[ Page 2585 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, a very sad comment. I'd like to take a moment to offer condolences on behalf of all British Columbians to the people of Quesnel, who lost five members of their community in a terrible fire and explosion last night. This town has been struck by a tragedy that has affected the whole community and, in fact, the whole province.

I'm struck by the stories that are coming out in the media which articulate the human courage when tragedy strikes a community. It's my understanding that many of the people that were injured in the explosion and resulting fire received their injuries as they went to rescue their neighbours. While the loss of life in this tragic accident is horrifying for this community, they have reminded all of us of how important it is to band together under trying circumstances.

We must recognize and thank the passers-by whose quick action likely saved more lives, as well as fire officials, police, ambulance attendants, hospital workers, volunteer emergency coordinators and, in fact, the whole community for their heroic efforts in saving the lives of their neighbours, at considerable risk to themselves.

G. Campbell: I'd like to join with the Premier in offering our condolences and heartfelt best wishes to that community. When these tragedies take place there is no question that we are all aware of how fleeting our lives can be, but I think we're also aware of how strong and how reinforcing our communities can be in getting on and building from these really incredibly sad and tragic experiences for family after family.

When you do hear of people saving people's lives because they care, because they move in, they forget about themselves, they think about what is right to do, I think it's a strong message to all of us; it's a strong message to the province. I am pleased to join with the Premier in offering our condolences to the families, in offering our support to the community and in offering our hopes that these sorts of tragedies will not take place.

The Speaker: It would seem to be appropriate for all of us, perhaps, to stand and take a moment of silence to commemorate.

Thank you, members. Please be seated.

I. Chong: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, a supporter and an avid watcher of political affairs, Ms. Ann Behennah. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Orcherton: There's a delegation in the precinct today from my constituency: a grade 6 class from St. Andrew's elementary school. Accompanying them today in the precinct are their instructors Mrs. Brady and Ms. Greco. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a very special person, known to most of us as Mr. Christy Clark but known to himself as Mr. Mark Marrisen, here to ensure that his wife is truly working and being where she's supposed to be and doing what she's supposed to be doing. I ask all members of the House to join me in making him welcome.

J. Doyle: First of all, I would like to pass on my condolences to the people in Quesnel and the Cariboo. When the people in Golden were going through a tough time last fall, people up there were mindful of Golden's tough times, so I would like to pass on my condolences to that community.

In the gallery today I have a friend and constituent -- in that order -- Ellen Zimmerman. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are 43 students and several adults from Hastings Junior Secondary school in my constituency. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wright. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very pleased to advise the House that a new agreement I signed yesterday with Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien marks a turning point in the conservation and management of our salmon fisheries.

For the first time since the commercial Pacific salmon fishery began more than a century ago, we have an agreement with the federal government that no major decision regarding this vital resource will be made without the direct involvement of the people closest to the fish: the people up and down our coast in fishing communities, in first nations communities, in the sport fishery and in the commercial fishery. This is a breakthrough agreement for our province which for the first time makes us full partners in the management of our salmon fishery.

Nearly 80 years ago, in the wake of catastrophic losses to the Fraser River fisheries caused by the Hells Gate slide, B.C. fisheries commissioner William Sloan noted in a report to this House:

". . .the fish of this province belong to the people of Canada. They constitute one of our greatest natural resources. Depleted runs can be restored. The runs of former years may even be enlarged. If the beds are seeded, there will be a certain return. The fish will do the work necessary provided the government gives them a chance to do so. They will perpetuate themselves without cost. They will entirely disappear if left to corporate and individual control."

The agreement signed yesterday commits both governments to cooperate and coordinate our efforts to protect this vital public trust. We are going to give the salmon the chance they need.

For the first time, a Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers will oversee the management and enhancement of the fishery. For the first time, those most vitally concerned with the future of the fishery will have a direct voice in decision-making.

A new Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council will provide independent analysis and advice to both governments on conservation of the runs and protection of salmon habitat. And stakeholders and community groups will be able, through a joint Fisheries Renewal Advisory Board, to assist enhancement and development of our habitat and salmon restoration programs.

Last year was one of the most difficult our fishery has ever faced. We lost thousands of jobs in the commercial and sport fisheries due to mismanagement of the stocks and unilateral decisions by the federal fisheries ministry designed to cut the fleet. This agreement means that that can never happen again.

This agreement should mark a turning point in the history of the resource. From now on, conservation must and will 

[ Page 2586 ]

be our starting point. We must respect the special relationship between our first nations and the resource. We must build our salmon runs to provide economic opportunity and decent, steady jobs for our coastal communities. We must end the bickering and division that have dominated the dialogue over the future of our salmon and build a new cooperative approach that makes our dreams for the salmon fishery a reality.

[2:15]

This is a good agreement for British Columbia. It is a good agreement for Canada. Most importantly, it is a very good agreement for the salmon resource.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Responding to the ministerial statement, I recognize the member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond today to the Premier's statement on the fisheries agreement. The agreement signed yesterday represents the culmination of a lot of discussion, negotiation and confrontation between the provincial government and the federal government. I am pleased to see that this agreement has been reached, and I share the Premier's enthusiasm for a more cooperative approach with the federal government.

It is important to record that this agreement is a framework for consultation with the federal government. It formalizes consultation which should have been happening anyway. It is not an agreement that shifts power or decision-making authority to the province. It is not an agreement that involves any delegation of powers to the provincial government. The Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers will be a critical factor in the future success of the management of the west coast fishery. Really, it's up to the leadership of the two ministers to make it happen.

I acknowledge that the deal will help with consultation for British Columbians who have an interest in the fishery. However, I also want to caution the Premier and the government that the provincial government needs to be vigilant about ever-growing bureaucracy. Scarce taxpayer dollars need to be constantly focused on the front line. The only spending that really counts is that which actually improves and maintains habitat, fishery stocks and the economic activity of the sector. A proactive effort by the ministers and both governments will maximize the work of people on the ground.

This agreement clearly leaves the decision-making authority in the hands of the federal government, as it is today on most issues involved in the fishery. I am hopeful that this authority will be exercised wisely by the federal minister and that due consideration will be given to the legitimate input of the people whose livelihoods are affected. The ultimate test will not be what both governments talk about but what they actually deliver on habitat, stock protection and maintaining the livelihood of fishermen.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I wish to lend my voice to those who congratulate this Premier for the work that has gone into this agreement. I also appreciate the degree to which the Premier and members of government have kept me informed as this difficult negotiation has taken place.

I heard in the Premier's comments, however, that he said the depletion of our stocks and the rather poor record on salmon management can never happen again. I wish I could be so confident. While we have clearly, in this agreement, built a new vehicle by which we may manage the salmon, I think it is important to note that the federal government still holds the keys that make that vehicle run: licensing and the ability to determine when and where openings may occur. Those keys are an important component to what has gone wrong in the fishery.

So while I embrace this agreement, and while I congratulate the Premier, I don't necessarily share this unfettered optimism that this agreement will solve our problems. This is just the beginning. I hope that the cooperative spirit that we can have in this beginning will in fact allow us in the province to once in a while have control of those keys.

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

This bill amends a number of acts that my ministry is responsible for. These amendments address a number of issues that provide necessary improvements and corrections to ministry legislation. This bill updates the Land Act to transfer responsibility for the Crown land registry from the surveyor general, who is no longer responsible for the registry, to the minister.

It enhances environmental protection and streamlines activities under the Pesticide Control Act by enabling the use of approved pest management plans, residual pesticide stewardship programs and community involvement in education and certification of pesticide applicators. It expands a manager's powers under the Waste Management Act to suspend or cancel a permit or approval in a number of limited cases in order to increase efficiency and reduce the paperwork required to deal with matters of routine administration. Under the Waste Management Act, it authorizes the government to carry out actions to address hazardous spills and to recover all or part of the cost for such actions. These amendments will ensure continued protection for human health and the environment, reduce costs to government and hold accountable those persons who are directly responsible for spills.

It will streamline and create a consistent appeals process under the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Pesticide Control Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act by sending all environmental appeals directly to the Environmental Appeal Board. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2587 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: When Marc Eliesen left B.C. Hydro with his tail between his legs, we thought the abuse of taxpayers had ended. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he's back -- and with a vengeance. Marc Eliesen left B.C. Hydro and went to the Asea power group, and we thought it was over. But it turns out that within a period of 16 months, Mr. Eliesen was paid a total salary of $275,724 -- one-third of which was picked up by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro -- and the various boondoggles that have gone on there -- explain to British Columbians exactly what it is Mr. Eliesen is doing for the money the taxpayers are continuing to pay him?

Hon. D. Miller: In light of the sidebar in Today's News -- "Liberals Silent on Senior Salaries". . . . I'd be tempted to use that, but I won't.

Mr. Eliesen left B.C. Hydro in 1994. He was entitled, under the provisions of his agreement at that time, to certain salaries, severance, pension benefits, etc. Rather than simply accept that, he was assigned to B.C. Trade, then to the position of president and chief executive officer of B.C. International Power Group, a joint venture between the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, Westcoast Energy Inc. and Asea Brown Boveri Inc., to pursue power projects internationally.

