. Boone: I guess I need a little more information. You talk about it being urgent, but what is it you would like to have done there? What is being requested? Then I might be able to respond to the question a bit more. I'm not quite sure what your question is about.
B. Barisoff: It sounds to me like there aren't traffic signals in these two locations, the way I read what's taking place. It
[ Page 1142 ]
says "urgent needs" for traffic signals at those two particular intersections: King George Highway and 92nd Avenue, and King George Highway and 20th Avenue. I would assume that there are no traffic signals there, and that's why there would be an urgent need to look at it.
Hon. L. Boone: We're really not too aware of the exact concerns there. But, again, if you would put the exact request down in writing, we would respond to that.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the concern about whether there's a five-year or a ten-year long-term transportation plan affecting Surrey, is there anything in place of that nature?
Hon. L. Boone: It's in the south coast transportation plan we've been discussing. That is currently being reviewed and will be out shortly.
B. Barisoff: Some of these you might have dealt with yesterday. I think we've dealt with Highway 10 east-west, the SFPR corridor, the Fraser Highway, Highway 15 and Highway 10. If there is any one of those we haven't dealt with, maybe we could touch base on it.
Hon. L. Boone: We dealt with most of those yesterday. If you look through the Blues, you'll find those responses.
B. Barisoff: I figured that during the evening we probably touched base on most of them. One of the other ones they are concerned about is the beautification of the King George Highway through Surrey city centre.
Hon. L. Boone: Those things now fall on the municipality's shoulders. We did have a beautification program, but we no longer do.
B. Barisoff: Seeing that everybody else gets the opportunity to dip into their ridings, one of my major concerns in the South Okanagan is -- as I mentioned before, being a volunteer fireman and going to this corner -- the rock bluff at Vaseux Lake, which has claimed the lives of many people. For me, it's probably closer to home, through being there in a rescue vehicle on a number of occasions. I feel that somewhere down the line -- I know the ministry has put up flashing lights, which have helped considerably -- something should be done with this corner. In the overall scheme of things, it's probably one of the worst corners I can think of in existence in the province, considering the traffic flow through the Okanagan. I'm sure the ministry knows which corner I am talking about.
Hon. L. Boone: As the member can realize, it would be very expensive to take out that rock bluff. We are doing what we can to identify that area, and to make it safer through signage and through lights, and we'll continue to do so. Eventually, one would hope we could remove that area to make the highway through there larger. But that's a very expensive thing to do, and it would not be within the next few years. If you have any suggestions as to what should be done to make that place safer, then we'd certainly like to hear from you on that.
B. Barisoff: As a member of that riding and a member of that community, I do appreciate what the ministry has done with the flashing lights. I don't know how much more can be done, short of starting to blast that part of the bluff off. As I said before, I think if you've ever been in the situation I've been in, where you've had to attend many
The incident in point happens to be that the last accident that took a life was two minutes after the first vehicle that ended up following the car that crashed into a semi-trailer truck that was going around there. It happened to be one
I just want to move on to a few other things. One is that the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway were instituted to cover the acceleration costs when they built the highway -- basically, to get it done for Expo at that time. Those tolls were put on there to make sure that they covered that cost. I was just wondering what the status is: how much of that money has been recovered? And has it been recovered to the point of paying that cost off?
Hon. L. Boone: It is an item that just goes into consolidated revenue. It's not being used to pay off any of those accelerated costs, and revenue from this year is anticipated at $40 million.
B. Barisoff: I could read the amount of money that was being recovered from the tolls. My point is whether -- because of the fact that the tolls were put on there for a reason -- that money has since been paid off and what status
Hon. L. Boone: I think what the member is sort of alluding to is that perhaps we should be taking those tolls off. But there are no plans to take those tolls off the Coquihalla right now.
B. Barisoff: There's no doubt that that is what I was alluding to. But I know that revenue is scarce; I think that if that's the case, maybe there are places in the province where tolls should be put on. Maybe more tolls should be put on when we're building highways, to make sure that they are paid for by those who are using them.
Another question I have is about the status of what's taking place with that section of road just north of Vernon that's sinking. I'm sure that still comes under the Ministry of Highways.