He was paid and will be paid -- and I might as well give the numbers to the end of October 1997. . . . He will receive, by the end of 1997, about $1.5 million in salary and benefits. During the period that he is working for the joint venture, the two other companies are bearing part of his salary.

By the way, that joint venture has met with some success, currently finalizing arrangements in China which will see them obtain a 1.5 percent carried interest on a $200 million power project in China.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the minister is aware of the provision in the House for ministerial statements, and if he wishes to make one, he can do so.

It was interesting to hear the minister's response, because it doesn't jibe with what the Premier, the then-minister responsible, said at the time. He said that Mr. Eliesen was to receive no severance, that he chose to leave B.C. Hydro. I know the Premier has trouble recalling discussions he has with senior people at B.C. Hydro. Can the minister tell us if the $302,000 that Mr. Eliesen received in that 16-month period, the $302,000 that was said in this document to be in lieu of severance. . .? How does that jibe with what the Premier said, that Mr. Eliesen was to receive no severance?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I answered that question carefully, but let me repeat.

At the time that he left Hydro, he was entitled to certain provisions. Rather than accept that, we assigned him to B.C. . . . Rather than accept simply paying those out, he was assigned to B.C. Trade and subsequently to head a private sector company that has pursued, with some success, power developments in China.

The Speaker: Vancouver-Little Mountain on a supplemental.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier, because he was the minister responsible at the time. If Mr. Eliesen was fired, he would have received severance. If he wasn't fired, as the Premier said, why is he receiving any consideration for his choice to leave B.C. Hydro? Why $1.5 million? Who knows how much of it was for pension in lieu of severance, as the minister says.

Hon. G. Clark: It's pretty straightforward. He did not receive a penny of severance. Mr Eliesen went. . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Do you want to hear the answer?

. . .to work for a new joint venture company consisting of Westcoast Energy, ABB and B.C. Trade. They picked up the contract that he had at B.C. Hydro. One-third of his salary was paid and his benefits were paid by B.C. Trade, as per the contract he had with B.C. Hydro.

And incidentally, that private sector consortium is engaged in power projects. He has worked for that consortium for this period of time. He did not get money for nothing. They picked up his contract, he's pursuing business, and that business is paying off, and we intend. . . . The taxpayers of B.C. will receive the benefits of his work when these power projects come to fruition.

W. Hurd: Surely Mr. Eliesen will live in infamy as the NDP's Sultan of Swill. When Mr. Eliesen was relieved of his Hydro duties, taxpayers were told by the current Premier that Mr. Eliesen had resigned. To quote the Premier, Mark Eliesen's resignation "is to pursue an offer from a business consortium." We now know that this was no new offer; that it was in fact an agreement in lieu of severance related to his duties at B.C. Hydro.

Can the minister responsible for Hydro tell us: if Mr. Eliesen resigned -- if he did resign -- why did he need an agreement in lieu of severance from B.C. Hydro?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question. Mr. Eliesen did resign from B.C. Hydro. The provisions of his agreement entitled him to certain things. Rather than simply pay him out, he was assigned to B.C. Trade. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: . . .which formed a joint venture partnership, which is pursuing and appears to have met with some success. For example, the indications are that the joint venture is currently finalizing arrangements. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite ask questions but they don't appear to want to listen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Surrey-White Rock on a supplemental.

[ Page 2588 ]

W. Hurd: When the million-dollar severance package to former Hydro president Ray Hunt was disclosed, the then communications director, Shawn Thomas, was asked how much severance Mr. Eliesen had received, and he replied: "Zero." So there has been a definite change in policy at B.C. Hydro.

Can the minister tell us why the government would say that Mr. Eliesen was receiving zero severance when the government obviously knew that he was getting a golden parachute for his work at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, Mr. Eliesen was assigned to B.C. Trade and, subsequently, as the president of B.C. International Power Group. That group is now finalizing arrangements which will see them obtain a 1.5 percent carried interest in a $200 million power project in China. The project is in the stage of receiving final approvals, and under the agreement the value of BCIPG's involvement is projected to be about $3 million (U.S.). It appears that Mr. Eliesen, moving from Hydro to B.C. Trade and subsequently to this International Power Group, has indeed pursued ventures that are of benefit both to the private sector partners and ultimately to British Columbians.

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for gambling. On Tuesday the minister indicated, in a response to a question from the member for Peace River North, that the decision on the expansion of gaming will "rest with the communities." Today I have a memo, dated April 4, from the president of the Casino Management Council of British Columbia, advising their members that they have been given advice by Mr. Peter Clark and Mr. Harry Elliott that the $500 bet limits will go into effect in all locations on May 1, and that the longer hours will go into effect in the greater Vancouver regional district on June 1 and in all other areas on July 1.

Further, hon. Speaker, it says here: ". . .there is an urgency attached to opening longer hours in the GVRD because of the possible implications of the city of Vancouver gaming study." Lastly it says: "Please recall our commitment to introduce these changes with as little public stir as possible."

Will the minister tell me: is he so desperate for money, for his 30 shekels of silver, that he has advised his people to fast-track gaming expansion in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I'm unaware of the memo, but let me be clear on, really, two points here. One is that we made it abundantly clear -- abundantly clear -- when we announced the gaming policy that there would be an increase in bet limits and hours in the existing charitable casinos, and this memo seems to be dealing with that.

Let me also remind you that under the existing charitable casinos, government receives very little. Now, there will be some additional revenue as a result of these enhancements; but these are in charitable organizations -- existing charitable casinos.

G. Wilson: A supplementary. If this government isn't getting any money from this, and if in fact the public is so opposed to it, why is the government, even today, in negotiations with the Casino Management Council to determine the share that each of these will get, and the share that the government will get, as a result of these new gaming regulations?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I did indicate at the time we announced the policy that the issue of sharing additional revenue from the charitable casinos as a result of these enhancements would be determined through discussions and negotiations, and that indeed is taking place.

D. Symons: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The part-time chair of B.C. Transit, Derek Corrigan, is supposed to be paid a stipend of $4,000 a year, plus $500 for each day worked. Now we've learned that for 1996, Mr. Corrigan -- a prominent New Democrat -- made $119,500 for his part-time position. Hon. Speaker, that's 231 days that this part-time chair allegedly worked. Can the Deputy Premier tell us why he's allowing this NDP hack to run up these bills for B.C. taxpayers?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a little order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible for B.C. Transit.

A. Sanders: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday two unions representing support staff in the building trades in Prince George issued 72-hour strike notice. The government has appointed a mediator, but on Monday the children of Prince George may not have a class to go to.

My question to the Minister of Education is: when will his government stop allowing the children of this province to be held hostage in union negotiations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I really think that the Liberal opposition should take me up on my offer and apply for a training subsidy for their researchers. Once again, hon. Speaker, they have their basic facts wrong. Their basic facts are wrong.

Yesterday my colleague the Minister of Labour appointed a special mediator, Debbie Apps, to intervene in the two negotiations going on in Prince George. While a special mediator is involved in negotiations, no strike or lockout action will occur. There will be no curtailment of educational activities in Prince George on Monday.

A. Sanders: We're looking here at the two million days of school that have been lost across B.C., in terms of negotiations before. Children in Qualicum are currently facing the same uncertainty. The support staff there have voted in favour of a strike, and the mediation process began yesterday. If their differences cannot be resolved, classes could be shut down at an important time in the school year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

A. Sanders: When will the minister acknowledge that students have the right to an education uninterrupted by union strikes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure whether the member opposite heard my answer to her first question. There is no 

[ Page 2589 ]

strike occurring in Prince George on Monday, or on Tuesday or on Wednesday. There is no disruption of schools anywhere in the province at this time. We will continue to work with parties involved in collective bargaining to assist them in reaching free collective agreements. I continue to believe that that is the best way of resolving bargaining in public schools in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. S. Hammell: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Today is April 17, and it's a very important day in the lives of Canadians, especially for those Canadians who, throughout history, have experienced discrimination. Today is Equality Day, when we recognize the day in 1985 when the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. This section of the Charter declares that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical ability.

I would like to acknowledge our many community partners who worked tirelessly to eliminate barriers to women's full participation in our society, especially the work of LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. LEAF was formed on April 17, 1985, the day these provisions came into effect, to ensure that the equality provisions of the Charter were translated into meaningful gains for women, and to bring an active voice before the courts to ensure gender equality provisions were argued in ways that have positive outcomes for women.

Our government has made women a priority, because what's good for women is good for every British Columbian. Everyone is entitled to be paid fairly and equitably. Everyone is entitled to a life free from violence and free from the fear of violence. Everyone is entitled to have their health issues taken seriously.

I remind you that, on average, women still earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by a man. To achieve economic equality, we have to close the gap by 27 cents.

In the recent throne speech, His Honour said his government would work to combat domestic violence, a terrifying reality for far too many women in British Columbia. We must ensure our health care system is respectful and responsive to the general and particular health care needs of women. I ask that today we renew our commitment to end discrimination and to ensure that all British Columbians are treated equally, not only under the law but in our hearts, in our minds and in our actions.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Women's Equality on behalf of the official opposition. It is important for all Canadians to recognize the importance of the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important to also note that the Charter was developed by a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister dedicated to social and economic justice. But in spite of the equality of rights that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees, social attitudes and behaviour continue to reflect the fact that many women and other groups in British Columbia receive unequal treatment. Today, women want to be free from poverty, violence, harassment and discrimination.