[10:30]
Hon. L. Boone: You'll be happy to know that the sinking has stopped and that it's stabilizing, just as the road going down from my university has stopped and is stabilizing now. That is the last report we had, as of last week.
B. Barisoff: That's good to hear, because I know the people in the North Okanagan were feeling very concerned that it might fall away into the slough again, as it seemed to be going in that direction.
I have some comments on some estimates. I notice that in fines and revenues, the difference in actuals from '95-96 to the
[ Page 1143 ]
estimates for '96-97 has doubled. Is it because of the new photo radar that we figure we're going to get double the revenues in fines and penalties?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you're correct. The big one was photo radar. There was a small increase, I think, on January 1, for N licences; they went from $15 to $18. That's already in effect, but the major
B. Barisoff: I notice, though, farther up on the revenue side that motor vehicle and licensing permits already show an increase of $16 million. Going backwards, it must actually be coming from somewhere else, because we're already picking up that kind of money. I'm just wondering what kind of increases there have been and where those increases might be taking effect in licences. Are we going to pay more for permits, for motor vehicle licences, or is it just because there are more vehicles? What's the status on that?
Hon. L. Boone: There's been no approved increase in permits. It's strictly a volume increase. As you know, our population is increasing and as the population increases so does the volume of business that Motor Vehicles does.
B. Barisoff: I know that we've talked about this quite a bit during the last three days or so: the Osoyoos intersection. I know that you told me you would give me a full accounting, from one end to the other. I was just hoping that I could get an accounting for the land acquisition that took place in that area and for the status on the set of commercial vehicle scales they were supposed to put in in that location. What is the status of that?
Hon. L. Boone: We have prepared the site, but we have no plans to put in the scales at this time. You wanted more information included in something that we promised you a briefing note on. We will take your request and include it in your original one.
B. Barisoff: In that, could you also give me what the original cost estimates of that project were?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister, starting out with the observation that it seems to me there is more and more damage being caused to our roads by heavy trucks. If I look at local roads through Abbotsford -- McCallum Road, for example -- for which responsibility was turned over to the city, the city engineers have complained bitterly about the shape of that road. I'm noticing more and more -- even on roads like Highway 1 or Highway 99 -- that there seem to be more and more sections that are suffering from heavy trucks and depressions in the pavement which follow the tracks of those trucks. First of all, what is the ministry's assessment of that problem across the province?
Hon. L. Boone: I agree. My roads are chewed up, as well, because of the trucks. We are trying to deal with those issues at the weigh scales through stricter enforcement. We are looking at ways and means of trying to see if we can improve the pavement, so that it's a better quality and it withstands the weight. I will be asking the ministry to review some of the areas with regard to the weight of the logging trucks, because they are allowed to have a heavier weight than other vehicles on the road. We will be reviewing that and seeing if there is justification for them to have a higher weight level than other vehicles.
J. van Dongen: Generally speaking, is it the ministry's assessment that it's a problem of people running over the legal limit or is it a problem with the current allowable limits for GVWs?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's a combination of both. We are concerned about the weight levels. As I mentioned, you do have logging trucks that are legally able to have a heavier weight than others. Although your colleague to your right denies that truckers would ever try to go over the legal limit, there are a few that do, and we do try to catch them. But it's a combination of all those things, plus the fact that we have more trucks on the road.
It might help a bit if some of that traffic went by rail; that would help our highways considerably. In some areas, constituents are writing me, trying to encourage people to use the rail lines more. But it's a combination of all of those things which really makes it tough on our roads. If you get up into the riding of your colleague to the left of
J. van Dongen: First of all, I want to say that I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining; I'm really concerned about the cost to the taxpayer. I'm not an expert on roads, but when I see the condition and the extent of it over the number of roads and the number of areas that are affected, it strikes me that we're mounting up a very major bill. I'm not sure that the revenues from the taxes that the trucking industry pays are covering that cost. That's one concern that maybe the minister could comment on. Is there any specific assessment within the ministry of the cost of this kind of damage to roads, specifically by trucks?
Hon. L. Boone: A report was done on that about three years ago. We'll be happy to get that information to you. We don't have those figures here right now.