I am pleased to celebrate Equality Day, and I encourage the minister and her government to demonstrate their commitment by reducing the barriers that limit women's opportunities and choices. On behalf of the official opposition I would like to recognize and voice our appreciation to the many individuals and organizations, including LEAF, who work so hard to build a better society for us all.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: My remarks will be brief, as the sentiments carried by the member of the official opposition certainly speak to those of mine. However, I would like to add two comments.

Those of us in Canada who are strong believers and defenders of the Charter of Rights look forward to the day when that Charter, in reality, is seen in our society, particularly with respect to the legal community and how the law is affecting aboriginal people, women and certain minorities -- people who believe that they are no longer protected within the law. I wish I could share the minister's comments with respect to LEAF. However, on two occasions, when in need of that kind of service, I found that organization lacking. I only say that because the law -- and the provision of the letter of the law -- and the manner by which the judiciary applies it does not promote equality in this country. I think all of us as members of this assembly, as lawmakers, must keep in mind that the letter and the language of the law continues to discriminate against certain minority groups and continues to discriminate against women in certain circumstances.

I look forward to the day when the Charter of Rights includes a charter of responsibilities, responsibilities that will allow every citizen to recognize that in our social contract we must do more than simply pay lip service to suggesting that we are equal. We must work toward the responsibility that each of us holds to protect that social contract in the interest of peace and dignity.

[2:45]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of 24 constituents who are opposed to any expansion of gambling in the province.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1996 annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: In Section A, I call estimates on the Attorney General's ministry, and in the House a continuation of second reading debate on Bill 2.

F. Gingell: Well, it's always a good opportunity to have a little break between the first, second and third periods on 

[ Page 2590 ]

these issues, because it allows you to go back and get some further information on some of the matters that have been raised by speakers across the House.

First of all, there's a terrible paucity of speakers from the other side of the Legislature, and I guess it really isn't any great surprise to anybody why. This is a day of shame for this government.

It is less than three years ago that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the former member for Vancouver-Point Grey, made some very special statements about the new Municipal Grants Act:

"This province has taken a stand with municipalities to seek stability, predictability and some form of credible relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities we attempt to serve. . . ."

Well, that didn't last long.

"The new act replaces the smoke and mirrors and this notion of revenue-sharing with an honest and forthright bill that basically gives municipalities what they have been asking for for quite a number of years -- plus, for the first time in legislation, this bill includes an innovative consultation clause that commits the provincial government. . . ."

I really shouldn't read any more about that, because the consultation, as we all well know, was nil. "The third thing it provides the municipalities is some compatibility with multi-year commitments. The new act assures future-year payment of prior years' commitments." Well, they didn't last, either.

This morning it was said by two or three members that we should think about comparing how the total reduction in provincial government spending hasn't just been laid upon the municipalities -- how it's been shared.

If you go to the estimates and look at the estimated expenditures for the year 1997-98 and the year 1996-97 -- the revised forecasts -- and you take out the $20 million non-cash item, the difference is basically $110 million. It is $110 million that this government is saying they are going to reduce their expenditures by in '97-98, over '96-97. I have some arguments about their calculations and whether or not that is a genuine statement. But for the moment, for this discussion, let's accept that in fact they have reduced expenditures of the government by $110 million.

Well then, Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the press release put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 26, 1996, which deals with the restructured transfer to local governments. The previous system, estimated, is all listed; the restructured system for 1997-98 is all estimated. You will remember that we've been somewhat surprised by this document, because it includes a whole series of things that were provincial responsibilities, not municipal, and shouldn't have been included in there in the first place. They were included only to make the numbers look better percentage-wise. But these numbers -- the government's own numbers -- show $805.9 million under the old system and $692.5 million under the restructured system for this year. If you do a little subtraction you come out to $113.4 million. Now, the next question is: is $113.4 million greater or less than $110 million?

Hon. A. Petter: Aw, come on.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, the minister says: "Aw, come on." But this government is saying: "We have had to reduce our expenditures, and we haven't laid it on the backs of the municipalities only."

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, they have. It's $3.5 million more in the reduction to the municipalities than the total reductions.

Hon. A. Petter: Oh, come on.

F. Gingell: But that's true, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. A. Petter: You can't even keep a straight face and say that.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: We can continue with this discussion about whether there has truly been a reduction in expenditures. I can list them off quite easily: repairs and renovations that used to be for schools, used to be grants through the Ministry of Education, but are now put onto capital; $100 million for silviculture and $20 million for Tourism B.C. are moved off the balance sheet. We found some more today included in this bill, didn't we? How many million dollars are going to be billed by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to ICBC?

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I know it's only $2.6 million, but $2.6 million was moved off the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs onto the B.C. Assessment Authority. Who pays that? Not some magic third party; there isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow into which you can go and dip. It's coming out of the pockets of taxpayers of British Columbia. They're just playing a shell game. That's all it is. They're just playing a shell game.

Now, they've talked at great length about the effect of federal transfers, and yes, I agree, they have been cut. In the last two years they've been cut by a total of 27 percent: 18 percent last year and another 9 percent this year. I've got $614 million, which is even greater. So that's 27 percent of the previous grants.

So what has this government done to the municipalities? Well, they have cut them 46.3 percent. How much does this government rely on transfers from the federal government to fund their operations? Roughly 10 percent; in fact at this moment it's down, I think, to eight-point-something. How much do municipalities rely on the provincial government for transfer payments to pay their expenses? Roughly the same. They're very, very similar.

So if this government were truly doing what they say, which is, "We're just passing on proportionate pain to the municipalities that we are receiving from the federal government," you would expect the cuts to be proportional.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh yes, you would. That's what you would expect.

[ Page 2591 ]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Let me give you some numbers, Mr. Speaker, to pass on to the Minister of Finance in his spare time. The portion that the federal government has cut to the provincial government was 2.2 percent of total provincial revenues in 1996-97. The similar cut that this government is now making to municipalities is equivalent to 4.46 percent of their property tax revenues -- exactly double.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Is the minister suggesting that if there were a $400 million cut from the federal government that the whole of that $400 million would be passed on to the municipalities? That's nonsense.

Hon. A. Petter: Including transit revenues.

F. Gingell: Why would you include transit revenue?

Hon. A. Petter: Municipal transit revenue.

F. Gingell: No, it's not. It is a responsibility of the provincial government, and this government has been looking at ways to move themselves out of that position for some years. And I quite understand that, because B.C. Transit would, perhaps, be better managed at the local level than by an overseer position of the provincial government. They should move taxing resources to local government and allow local government to operate it a lot more efficiently than it is operated now.

During this discussion, the Minister of Transportation and Highways was talking about many of the municipalities -- the small municipalities that are going to get no cut to their grants. On this list, Tahsis's grant is exactly the same, and then there's a number of them, starting with Princeton, Oliver, Cache Creek, Hudson's Hope -- a whole series of smaller municipalities -- who will not suffer any cut. In fact, some of them will be getting an increase: Slocan, Lytton, Midway, Silverton, etc. The Minister of Transportation and Highways was sort of indicating that we were in favour of cuts to these municipal governments, which is, of course, absolute nonsense.

[3:00]

If this government were serious about protecting those small municipalities, in Bill 2 -- in this act that we're dealing with, where they've taken out all certainty -- they would have left certainty in for these small municipalities, even though the small municipalities would know and clearly understand that the commitments they made in 1994, as the member for Shuswap said earlier, had a very short shelf life. It didn't last for very long.

It really is a sad day. It is a pity that the former member for Vancouver-Point Grey didn't decide to go and run in some other riding in the election in 1996, so that she could be here to tell her fellow caucus members what a disgraceful act this is. It might be called the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, but it is a disgraceful act that is being done.

It is hard to believe, but this government hid their financial problems for a year and a half, kept them quiet behind a fa�ade. And so as the situation got worse and they delayed taking corrective action, they had to go through a whole series of actions: no-fault insurance, increased gambling, cut the grants to municipalities, raid the forest renewal fund and so on. If they had faced up to the real world -- if they had brought discipline to their responsibilities -- we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

To briefly reiterate the other issues of importance that are in this bill, I can find no logic for the change in the funding of the appeal process in the Assessment Authority. I haven't heard any logic for doing this from the minister. Why would you put the funding of the appeal board in the hands of the body whose appeals that board has to adjudicate? It is nothing more than simply taking $2.5 million or thereabouts out of the consolidated revenue fund and putting it onto our property tax notices -- and that's where it will be.

There's another item in this shell game that is in Bill 2: the ability of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to bill certain funds dealing with traffic safety initiatives to ICBC. This is a responsibility that for years has been that of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. When the minister speaks about reducing expenditures year over year, it's an item we didn't know about at the time. It's come up now. I gave a list of something like $285 million that had been moved out of the consolidated revenue fund this year for the purposes of that thin, narrow and untrue claim, and I didn't include this item because I didn't know about it. I didn't include the Assessment Authority item because I didn't know about that either at that time. I don't think either were mentioned in the budget speech.

This morning I spoke briefly about the sunset of the exemption of tax on propane and suggested that the minister might think of himself as King Canute and slow this down. But I'm quite serious, actually. I think it's good that legislation has sunset clauses. It causes us to sit down and think about what we've done in the past, how appropriate they are in current circumstances and whether they're the right tool to use in the future. And it may well be that the exemption on propane is something that this government believes they should take out.

But recognize, first of all, that it was done for a purpose. It was done to reduce harmful emissions from vehicular traffic into the atmosphere. Secondly, recognize that to buy a vehicle that is OEM'd for propane use is very expensive. I would imagine the vast majority of propane-driven vehicles are conversions. And those conversions in this day and age, I understand, cost somewhere between $2,000 and $2,500. Now, there are a lot of people who have spent that money recently on the understanding that this exemption was there. When someone is making that kind of decision, they think: "Why don't I convert my vehicle to propane use, because I'll recover the cost of doing that with reduced fuel costs and, in the meantime -- right from day one -- I'll be doing something positive for the environment." They don't go and consult a lawyer and find out all the details on how good the propane exemption is. They don't go and search the revised statutes of British Columbia and look through all the sections of the Fuel Oil Tax Act. They don't go and find out exactly what the rules are.

So why doesn't the government, having made this decision, say: "Okay, instead of extending the exemption for five years, at this point we are going to extend it for only three years or two years"? I think three years would perhaps be fair to allow people that have only recently done the conversion. . . . Everybody would be aware at this point that the exemption is over. The people think they've been tricked. They think they've done the kind of things that the government wanted them to do to improve the quality of the environment, and they've been knocked on the head from behind. They didn't know that this was going to happen. They didn't believe it was possible, but all of a sudden it has hit them. So although the minister may not be able to stop the sun from going down over there, perhaps he could try and slow it down a bit.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that, but it is tax that people were not expecting to pay.

[ Page 2592 ]

I would like, again, to just reiterate my concerns about the changes in the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the rural tax act dealing with the issue of exemption of pollution abatement equipment from assessment for property taxes. I think I understand the problem. Again, this government sort of rushed in. I spoke to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about it. I was hoping they would withdraw this at least for a few days or a week to give themselves an opportunity to look at it again.

It is going to cause inequity. This government says that they believe in improving the environmental and waste management issues of this province. This is not the way to do that. Let's think about what means we can use to improve the proper and safe environmental handling of pollutants and other waste materials, and find a system that works properly. This is not it. It's going to cause inequities. They get worse as time goes by, and it will create more problems than it has solved.

Well, this is the act that brings in many of the proposals made in this budget. The credibility of the Minister of Finance and this government is critically important to all of us. It's important not only to our citizens but to our creditors. And we know that many of the things that have happened have caused some feelings of discomfort around the province's credit rating -- which has already been reflected, as we have earlier noted, in the bond market. I sincerely hope, and I mean this, that the minister is successful this year in bringing the final results generally in line with -- or better than -- the plan that is laid out in this budget.

The minister speaks of being proud of this budget. I would suggest that one shouldn't be proud of a piece of paper with some printing on it. What we have to be proud of is what we accomplish, and the minister has an opportunity to accomplish this. This time next year the cake will be cut, and we'll see whether the minister had the right recipe. But the history has not been good; it has hurt the reputation of this province. I sincerely hope that there will be a reversal of that, because when you owe as much money as this province does -- no longer the province with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, as I make a point of saying -- an increase in interest rates will take away important resources from education, health care and the social safety net. These are the things that are truly important to British Columbians. I am concerned this government only pays lip service to their protection.

L. Stephens: I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: I'd like to introduce Credo Christian High School. There are 62 grade 11 students with their teachers: Mrs. Enid Luiten, Mr. De Jong, Mr. Ron Smouter and Mr. Jerry Scholtens. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, rise in debate this afternoon on Bill 2. Frankly, it's entitled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, but it might as well be entitled "Broken Promises Implementation Act, 1997."

An Hon. Member: Third edition.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. member -- third edition and probably a repeat on the horizon. My own city council in the city of Richmond refers to it as the "Repeal of Local Government Grants Act." It's nothing more than a collection of broken promises. And that this government has taken it upon themselves to disillusion the entire civic government within British Columbia is dead wrong. They had a commitment; they had a relationship; they had a recognition of some partnerships that made sense to taxpayers across this province. They've tossed that away by again providing a litany of broken promises.

Communities across this province are looking for stability. They want to have some certainty around funding. To take that away makes no sense. It will not improve service delivery in this province. It will not improve the integrity of this government. It will not do good things for British Columbia taxpayers. It will simply heighten their awareness that indeed they've been deceived yet again by these New Democrats.

And duplicity is an issue, hon. Speaker. Yesterday in the Times Colonist, Les Leyne wrote, "Mayors Award NDP a Perfect '10' for Duplicity" -- a shocking return on that survey, hon. Speaker. Certainly I'm going to quote this into the record:

"In the entire history of opinion surveys, there has likely never been such an overwhelmingly definitive finding that a government has broken its word.

"It's not a 'scientific poll' of the general public, it's a survey of a certain special group: the mayors and councillors of B.C.'s 179 villages, towns, municipalities and cities. But that doesn't detract from the validity, it enhances it. The respondents aren't people distractedly answering questions on the telephone while watching TV and making dinner at the same time. They are all elected officials, well-versed in the workings of government.

"More than 100 of them sat down and marked a questionnaire distributed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, after weighing all the evidence."

And again, they were awarded a perfect 10 for duplicity.

[3:15]

An Hon. Member: One of the few awards they'll get.

L. Reid: Absolutely right.

"The results are remarkable, for [the Premier's] government has achieved the political equivalent of gymnast Nadia Comaneci's perfect marks at the Montreal Olympics: they've scored perfect, 100 percent disapproval ratings."

We have a great deal of regard on this opposition bench for the work of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. They are the voice of local government in this province. And they believe that the questions were answered truthfully. They believe that their civic leaders responded honestly and effectively to this survey, and I would support that contention. I, too, believe that they have answered this honestly and effectively. The findings are so astonishing that it appals Les Leyne, the writer of this article. It appals the UBCM.

"Eleven solemn assurances over the past few years by [the Premier] and NDP cabinet ministers were quoted to the councillors, who were then asked whether they considered the promises 'kept' or 'broken.'

"Fittingly, it was [the Premier] himself who scored the historic breakthrough mark. It came over NDP legislation three years ago designed to guarantee that municipalities would get a set amount of money each year from the province. Asked to rate [the Premier's] comment at the time that the grant formula was 'guaranteed' -- in light of last fall's unilateral decision to ignore the law completely and slash the grants by more than $100 million -- they marked it 103 to 0 as a promise broken. "Imagine: more than 100 judges from across the length and breadth of B.C. have held up their scorecards at the conclusion of the NDP's political gymnastics routine and unanimously declared it a perfect failure."

It's an astonishing result, because it represents every town, every village, every city, every community in this province, and they are finding fault with their provincial 

[ Page 2593 ]

government. Again, every member on the opposition benches has a great deal of regard for the work of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Obviously, the members on the government benches don't share that commitment, because they are prepared to deny that they have a responsibility. They are prepared to legislate away their responsibility and to disillusion every single taxpayer in the province, who doesn't deserve government that continues to deceive them at will.

Again, many questions in this document. . . . I'll certainly quote one or two more into the record:

"The other perfect score went to [the Minister of Employment and Investment]. He said in September 'no decisions have been made yet [on local government grants] and none will be until a review is complete and we have a complete analysis of the impact.'

"Was the analysis available? Again 100 to 0 agreed no, it wasn't.

"[The same minister] also came close on another statement last fall. 'We will make every effort to engage you in timely discussion about significant changes because we know your perspective and your feedback will help us. . . .'"

Another huge broken promise, hon. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democrats, because they don't define consultation the way everyone else in British Columbia defines consultation. We on the opposition benches believe that means you sit down together and have a meaningful exchange of ideas. You don't receive it in the form of a memo, a press release, a directive that your future is at stake, the future of your community is at stake, and you were not allowed to participate, not invited to participate in the process.

Again, on the Minister of Employment and Investment, the mayors in this province responded. Did he keep his promise? Did he break his promise? "He scored 102 to one in favour of broken, or 99 percent. [The Premier] also posted a 99 percent, with a similar empty promise: 'We will work with you, we will involve you in our consultations.' The mayors marked against him 103 to one."

Only in British Columbia would the insight, the wisdom of local government be disregarded to the extent that it has been. It's abundantly unfair; it's frankly mean-spirited, shortsighted. And it doesn't make good sense for this province. This is the very same government that talks at length about regionalizing service, about joining in good partnerships across this province, about ensuring that communities work together, about how important that is to put those foundations in place.

What do they think this approach will do to any further collaboration? I suggest that it will dampen and probably eliminate that for most communities across this province. Why in the world would anyone enter into a negotiation that requires some stability, some maturity on the part of the players, when one party doesn't know how to consult -- doesn't, frankly, care if they do -- and then has the audacity to mislead the public about whether or not that has taken place? It's not fair; it's not honest; it's not decent; and it's certainly not democratic. This is about ensuring the life and livelihood of a democracy, the life and livelihood of our communities. What this government has done is denigrate that, and, frankly, I find that offensive.