I guess one always has to look at weighting. As you know, some of the companies out there would be extremely unhappy if their weights were suddenly reduced and they were forced into having to put more trucks on the road. Their competitive level -- we always hear about their competitiveness -- would decrease. The drivers would be happy, because there would be more work out there for them. But we have to weigh all of those things to figure out what is in the best public interest and what we can afford, with regard to our economy.
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister's comments, I agree that competitive issues are always a concern, but that can work both ways. We are seeing, particularly in the agricultural processing and wholesaling sector, that the relatively low cost of trucking goods is giving a competitive advantage to Alberta processors over B.C. processors. I don't think there's any doubt -- and any trucker would agree -- that
[ Page 1144 ]
trucking is already underpriced. If that is being subsidized, in addition to that, by the taxpayer, then I think we're hurting our own industry. We are assuming a very large cost that's justifying some of the plant rationalizations that are hurting some of our own people.
The other concern that I have about this type of impact on our roads is that of safety, because of these depressions in the pavement. They fill up with water when it's raining, and that can be a very, very serious situation. I'm wondering if there are any statistics being maintained within the ministry with respect to those kinds of safety issues and this particular problem.
Hon. L. Boone: We get some information through the police when they review an accident, and if they indicate that road conditions are involved, then those statistics are kept by the ministry. But we've no indication that it's a major cause of accidents.
I want to comment just a little bit more. You're talking about competitiveness. I think we have to be very careful. Sometimes we find something that may look logical. I have found in the ten years since I was elected, even as an opposition member, that often something that I thought made very good sense on paper and that might look very
I've had no indication that the trucking industry is underpriced in the province. In fact, truckers have come to me saying that they feel they are almost having a difficult time being competitive with the rail lines. Those are the complaints that I've had from them.
[10:45]
We will look at the whole idea of weights. We will try to figure out what's in the best public interest and review those issues, but I don't intend to act hastily on this issue, because you could have broad ramifications across the province.
J. van Dongen: My concern stems from the great scarcity of dollars that we see in government budgets generally, and in the Ministry of Highways. I suggest respectfully to the minister that the costs being created for all of us as taxpayers by these trucks that are essentially
In terms of a highways issue in my constituency -- and I have written to the previous minister about it -- I just want to register the concern about the No. 1 Road crossing at Highway 1. Once the Westview interchange is finished, we will have the only level crossing left from Hope to Horseshoe Bay. It's a situation where we have westbound lanes that were really never built to freeway standards. There's a very narrow bridge, and a number of houses are sitting in a little island between the eastbound and westbound lanes. We have some real serious safety concerns about that situation. I wonder if the minster could give us an update on that situation.
Hon. L. Boone: Changes in the highway are not in the immediate future; it's not in our five-year plan. But I understand that you have written to the ministry -- to me -- making a suggestion regarding access for individuals in that area. I guess you've given us a good suggestion, and we're asking staff in that area to look into it and see how we can accommodate those people and improve that.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that you're taking a look at that. I've driven it myself, and as I made the turn into the guy's driveway, I was watching my rear-view mirror, I assure you.
I just have a couple of general questions in this area of capital projects for highways. Is there a fairly structured system within the ministry for establishing priorities? Is part of that sort of a checklist of, say, criteria that help establish priorities?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there's a structured rating to determine the priority for all the candidates for improvement. As you know, you can hear just being in this room that thousands of improvements are required out there on our highways: engineering requirements, including safety issues; public acceptability; whether or not there's an opportunity for some creative financing in those areas, like cost-sharing efforts; how far along in the process it is; and how much work needs to be done. All of these things are considered. It's done numerically: they're given a number and, as a result, a priority in terms of how they should proceed.
J. van Dongen: At what point does the prioritization take place? With the limited number of discussions I've had with the ministry, I get the sense that very often there's been a lot of planning work done on a particular project, and yet there seems to be no prospect in the near or foreseeable future that that project is going to be done. I'm wondering if there is an attempt at the front end, if you will, to establish that if we're going to do a bunch of planning and design work, we're also, as a government, committed to following through and actually completing that project.