I think there are ways in which certainty can be achieved so that indeed partnerships can be meaningful between civic government and provincial government. I suggest that this has put back that camaraderie at least a decade, if not more.

Why in the world would anyone trust this government? I mean, we have the Minister of Finance on the front page of the local press saying: "I don't expect you to believe me." Well, guess what: we don't. Nor do the mayors in this province believe that they can accept a single thing that this Minister of Finance, this Minister of Employment and Investment or in fact the Premier utters from this day forward. We've had difficulties with previous budgets, previous discussions. The level of honesty is not improving, hon. Speaker.

The local mayors comment in this article: "The worst part is that the public's cynicism toward politicians is felt by us, who are actually accountable to our electorate." We've heard many members on these government benches stand up and talk about local government being the closest to the people. Well, yes, indeed that's true. This group of individuals, this local government, is going to feel the heat the most from the fact that the provincial government has skewered them one more time.

They continue: "It is galling to be lumped together with a group that is so dishonest, shortsighted and ignorant." That's a direct quote; that is what the mayors in this province are saying. Another comment: "The provincial government's unilateral actions are unbelievable, outrageous, immoral, dictatorial and contrary to their own legislation." If they don't respond to any of those adjectives, Mr. Speaker, they must recognize that this is indeed contrary to their own legislation. "These actions must be resisted relentlessly and vigorously. . . . It is very frightening to see how clearly the provincial government has worked hard to achieve a 100 percent failure rate." That alarms me, because I do believe that this should be about building useful partnerships in British Columbia. It shouldn't be about alienating individuals repeatedly.

The mayor of the city of Richmond has written and has brought forward his concerns. And we are a city, Richmond. We achieved that status some time ago. We are well over 140,000 people, growing by leaps and bounds. There is no vision in the broken promises implementation act that allows for cities of this magnitude to continue to meet the needs of constituents, of residents. That's alarming, certainly.

The Minister of Employment and Investment recently attended the opening of the new Hewlett-Packard facility in my riding. What a fine contribution they're going to make to job creation. Yes, I absolutely support that, because frankly, they are the only ones who can make a contribution to job creation. But to have such a narrow view as to suggest that this legislation isn't going to diminish the good things that are going on in the city of Richmond is again appallingly shortsighted. There are some good things, and the government should be assisting in that regard rather than diminishing the impact of the very fine things that happen today in the city of Richmond.

This letter is dated April 14, 1997. It's written to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, and it's entitled: "Repeal of Local Government Grants Act." My commitment to my city, to the city of Richmond, is to enter this into the record, because I believe it's very important that every single person in this chamber understands the impact on every taxpayer in British Columbia and upon every city, town, village or municipality.

"The provincial government has reduced revenue-sharing grants to Richmond this year by $3.7 million, which will be implemented by a repeal of the Local Government Grants Act. The city of Richmond would like to go on record as objecting to the steps being taken by the provincial government, from two perspectives. The first area to which we object is the non-consultative approach the provincial government used to bring about the changes in the funds that are distributed to local government. Throughout the 1980s, we had a reasonably secure 

[ Page 2594 ]

funding formula that was based on provincial revenues and allowed us to budget for a share in these revenues, based on a fairly predictable formula.

"In the early 1990s, when [this current Premier] was the Minister of Finance, he discontinued the revenue-sharing formula and brought in a new funding agreement that he promised would bring predictability and stability in grants. Even though municipalities lost of tens of millions of dollars by agreeing to the new program of [the then Finance minister], we reluctantly agreed to the change in hopes of a new, stable revenue-sharing act. In November of 1996, very shortly after signing a protocol of consultation with the province, the provincial government then announced cuts to grants to municipalities for the 1997 year."

Imagine the feeling of this writer, the mayor of the city of Richmond, acknowledging that very shortly after the commitment was made, it was changed -- without consultation, hon. Speaker.

"Not only was there no consultation in this announcement to the cuts, but it made a mockery of the earlier change to the grant structure described above. This unpredictable behaviour of the provincial government over the past five years not only makes municipal budgeting very difficult but continues to off-load provincial funding shortfalls onto local government. The problems are not of our making, but we are expected to bail the province out. The 40 percent cut in revenue-sharing for local government is a very drastic step.

"Our second objection is, of course, the ramification of the $3.7 million in provincial cuts to the city of Richmond. In order to deal with this reduced funding, we have had to take several drastic steps, as follows: severely reducing the hours of operation for our two outdoor pools; reduction in overtime for firefighters that might affect their level of service to the community; a reduction of six management staff and the elimination of some union positions; no funding for hiring additional RCMP officers or for replacement RCMP officers for the federal drug squad which is being moved to Vancouver; having to hire legal counsel to handle bylaw infractions, due to the removal of Crown counsel services; decreased levels of service in public works; and reduced contributions to our capital programs.

"Our staff and council have worked very hard to realize efficiencies wherever we could in order to mitigate the effects of the provincial cutbacks. In addition, our high growth rate has meant additional taxes are being collected from new development, which is helping to pay for programs, though, as you know, this is not keeping up with levels of additional growth.

"We therefore wish to reiterate our objections to the abrupt and non-consultative manner in which the cuts were thrust upon us and to the amounts of the provincial cuts. One of the reasons I believe the public has a lot of respect for local government is that we live up to our commitments and are open and accessible. The provincial government has a responsibility to do likewise." And members of this opposition would certainly agree. "We certainly hope that a similar procedure of unilateral action and cutting of grants will not be on the government agenda for next year.

"As elected MLAs for the city of Richmond, I hope you will be able to present our position in the Legislature when Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, is debated.

"Yours truly,
"Greg Halsey-Brandt,
"Mayor"

This letter has gone to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to the opposition Municipal Affairs critic, to the president of the UBCM and to members of council. This is a letter of commitment, from the mayor, on a belief he has in the city of Richmond and in its ability to do its job without the provincial government interfering to the extent that it has.

I began my remarks today, hon. Speaker, talking about stability, about certainty of funding. They are not evident in this bill, the broken promises implementation act. This is a denial that indeed provincial government has a responsibility to integrate service, to work in partnership with civic government. This is an out-and-out denial that that scenario needs to exist for the useful running of cities, municipalities, villages and towns across this province. This doesn't assist, hon. Speaker, in any way, shape or form to the desired outcome, which should be reasonable government, government that's trustworthy, that possesses some integrity, that does consult in a meaningful way.

[3:30]

This letter, I am convinced, will be one of many representing every single mayor across this province, because indeed the points raised are valid. The points are shared by every mayor -- city to city, village to village, municipality to municipality -- across this province.

The government has no reasonable response, hon. Speaker. Certainly I don't believe they're putting up many speakers to this bill today, because I think they're frankly ashamed of the decisions that have been taken. Each of these MLAs on the government benches will need to return to their local communities and try to sell it as somehow being a good thing. They'd best not try, because frankly there's very little, if anything, in here that makes good sense for local government. This provincial New Democrat government is diminishing the partnership that they have enjoyed with civic government. Those days will be soon over, I believe. That's the scenario for 1997.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

What about 1998? Can any mayor in this province have any confidence, any assurance, that the scenario in 1998 will be any different? Again, comment from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. . . . Many municipalities are working hard to get their 1997 budgets finalized. But what about 1998? The certainty that was eliminated yesterday in the province's announcement to amend the Local Government Grants Act would seem to put 1998 grants at risk. Depending on the legislative changes, municipalities could be facing a further reduction next year.

It's a legitimate and an alarming comment, because we have cities, towns, municipalities across this province that are cutting to the bone for 1997, foreclosing -- as in the case of Richmond -- recreational opportunities for young people this summer, reducing firefighters, the drug squad, things that are vitally important to the life and livelihood of communities. People wish to live in safe communities; they wish to have access to recreational resources. To suggest that that is the only avenue this government has allowed local government and then to suggest that the scenario for 1998 might be worse. . . .

Again, the government opposite has nothing to be proud of. They are diminishing what local government can offer. They are not going to stand up, I daresay, and attempt to defend this piece of rubbish.

There needs to be true, meaningful consultation in British Columbia between every level of government. I trust, hon. Speaker, that will only happen once this government leaves office.

R. Masi: I would like to begin by commenting on the implications of federal downloading that I heard this morning from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. It was quite an interesting comment, and to my knowledge, I have never heard anyone on this side of the House ever support the concept of the federal downloading on the provincial government. I think we speak for British Columbia as well as all members in this House.

[ Page 2595 ]

But the point that we're discussing is process, hon. Speaker -- it's process. I noticed that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview disregarded process, said it was a small matter -- if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but it's really a small matter. Well, I don't think process is a small matter, and I don't think consultation is a small matter. What we're talking about is how one level of government deals with another, and that's very important. Intergovernmental relationships are important; we have to maintain these to make good judgments for Canada and for British Columbia.

Can you imagine the whining and wailing and bellyaching of this government and this party across the way if the federal Minister of Finance had applied the same method of process and consultation that the provincial government applied to the municipalities? I can hear it now, and I heard it for years and years. They're experts, and they've had many years of training in whining and wailing and criticizing, so I think they would carry on in the usual manner.

We all know, hon Speaker -- and this is no big secret or anything like that -- that deficits have to be eliminated, and we all know that debts must be reduced. We all know that in order to carry out social programs, we have to lower the debt -- the national debt, the provincial debt. It's just good common sense, because interest payments are killing these programs. We have to do that. So we don't need lectures from across the way on how to do this. We know, we accept, that tough decisions have to be made both federally and provincially.

But it's how you make these decisions, how you do it. It's respect, again, from one level of government for another. It's not ramming down punitive legislation to a so-called lower level of government; municipalities are not a lower level of government. They may be a creature of the province -- and I guess we could get technical about that -- but it's not a lower level. This is the government that's closest to the people of the province, to the residents of British Columbia. We don't need this sort of instant decision-making with no consultations based on the premise, I guess, that we've heard by one of the ministers, that government can do anything. Well, can they really? I don't know. We'll see in a year or two.

It's not saying one thing publicly, making public statements, such as in the road situations, where we're turning maintenance of specific roads in various municipalities over to the municipalities and later realizing. . . . I guess there was some confusion in contractual arrangements with maintenance companies that maybe they really couldn't do that. Then the next thing we hear is that the government really will take care of the maintenance of these roads, failing to say: "We will also further reduce your grant." I know in my municipality -- and the member for Delta South mentioned it this morning -- we had a very quiet reduction of one-third of a million dollars for road maintenance. That came off the grant as well.

These grants are very important. They're very important to the people who live in these municipalities. It has a direct effect on policing. This is what people are concerned about -- their safety. They're concerned about law and order, basic protection. They're concerned about the hardships that they're undergoing, taxpayer hardships. It sounds easy to say, "Well, we'll just add another 3 percent to your tax bill this year," or something like that. Many municipalities are struggling with this. Of course, then what they have to do is implement tax and fee increases. Fee increases. That's the old backdoor system of taxation that the members opposite are very familiar with now.

We have to remember that municipalities have to, by legislation, balance their budget. So somehow they have to squirm and wiggle -- and maybe wriggle, even -- in order to accomplish this balance. Only two years ago the government brought in legislation. They brought in an agreement. What about an agreement, an agreement that would give local governments the capacity to plan and organize for the good of ordinary taxpayers, to be able to balance their accounts, to establish their budgets and to share in the growth and development of this province? That was a fair bit of legislation, and I commend the minister who brought that in.

But what do we see? Two years later, because, I guess, of the incompetence in the fiscal management of the province, we see it's all to be eliminated -- the stroke of a pen or, as our member for Shuswap indicated, a total whiteout. Now it will be replaced by the word "consult." The minister will consult with the various municipalities.

Well, what does consultation mean? I hope it means what I think it means. But I really think it doesn't mean interaction on an equal basis between municipalities and provincial officials or the minister concerned. The minister will come out with this piece of legislation saying, "No increases to large or small towns" -- however it works. This time around, it's the big cities that are taking the hit. Next time around it may be the tiny ones that take the hit. Or it could be no grants, period. What it really means is that this government has demonstrated -- and it's unfortunate we have to say these things -- a total disregard for process and consultation.

This should be the framework of how governments operate, not just hit-or-miss, holus-bolus legislation to correct an immediate situation. There should be process and consultation, and I'm sad to say that this government has demonstrated no credibility with local governments. I'm sad that we've got to this situation in this province. This government has had six years to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, to bring this province around so that we aren't in debt to the extent we are -- that we're not running deficits -- but they have not been able to do this. I've been waiting six years and still haven't seen it.

An Hon. Member: Don't hold your breath.

R. Masi: And I won't hold my breath.

M. Sihota: Listening to the opposition in this debate around the Budget Measures Implementation Act is interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that somehow they seem to take issue with some of the decisions this administration has made with regard to. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want them to hear this. There's a good reason why we have two ears and one mouth, and why only one person can speak in this debate. So let it sink in a bit here, hon. members. The opposition seems to. . . .

I was going to talk about two issues. The first one I want to talk about is that it's amazing how quickly they forget. It's absolutely incredible how quickly they forget the position that they were advocating on the doorsteps during the course of the last provincial election campaign. Let me remind members opposite what they were proposing during the course of the last election campaign. Their leader released an alternative budget -- which they haven't done this time around. I challenge them to do so, so that they can show to British Colum-

[ Page 2596 ]

bians the position that they would take with regard to the budget. During the course of the last election campaign, their party ran on a platform of cutting $3 billion out of the provincial budget. Now, let's put that in some kind of context. The budget for the province of British Columbia. . . .

[3:45]

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I've been listening patiently, and I would expect the hon. members to show me the same level of respect that I always show to them.

Roughly $20 billion is the amount of money the government takes in, and during the course of the 1996 fiscal year that was the case. They said that they would cut by $3 billion. You know what that means? That means they can't take it. That's what it means right now. . .as I see the member on his feet.

D. Symons: Point of order. As interesting and entertaining as this presentation may be, I would remind the speaker that we are speaking on Bill 2, a government bill, and that's what we should be discussing so that we can move on with the day's business. Could we do the orders of the day?

M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for that reminder, and, of course, I wish to remind him -- as members opposite have been pointing out -- that certain municipal legislation falls under the purview of this legislation.

So $20 billion is what we take in, and during the course of the last election campaign they said they would cut by $3 billion. Of course, they want to forget that. Why is that? Well, because that represents 15 percent of the amount of money that government takes in. They made some comments about K-to-12 education and a number of other areas that they said would not be subject to that 15 percent reduction. So they would have to cut that $3 billion out of all sorts of budgets. They said which budgets would be protected, and of course, there were a number of budgets that were not protected. One of those was the Municipal Affairs ministry budget. It wasn't protected, so therefore it went. I'm glad that the penny has dropped, because you can tell by the silence on that side that they now know where I'm heading.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I knew my comment would generate that remark.

So they would have made massive cuts to municipalities. They would have made massive cuts to the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They would have made massive cuts to municipal services. They would have forced upon municipalities massive increases in property taxes that they would have to pass through to commercial, industrial and residential residents in those areas. So let's put this in some kind of context. You have our budget before the House, which, quite frankly, does have an impact on municipalities. I can't remember the exact number, but I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million -- $113 million.

But let me remind the hon. members what the impact would have been if they had been elected. It would have been $500 million: five times more pain. The Municipal Affairs critic says there's not that much money in the whole budget. He doesn't get it. So let me remind him what was stated in their platform: unconditional grants and conditional grants would disappear by $181 million. To achieve that $500 million, in the last election campaign the Liberals committed to cutting transit grants to municipalities by $275 million, further cuts of $34 million were promised by the Liberals in terms of community grants and a further $10 million in terms of highway planning, for a total of $500 million.

It gives me great pleasure to stand up in this House and first of all remind members opposite of their own policies, which they've conveniently forgotten about now that the election is over -- now that they've lost. You know, they don't want to come in here. . . . If they want to have a debate about the changes that we're making as a government, it seems to me only fair game that they should talk about the commitments that they campaigned under in the election campaign. In my mind, it runs somewhat hypocritical for them to stand up here and criticize this government for some of the changes that are being made in this budget, prudent as they are, when they opposite, had they been elected -- and thank God British Columbians saw to it that they weren't -- would have had a devastating impact on the ability of municipalities to deliver basic services in terms of roads, sewers and water.

They would have had $500 million in cuts, and not one hon. member opposite has had the temerity to stand up and say: "This is what we would have done." I challenge them now to confess that that was indeed part of the Liberal financial plan.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Their screams today in this House run hollow. They have all of the attributes of hypocrisy. It would be my suggestion that they take this time now to remind voters of the position that municipalities would have been finding themselves in had the Liberals been elected.

I said that our initiatives are somewhat prudent, and they are. Look at the city of Victoria. I would say all municipalities in this wonderful province of ours would be well advised to do what the city of Victoria has done: to take a look at what we said was there -- namely, the ability to find administrative efficiencies, which they found. Victoria, although initially concerned about this determination on the part of government, has now been able to find the fat in their budget so that there will not be a tax increase, which the hon. members would like, in their doom-and-gloom scenarios, to suggest there will be. There will not be a tax increase in Victoria, and other municipalities would be well advised to follow that course.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want them to listen to my second point, because I told them I would be making two points in the context of this legislation.

During the course of her comments, the member for Richmond East alluded to a certain columnist that had commented on things that this government was doing. She referred to newspaper summaries, and I've heard other members opposite do this. They'll take the most convenient editorial. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 2597 ]

M. Sihota: No, but I'll tell you what I wouldn't do, in a second.

Some days you have to ask yourselves about the independence of the press in light of the fact, of course, that many generous contributions were made by the press to the Liberal Party during the course of the last election campaign.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: They say: "Tell us more." Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $90,000. I was looking at the donations today, and I was astonished to see that Steve Weatherbe donated $10,000 to the Liberals in the last election campaign.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Last time I checked, Steve Weatherbe was a journalist.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Steve Weatherbe. That's right. Where is he now? I didn't realize that journalists made that much money in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Well, Keith does but Steve doesn't.