Hon. L. Boone: There are some things that are planned but never actually constructed. I guess what you have to do is plan these
J. van Dongen: I just make the point because, again, with the situation of scarce resources, you don't want to be putting time and staff and possibly even outside work on designing projects that you know at the outset aren't going to go ahead.
I just want to ask a few questions about AirCare, particularly the AirCare contract. Is that still the responsibility of this minister?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it hasn'
[ Page 1145 ]
J. van Dongen: I'd like to ask the minister, then, how many staff on the government side are involved in AirCare? What is involved in terms of the government's monitoring of the performance of the contract with Ebco-Hamilton?
Hon. L. Boone: There are 12 staff. They audit the ATS that does the actual testing. They do an audit to determine quality. They audit the repair companies to make sure their standards are up. So this whole program is audited by these staff to make sure that standards are applied.
J. van Dongen: When the minister says they audit the repair companies, is she talking about garages and repair shops, in terms of the equipment they're using to test the emissions? Is that what government staff are auditing for?
Hon. L. Boone: It's the equipment, the qualifications of the staff and the actual standards of the repairs that are being done.
J. van Dongen: But am I correct in my understanding that any shop or mechanic can do work on a vehicle for the purposes of going through AirCare -- that there's not a licensing regime in place?
Hon. L. Boone: There are stations, companies that are qualified and recognized as AirCare repair shops. If you go to one of those shops and you get some repairs done, then you do not have to go through the test again. If you choose to go to one of those that are not recognized and have not qualified as AirCare inspection shops, then you must go through the test again.
Sorry, I have to get this straight. It's not that you don't go through the test; it's that you're exempted from passing the second test until the next time around. So there are advantages to going to a qualified shop. I guess we encourage people to go to those shops because they are audited. As I said, the qualifications of the people and the standards of their work are audited.
J. van Dongen: So any shop, then, could apply to the government for a type of certification as a qualified shop?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
J. van Dongen: There's always a lot of debate, and I know that the minister knows this, in terms of questions about the effectiveness of AirCare. It's been put to me by some vocal constituents that AirCare was designed to be good for business if you're a repair shop. I'm wondering: have there been any good, concise studies done of the measurable effectiveness of the AirCare program as opposed to other aspects of the government's clean air program?
Hon. L. Boone: Last spring -- a year ago last spring? -- an independent review was done. They determined that AirCare was the most successful project of its kind in the world, I guess. In the jurisdictions that we know of, it is very successful. So for that reason we can be pleased that it's in place and dealing with an issue that is really of high concern to people in the lower mainland: the air quality there.
[11:00]
J. van Dongen: The minister said it was an independent study. I'm just wondering who did the study. I'm more interested in who hired them to do the study.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't have the detail of who it was, but I'd be happy to give you a copy of the report so that you can read it yourself.
J. van Dongen: Thank you, minister. The fact that the operator, Ebco-Hamilton, was on strike for the last five
Hon. L. Boone: There is an equitable adjustment fee that was put into the contract, which we assumed, by the former government. We will be negotiating this equitable adjustment after August 31 as
J. van Dongen: I'm not really too clear, from the minister's response. Let me ask it this way: is this equitable adjustment going to be negotiated because it's related to the fact that they've been on strike for five months? Or is that something else?
Hon. L. Boone: It's because the previous government signed an agreement that guaranteed the contractor 1.2 million vehicle tests for this year. They didn't have that number of tests as a result of the strike. But had the number of tests been done, we would have been negotiating an amount anyway. It has to do with the minimum amount guaranteed.
J. van Dongen: Just to again clarify a little, then, the government will not have to subsidize Ebco-Hamilton because of this strike. Am I clear in my understanding that they will make their 1.2 million vehicles this year? What is the year we're working with? Are we talking about the calendar year? Or are we talking about the same as the government fiscal year?
Hon. L. Boone: I did not say that we would not be subsidizing them. I said that it is not specifically there because of the strike. This is there because there is a guaranteed minimum. So had they not met their guarantee of 1.2 million for some other reason, we would have been in the same situation. The result is that they're not going to meet their 1.2 million because there was a strike, and that's why we are having to negotiate an equitable adjustment.
J. van Dongen: I can certainly agree with and support the minister in the view that that wasn't a particularly good clause in the contract.
In terms of the pricing by Ebco-Hamilton and the charge for someone going through AirCare, do they have the full legal scope in terms of how they establish the price for taking a car through the system?
Hon. L. Boone: No. The contractor does not have the right to establish what is charged. Government establishes that.
J. van Dongen: Maybe the minister could clarify the status of the negotiations with their staff. Has a settlement been reached? Are they back at work?
[ Page 1146 ]
Hon. L. Boone: They are back at work, but there is binding arbitration; that's what they're going through right now.
J. van Dongen: So at the point when the arbitrator hands down his decision, what is the process whereby the operator, Ebco-Hamilton, could apply -- and I presume, would apply -- to the government for an increase in the fee to go through AirCare?
Hon. L. Boone: We have no obligation to increase the rates, as a result of their negotiated settlement, any more than anybody else's. We have contracts with people throughout, and they don't increase their rates. They can't suddenly increase their rates to us just as a result of their contract. Any increases have to be approved by Treasury Board. That's the bottom line.
J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could confirm whether I am correct in my recollection that since the centre started operating, there has been at least one increase in the charge for vehicles going through. Could the minister confirm if it was one increase or if there were other increases?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there has been one increase.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm what the basis for that increase was?
Hon. L. Boone: It's provided in the contract as a result of inflation. That remains the same. There is an inflation adjustment within the contract.
J. van Dongen: So is it fair to expect possibly another inflationary increase, as established in the contract? Or is the contract written in such a way that the current rate would apply until August 1999, I think, when the contract expires?
Hon. L. Boone: There is an increase that is scheduled for September 1, which was approved by Treasury Board. It was approved by Treasury Board some time ago, actually. As for the other, I can't speculate as to what that increase might be.
J. van Dongen: Then just to confirm with the minister, these inflationary increases that are talked about in the
Hon. L. Boone: There is a formula for inflation within the contract. Treasury Board, of course, has to approve that. Treasury Board also has the ability to increase the fee, if they so choose, to whatever they would like. They would have to take into consideration the public outcry if they increased it by a huge amount, but Treasury Board does have that ability to increase fees.
J. van Dongen: So am I correct in my understanding that there are minimums established in terms of inflationary increases, and that anything beyond that would have to be approved by Treasury Board? Is that how the contract is worded?
Hon. L. Boone: No, there is a formula that is in the contract with regard to inflation, but any increases in any fees must be approved by Treasury Board. Treasury Board has the ability to increase the fees by whatever amount they want to, but there is within the contract a formula to establish the increase for inflation.
J. van Dongen: I just had one other area that I want to question the minister on on this AirCare contract, and that's the point of termination of the contract, which, I think, is August 31, 1999. What kinds of conditions are established in the contract in terms of a possible renewal? Does Ebco-Hamilton have an automatic right of renewal subject to renegotiation of a few numbers, or is there a fairly broad scope for the government to look at other options?
Hon. L. Boone: At that time, of course, it will be ICBC's responsibility, but it's fairly flexible. Government has the right to buy it out, to tender it, to do a number of different things with regard to it. So there's flexibility to deal with that whole termination of the contract.
J. van Dongen: The government has the option to buy it out. Is the minister saying that there is no obligation on the part of government to buy it out? Could they walk away from this contract and this arrangement completely, if they so chose, without buying anything?
Hon. L. Boone: That is my understanding.
J. van Dongen: I have just a couple of questions about the nominated driver process, I think it's called, with respect to photo radar. I guess it's really surprising to me, when I look at it, that if you own a vehicle and somebody else is driving it and it gets picked up on photo radar, there's a process whereby the responsibility for that ticket can be turned over to whoever was actually driving. But it requires an affidavit from that individual. That's a bit of a surprise. I was at the discussion here yesterday when the minister talked about government employees. If a government employee is driving a government vehicle, does the government have the ability to compel that employee to sign such an affidavit if they get picked up on photo radar?