M. Sihota: Yeah, maybe Keith Baldrey does. But even Keith's company donated to the Liberals during the last election campaign. I believe WIC donated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $13,000. But no reporter was as generous as Mr. Weatherbe was last May, when it turns out he donated $10,000 during the election campaign. Now, in terms of the initial disclosure of the Liberal Party, it's interesting to note that that donation on May 13 was made by Sterling Newspapers Ltd. But in the new papers that they filed this week, it shows up as a donation on the part of Mr. Weatherbe.

In fact, CanWest Global -- CKVU -- as it turns out, gave $6,000. We didn't know that initially. The Financial Post gave $5,000. We didn't know this until the disclosure the other day. And there was $10,000 from Shaw Communications cable systems. This is, of course, on top of the $12,500 contribution that was made by the owners of the Vancouver Sun, a paper who I think often prints far more fiction than fact.

Now, this isn't intended to be a criticism of. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: It is my second point. I think it raises two questions, in all seriousness, and I don't think that Mr. Weatherbe made that contribution. I think it came from Sterling, and it should have been reported as such. But it begs two questions: why was the true nature of the transaction not properly disclosed? Or was it initially disclosed properly as Sterling's? And why did they change it to Mr. Weatherbe? But more importantly, in terms of our own society: how can a public have confidence in the neutrality of the press when these kinds of contributions are made to a political party, like the Liberal Party of British Columbia?

I think it begs some legitimate questions in terms of the role of the press in a democracy, where I think the public expects neutrality and independence from the press, and then, as in the case of the owners of the Vancouver Sun, these contributions are made without apology. I think it certainly causes some -- including me, at times -- to question the propriety of these kinds of donations when one would expect the press not to make donations to a political party, such as the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

I just want the hon. members to reflect on that, not to sort of. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I'm listening, hon. Speaker, and I must confess that I'm not supposed to be hearing voices opposite; members aren't supposed to exist when. . . . But I often do hear voices from the other side of the House, and they often have little to say and perhaps are not worthy of a response.

But I don't think they should be grasping for straws. I think they should be returning the cheque. I think they should be making a statement to the press in British Columbia that as a political party they will not accept donations from BCTV, from CKNW, now from Shaw Cable and CKVU and Mr. Weatherbe. So it would be my advice to the hon. members opposite that they ought to return the cheque.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: If they wish. Let me say more. I don't have it here; I should have brought it. They never really got. . . .

An Hon. Member: What do you want? Some material?

M. Sihota: No, I have lots of material. But I tell you, I wouldn't rely on any material from your research department, hon. member. I mean, add it up this week. Today they didn't know what the labour legislation was in this province. They came in here saying: "Oh no, there's going to be a strike in the schools in Prince George and in Qualicum Beach this week." No one over there in that research department looked up the labour statutes. They didn't know the law of the land.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order! Hon. member, I don't think the Labour Code is in Bill 2, so I think you might wish to address a different point.

M. Sihota: All I'm saying is that they should either fire people in that research department or ensure that they get adequate training through the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. The other day they made certain allegations about the Nisga'a lands, saying the lands were up for sale, that they were being given away.

An Hon. Member: They're still saying it.

M. Sihota: And they're still saying it. Again their research department was wrong. Perhaps they should go over to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and be educated on how the system is working. They don't care if it's wrong. You know how they get together in their little question period committee, and they say: "Hey, we've got a great story today. Let's go 

[ Page 2598 ]

ask it." It's all based on fiction, probably fiction read in one of those newspapers that donated to them during the course of the last election campaign.

Then, of course, there's that famous question period when they told us that A&W and other food multinationals in the United States -- Starbucks -- were getting all sorts of contributions from government, all sorts of subsidies. Again they were wrong. In fact, the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia came down here and stood in the halls of the Legislature. People -- good New Democrats like Malcolm Ashford -- stood there and told them: "Look, they don't know. The Liberals don't know what they're talking about." And they don't.

Then, of course, there was the gaming fiasco. This opposition is so bad, it's incredible -- like the gaming official who was slam-dunked by the Minister of Employment and Investment.

[4:00]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 2, please. Return to Bill 2.

M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker. Let me say that in this budget implementation legislation there are certain things that are missing. There ought to be in this bill, in my view, provision made for training allowances for Liberal researchers. That's the kind of provision that we need in this legislation, and it's lacking. If you want my honest opinion, there should be provisions made in this bill, two different columns: one column with regards to municipal grants that lays out what we're doing and another column that lays out what the Liberals would have done had they formed government -- $500 million in cuts.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order. This is not about rehashing question period; it's about Bill 2.

M. Sihota: No, it isn't, hon. Speaker. And I have too much respect for the rules of this House to digress much from the provisions of this legislation.

But I think I have made the point that it's somewhat hypocritical for the members opposite to make these suggestions about the municipal budget in light of the fact that their cuts would have been $500 million and would have had a devastating impact. Secondly, I think that all members in this House need to reflect on the fact that it's somewhat inappropriate -- in fact, totally inappropriate, in my mind -- for that party to be accepting those kind of donations, whether they're from Mr. Weatherbe or other journalists or journalistic outlets.

With that said, I thank the hon. members opposite for their remarkable attentiveness during the course of my presentation.

R. Thorpe: It certainly is nice to see that member with a smile on his face for a change. It's been a long time since we've seen him smile. The only issue is: how long will the smile last?

We're debating Bill 2 here, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997. Unfortunately, the members on the other side have not seen the seriousness of their errors. This bill is about yet more broken promises. It's about the integrity of all of our government. It's about off-loading to municipalities. And what it is most about -- I'd just like to get it in before that member leaves -- is fiscal mismanagement. Yet the Minister of Finance says that he's proud of the budget and this bill, which is going to end up as $31 billion of debt for all British Columbians. It is not possible to be proud of this bill. This bill should have been titled "More Broken Promises, Act One, More to Come, 1997."

On March 25, the Minister of Finance said: "I don't expect you to believe me." Guess what: municipalities do not believe the Minister of Finance of British Columbia -- and that is sad. The auto propane users do not believe the Minister of Finance. That is wrong, when people do not believe ministers.

Why has all of this happened? It's happened because of broken promises. People haven't asked for more. They're asking their government to keep their word. In 1994 this NDP government promised municipalities stability, certainty and predictability. That has not happened. In September of 1996 the Premier of this NDP government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs signed a protocol agreement to consult with UBCM, and a mere two months later the municipalities learned -- through media releases -- of the cuts. That is not consultation. That is a broken promise, and that is what has British Columbians upset.

We're told that the cuts are 3 percent. The people in my riding, the people in the municipality of Penticton, are looking at a 37.38 percent cut in their transfers. That is not 3 percent -- another broken promise. The people of Summerland are being cut $168,000 or 28.5 percent. That is not 3 percent. It is more broken promises.

This government has stripped away stability, predictability and certainty, and communities are having great difficulty with that. Yes, some of the communities, through very effective management, are able to cope right now. But there are some other communities who are concerned. They're not concerned about this year; they're concerned about going forward, providing the services to their people. They're concerned that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. There is not another pot of gold, although this government is trying to find it at the expense of local governments. There is only one taxpayer in British Columbia.

One of the things this government fails to recognize. . . . It's about real people and real families. I have to tell this House and this government that, with respect to the auto propane tax increase, we were promised there would be no tax increases. But now they say: "It's just that we're getting ready for the exemption." When you take the money out of people's back pocket, when government does that, that is a tax.

Mr. Wiebe in Peachland knows that he now will have to pay more for propane. That is a tax. When Leslie Porter and Colin Biagioni in Summerland have to pay more for their propane, they know that this NDP government is taxing them and breaking a promise. When Al Menzies and Gord Morgan and Jim Morris in Penticton buy their propane and have to pay more, they know that this government has broken yet another promise and has imposed more taxes on them. That is what people are upset about. People are upset about governments saying one thing and doing another thing. And that is wrong.

But do we have certainty as we move forward? No. If this government did not have more deception in mind, why, when they're making amendments to this bill, would they say in (e) that the minister may do "any other prescribed basis"? That 

[ Page 2599 ]

means the minister can do to the communities whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And it is not just the large communities. People in the small communities are concerned, they are afraid, yet there is no comfort in this legislation. And that is wrong.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Thanks for reminding me. It was the Minister of Forests on that side who said this government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Here are two examples: the tax on propane -- they promised no taxes, yet they are doing that -- and cutting and taking away from municipalities.

This government just does not understand. I don't like to repeat myself, but there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. They pay all of the taxes. People know that when you shove costs down from one level of government to another, it has to stop at the taxpayers, and they are going to have to pay. I want this government, on behalf of the people of Peachland and Summerland and Naramata and Penticton, to have some respect and to understand that it's not their money that they're spending. It's not their money that they're wasting. It's the hard-working taxpayers' money, and they have a responsibility to keep their word and to safeguard these funds. They just have to do that.

The hon. members talk and take shots because they know they can't defend their own policies and their broken promises. When we form government, we will introduce truth in budgeting, we will implement balanced-budget legislation, and most of all, when we sign protocol agreements that say we will consult, we will honour those agreements, because that's all that people want. They want the opportunity to help solve the problem.