[11:15]
Hon. L. Boone: I said yesterday that you would make it a condition of employment. So if you're hired to do a particular job, then part of that condition of employment is that if you get speeding tickets or parking tickets, you are responsible for those tickets. The deputy just informed me that within Highways, they would make sure that those employees paid for those tickets, and that would be enforced through a deduction from their paycheques if they refused to pay. I don't believe that we have an obligation to allow people to keep driving if they get speeding tickets and refuse to pay them. As an employer, I wouldn't be averse to saying: "Fine, you park that car. You don't drive it. That's the condition of employment." If you have a condition of employment that you must use a vehicle, then you would not be able to use that vehicle, and you might not be able to perform your job.
I don't think too many people are going to put their jobs at risk when they realize they have been caught speeding. They've been caught breaking the law; this is not something that you can argue. They have been caught speeding, just as they would have been caught speeding if they had been caught in a radar trap on the highway, except that they would
[ Page 1147 ]
have had their own licence photographed. They are responsible. They are given the use of a government vehicle, and they must behave responsibly within that government vehicle -- and that means not speeding.
J. van Dongen: In terms of general government policy, is it the general intent of government to compel government employees who are driving a vehicle and are caught on photo radar to sign such an affidavit and pay the $100? Is that the policy of the government?
Hon. L. Boone: It is the attitude of the government that we will make sure that employees are responsible for infractions of the law that are incurred by them. That includes parking tickets and photo radar tickets. We cannot force someone to sign an affidavit, but we can make sure that we get the money back from that individual, in terms of their paycheque. We are talking about people who are breaking the law. Government cannot and will not condone people breaking the law in its vehicles. That is the bottom line there, and I don't anticipate that many employees are going to object to that.
J. van Dongen: I want the minister to know I am not quarrelling with the intent or the issue of law or breaking the law. I am just interested in the process -- the mechanics, if you will -- of how the government will deal with this issue.
If I understand the minister correctly, the government's intent is that the employee will pay the $100, and it will be handled just like a parking ticket is now. Is the minister saying that the government, at this point in time, already has a policy in place and an agreement with all their various employees that, if an employee refuses to pay a fine, the government can actually deduct it from their paycheque? In the case of a parking ticket right now, is that the policy? Is that how it is handled? Will these $100 fines for a photo radar infraction be handled in exactly the same way?
Hon. L. Boone: That is a policy that the Ministry of Highways has. There is nothing we have that I know of in the collective agreement that would preclude us from collecting it.
I must say that we expect that employees would sign the nomination forms. We would ask them to do so. I think that employees who are interested in keeping good relationships with their employers would recognize the fact that they have a responsibility, and that responsibility is to admit it when they in fact have broken the law. If they refuse, I can't force anyone to sign anything. I'm not going to stand there with a sledgehammer over their head and force them to sign it, but we will take the necessary steps to make sure that they pay the $100 fine.
J. van Dongen: I guess I am very surprised at the fuzziness by the minister responsible for photo radar on what government policy will be and how it will be handled. A lot of us on this side of the House have been in business and have had employees, and all of us have relatives and kids that drive vehicles. I would think that we would have had a more clearly established policy within government as to how it will be handled.
I'm personally convinced that a lot of people are not going to want to sign an affidavit. I think it's nice to expect that employees will do that, but I don't think that's going to happen voluntarily. I want to get the assurance from the minister that every $100 fine that's incurred by a government employee will be paid by that employee. I'll go a little further and ask the question: will my friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also be paying the $100 if he gets picked up after August 1? I just think that we need to have a more clearly established policy in this area by the government, which hopefully could serve as a model for the private sector. I am wondering if the minister could just give us one final comment on that.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, all ministers will be paying their fines. But I'm sure none will get them. [Laughter.]
Interjections.
Hon. L. Boone: You can't see my face.
We don't have a fuzzy policy. The policy is that government employees will be expected to pay their tickets, and we will do whatever we can to ensure that they do so. That's not a fuzzy policy; it's a very clear policy. Contracts and terms of employment, when people come on, will be such that they will recognize that they have to pay their tickets, just as contracts with leased vehicles
J. van Dongen: The minister is saying that government has a clear intent to collect, but I didn't hear the minister say that government has the clear intent and the legal right to deduct $100 from employees' paycheques. I wonder if the minister could tell us.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not a labour lawyer, and I'm not going to get into speculations about legal rights. We have every intention of collecting; we will take whatever steps are necessary to collect the $100. But I'm not going to tell you what a legal right is.
J. van Dongen: I guess the one thing that surprised me about the policy -- and I'm wondering about the rationale -- is that if a nominated driver accepts responsibility, signs the
Hon. L. Boone: If the owner pays the ticket, they are doing so as the owner, and are not necessarily stating that they were the driver. If a nominated driver accepts responsibility, saying, "Yes, I was the driver," then they are pleading guilty, and we are legally responsible to put points on them.
J. van Dongen: I guess I just don't understand the rationale from the minister. As I understand it, the fine is being levied for performance, for the driver; it has nothing to do with the vehicle, really. Attaching it to the vehicle is, I guess, an enforcement convenience, and probably one that I don't disagree with. But why, under this situation, we would include three points in the case of a nominated driver and not in the case of someone driving their own
[ Page 1148 ]
vehicle owner take responsibility. I just really have a problem with the rationale. If the minister could take another run at it, I won't ask any more questions.
Hon. L. Boone: I admit that it's confusing. When I first saw this I thought: "What's the rationale here?" The reality is that the ticket that goes to the owner of the vehicle is issued to the owner. The owner could in fact agree to pay that, but you're not admitting that you were the driver. So you could pay it
It's confusing. At this time we are legally obligated to put the points on the nominated driver, but we'd be happy to review that and see if there's some way around it.
B. Barisoff: Carrying that a little further, hon. minister, if somebody has a vehicle in a company name, the ticket basically goes to the registered owner, who happens to be XYZ Ltd. The company pays the fines; no points are assessed to anybody at that stage. Correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
B. Barisoff: Then why would anybody take the onus of having points put on their driver's licence? I think what my colleague is getting at is that we've created an unfair situation, because if somebody happens to own their vehicle and is caught in that same photo radar trap, they get assessed three points on their driver's licence, and it could actually cost them more in the future for a driver's licence. Whereas if somebody happens to go through the same speed trap 15 or 20 seconds later, at the same speed, in a vehicle that's registered to a company, they're assessed no points.
Hon. L. Boone: Well, the company is not assessed points. If that driver is nominated and admits that he or she was driving the vehicle, then that driver is assessed points. If the company chooses to pay the fine, then there would be no assessment on that company for the very reason I have said: there is nothing to indicate who the driver was. You can't assess points to it if you don't know who the driver is. The company would be taking the responsibility of paying the fine, because they are the owner-operator of that vehicle.
[11:30]
B. Barisoff: I guess I get back to the same point, then. For a person with poor driving habits, or an excessive leadfoot who likes to speed, it would be advantageous for him to create a dummy company or whatever and just allow that company to pay the tickets, and then he'd never really have to worry about being assessed as a poor driver -- I think that's what my colleague was trying to get at. What I'm getting at is that you'd want to be the one driving for sure, then, because you wouldn't designate yourself as the driver; you'd just pay the fine. It would be a lot simpler and a lot cheaper over the long haul.
Hon. L. Boone: I suppose there are devious minds out there that would always think of those things. It's something I never would have thought of -- that's the difference between you and I, hon. member: putting something in a dummy company name to avoid getting the penalty points. You'd still be assessed the dollars, the money; you'd still have to pay the fine.
I guess you can't catch everything. Maybe eventually we will find that there are some areas out there where it's happening. If people want to go to the whole effort of creating a dummy company, I suppose they can do so. But I don't think the average person out there is going to do that just so they can speed through our cities.
B. Barisoff: I take exception to the difference between you and I being that I have a devious mind; I really don't have a devious mind. I'm just trying to show a point -- particularly in today's day and age, when a lot of vehicles are in company names or whatever. We were trying to just raise the point of the unfairness of the fact that one group of people out there will get points added to their driver's licence and the other group will end up going through without really having the extra three points -- or if it happens to be excessive speed, I don't know whether it is four points or whatever. That's the point we're getting at. I don't think it was a matter of creating devious minds between the two of us.
Actually, I'll turn this over to some of my other colleagues.
J. Weisbeck: I guess all of us think we have a unique situation; I'm sure you've heard that story a lot of times. But we think we do up in the Okanagan, with the Okanagan Lake Bridge and Highway 1 obviously being antiquated and not able to handle the traffic. We think the Highway 97 corridor is a very restricted area, having to take a huge load of traffic through our city. So my first question is -- and you touched on it
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, there are quite a few different options that have been proposed for this whole area. We're currently
J. Weisbeck: You talked about the high-growth areas and that sort of thing in the Okanagan, obviously Kelowna being one of those. I just would like to know what sort of level of priority this project has.
Hon. L. Boone: It's a very high priority for the ministry.
J. Weisbeck: One of the big concerns, as I said, is that we have a very narrow channel running through our city, and obviously not many places to put highways. We'd like to make Highway 97, that main channel, as efficient as possible. We talked a number of years ago about doing a study on Highway 97, on that corridor, with emphasis on intersections and that sort of thing. I was wondering what the status of that was.
Hon. L. Boone: I understand that we've been working with the city to upgrade the signals along those areas. We are
[ Page 1149 ]
currently doing that, and that will be completed soon. I guess the city now has plans to upgrade some of their lights, as well, along that area.
J. Weisbeck: The six-laning -- is that included in that project, as well?
Hon. L. Boone: That will be part of the Okanagan study -- the transportation system study that is going to be underway soon. I would encourage you to participate and to have all your input into that study, so that we can get a full, comprehensive plan for the Okanagan.
J. Weisbeck: One of the ways of alleviating some of this traffic down Highway 97 was the north connector, and they've been doing a lot of planning over the years. Of course, the city is looking for participation by the provincial government in financing this. I was wondering how that negotiation is going.
Hon. L. Boone: In terms of priorities, it's a little further down from there. Again, it would be part of the whole study that would be taking place, so make your comments known to that group when they do their study.
G. Abbott: I won't keep the minister long on this particular point. I just have a couple of questions on one small program in her obviously much larger ministry. My questions are with respect to the ministry's capital rehabilitation program for newly incorporated territories. As the minister knows, this program was put in place several years ago to assist newly incorporated communities to take over provincial roads, which in some cases were of questionable quality.
In the specific case that I'm interested in here, I was part of a restructuring committee for my hometown of Sicamous several years ago, and one of the big elements that led the community to incorporate was the capital rehab program for newly incorporated municipalities. What occurred was a review between the local authority -- the waterworks board of the day -- and ministry personnel. They assessed all the roads in the community and assigned a certain status as to whether they should fall under this program or not. Basically, since 1989, when the community of Sicamous incorporated, quite a number of the roads in the community have been upgraded through the capital rehab program, but a lot of work remains to be done. Since Sicamous incorporated, there have been quite a number of other communities in the province that have incorporated, as well, and the demands on this particular program have obviously increased. Again, I guess it's a question of the allocation of scarce resources.
The point I'm getting at
Hon. L. Boone: No, it hasn't.
G. Abbott: Could the hon. minister please advise me how much has been included under this program in the 1996-97 budget?
Hon. L. Boone: Capital rehab is $443,000.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise me to what extent applications for funding have exceeded the $443,000 that was allocated?
Hon. L. Boone: It's over $2 million.
G. Abbott: I don't know how many newly incorporated municipalities there are in the province. There are probably half a dozen of them now that are interested in this particular program. The applications are around $2 million, and the actual money available is around $443,000.
I'm lobbying here as much as asking a question, I suppose. I would like to see the province maintain a solid funding level for this program next year, hopefully, and in additional years. I think the newly incorporated municipalities have undertaken that very important step in their corporate lives based on the premise that they would be getting support to upgrade the roads that they're inheriting. I'm throwing that out there as a pitch, and I guess the question that flows from it is: can newly incorporated municipalities look forward to having all of their qualifying road projects funded over the course of time? It may not be this year, but over the course of time, can they expect that the funding will be available for them?
Hon. L. Boone: Obviously I can't guarantee that; I can't commit future budgets or any of those things.
G. Abbott: Given the hour, would it be appropriate that we rise?
Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.