I was told a few years ago that one of the problems that people encounter. . . . Why we get at opposite ends of the spectrum is because we don't share what the problem really is, and therefore we can't work together on the solution. That is what this government has failed to do. They have failed in consultation. They have failed to keep their promises. And that is wrong.

Hon. Speaker, I will have more to say about this issue in the committee stage. I will be speaking then on behalf of my constituents. But this government should be ashamed of itself for breaking two more promises -- the promise of consultation and the promise of no tax increases -- which this bill acknowledges that they're doing.

D. Symons: As much as I would like to respond to the outrageous comments made by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I think I will refrain from that and just deal with Bill 2, and maybe take a slightly different tack than some of my colleagues have done on that, because I want to look at parts of it, as well as the Local Government Grants Act.

The first thing that concerned me in here is -- I note it in section 2 -- the change to the Assessment Authority Act. I have no problem with what it's doing; I guess I have a problem with the time it's doing it. What this will end up meaning is that they will now make the funding for the appeal process payable through the authority rather than what it was paid through -- out of the consolidated revenue fund.

The only concern I have about this, hon. Speaker, is that this government, when they were bringing in their budget, made the statement that they had cut spending by $100 million, but when we looked more carefully at that statement we found out that the way they had cut the spending was by moving numbers around, off the books. They took them from one agency that was counted through the budget process, in the consolidated revenue fund, to other agencies where they didn't count that way. So the $100 million spending reduction turned out to be more like a $250 million to $300 million increase in spending, if you take the moneys they have shifted off the books onto other ones.

This indeed does exactly the same thing. It's simply going to shift roughly $2.3 million from the books that counted before, from the consolidated revenue fund, over to the Assessment Act. I have no problem, as I say, with it being done that way, because maybe the thing should be self-supporting in that sense. But it seems that this government will next year use that as another example of how they have reduced spending. Indeed they haven't; they have just shifted the books around a little bit. So it's a bit of another shifty move on the part of a shifty government, I suspect, to go about doing that.

I have another concern, and this of course will certainly come up in second reading and possibly deserve an amendment to section 8 on the Hotel Room Tax Act, because there we have. . . . Apparently, if the government makes a mistake in the taxes for a hotel or other establishment, they could be fined for having to pay the moneys that are due because of a refund that was improperly paid. I suspect, most of the time, it will happen when an audit is done. They'll find out it was the hotel that made a mistake on it.

[4:15]

But the way this act reads here, if the mistake was made by the government -- the auditors or the assessment people that collect the taxes there -- then indeed that hotel would still be subject to paying interest on the moneys that were improperly refunded. I think that would be incorrect. A slight change would make that correctible.

Now we do get down to section 12 and on, which deals with the Local Government Grants Act. That, of course, is the one that most of us are concerned about, because it hits us where we live, in our own communities. I would like to say that the real thing that bothers most of us, again, is the removal of section 2 from that act. That basically takes away the limits that the government was allowed to change the grants to.

The problem with all of this thing and the whole act, as others have said, is that just a very few years ago we had the municipal cost-sharing changed by this government when they brought in this Local Government Grants Act in 1994, I believe it was. At that time, they said this will bring certainty, predictability and those wonderful words of assurance to communities: "Now you'll know what you're going to be getting year by year."

And communities bought into it. As a matter of fact, they bought into it by allowing the government to sort of get out of paying about $250 million in unpaid grants that they had hanging over them. They bought into it because there was this predictability and this certainty of funding coming. We find just a few years later that the certainty has suddenly evaporated, because taking out that limit of a plus-or-minus 2 percent change certainly will remove it and leave it open to government to use whatever figure they want to change it to. As a matter of fact, the only reason we're discussing this bill today and this section of it is the very fact that the government wants to make the promise it made to the municipalities back in 1994.

[ Page 2600 ]

The other part on the grants that I'd like to mention is that that particular reduction is 66 percent to the city of Richmond. That is a terrific reduction on the part of this government in its grants to the municipalities. Overall, it's a 28 percent reduction to municipalities, but to Richmond it's 66 percent.

A couple of the government members and, I believe, the minister, when he was introducing the bill, gave the comments about the fact that we've had the federal government off-loading on the province -- everybody's got to share the pain and all the rest. Well, you know, I looked back and found out that the federal government cuts for this year are $435 million. It's roughly 5 percent of their grants to this province this year that they've cut back on. The cutback to Richmond was 66 percent. That seems to be a little bit out of balance there, in the sense that they're saying, "We've got to share the load," and they complain about Ottawa's 5 percent cut. I don't necessarily agree with Ottawa's cuts to B.C., but they say: "There's a cut of 5 percent to B.C., and we're going to off-load that cut by a 66 percent reduction in grants to the municipality of Richmond."

It varies from community to community. That, of course, brings up the other business of whether there's any certainty and predictability, because certainly Richmond did not know that they would have such a huge cut. Nor did any other community know what size the cut would be to their community, until it was announced.

The second part, I guess, brings up the concerns I have with the credibility and the reliability that people can have in anything this government says. Last September, I think it was, I attended the UBCM in Penticton. At that point, we had the Deputy Premier stand up and sign an agreement on consultation with the mayors of this province, through the UBCM. They made a great to-do about the fact. "We've signed this protocol agreement, and indeed there will be consultation between the government and the municipalities whenever anything comes up that's going to affect them."

Did they consult with the government when they brought in the change to this bill, the Local Government Grants Act? Did they consult when they cut back the grants to the communities? Hon. Speaker, they did not.

Hon. D. Miller: Read my speech from the time -- very clear.

D. Symons: Very clear that you were not. The minister is saying it's very clear that they were not going to consult with the communities when they cut back their. . . . It's interesting that the impression given to the mayors was certainly that there was going to be consultation, but the minister says otherwise. We're finding today, anyway, that certainly consultation is not one of the strong suits of this particular government.

Now, we find when we look at the unconditional grants part, section 3, that what this is really going to do is leave any future grants to municipalities totally up to the minister or the cabinet, because basically it says in the very last part that they can give grants on "any other prescribed basis." Nothing at all -- nothing -- was in the original grants act to that effect. There was certainty and predictability in that act. This means there's uncertainty -- no predictability whatsoever -- for any community, year by year.

Honestly, it is extremely difficult for school boards, for municipalities, for any level of government to perform the services that they must perform for their communities or their relative constituencies without knowing what's coming year by year. You need to know; you need some sort of predicability to plan for the future. You can't have a jumping from one year to the next, wondering what's going to happen the following year. You need some degree of certainty. This bill simply removes that as far as provincial grants go for those communities.

I have a great deal of concern with a government that would even consider bringing this in. If the federal government said to B.C., "Next year we may cut out all the grants to B.C., or we might raise them, or we might reduce them by 50 percent; but we'll tell you when the fiscal year comes near to an end what you'll be getting for the next year," this government would be up screaming. They're screaming now about the cuts the federal government has been making. They gave them a ten-year lead time on it; we knew year by year what the reductions would be from the federal government. The municipalities did not know at all what this government was going to be doing to them. They found out they'd better not bend over in their presence, because they'll get it in the end.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I won't explain that to you.

You know, the government has suggested that they have reduced the grants by 14 percent. They have done this, again, through what they're getting very good at, and that's fixing the numbers somewhat to suit their purposes. Really, what has happened is that they've included a lot of things which were not part of the government grants for what they've totalled up that goes out to the communities, and they've used that as the basis for their percentage calculation. The actual figure, as I said earlier, is somewhere closer to 28 percent. So when compiling the 1996 grants under the program, subject to changes, really, the grant reduction is closer to 30 percent. We also find that the estimates of the transfer to local governments were under $3 million a year in 1995, and the $113 million reductions are now 30 percent of the total of what was received. That is from the UBCM, who have worked out these figures.

There are 68 communities that are having some sort of reduction in their grants. Four of those communities have reductions of between 70 and 80 percent in government grants. Seven of the communities, Richmond included, have reductions of 60 to 70 percent. The largest group, I guess, if you do a mean curve here, have 40 to 50 percent reductions. But to all of these communities, that's going to be difficult.

The reason is difficult; it's because the minister said and suggested: "Well, it's very easy for them to make a small adjustment in their budget, because this government is doing it here, and they should follow the example." There's a slight difference, and that is that the community of Richmond and, I'm sure, many other communities around the province have been fiscally responsible. They have not run up a deficit; they have not run up debts each year. They have been paring things to the bone to keep the tax rate as low as possible all through their last decade or so, so that there is not the fat there. There are not the high-paid government consultants. There are not the high-paid. . . . What's the term I want here -- cupcakes? What's the name for that particular government agency that basically is. . .?

An Hon. Member: Cabinet policy and communications.

D. Symons: The cabinet policy group, right, the communication centre that takes $7 million out of the provincial 

[ Page 2601 ]

budget there. You know, in the municipalities you don't have those sorts of things. They don't give out the sort of patronage appointments that this government has been doing. They don't have the money to cut back as readily.

It's going to come down to reduction in services, to an increase in the tax or some combination of both of those. We find out in the city of Richmond that already now they are going to be reducing services. They're cutting back on the times the swimming pools are open to the public; that will affect children and so forth who use them. They're cutting back in library hours and things of that sort in order to make up the difference that this government has reduced the budget by. So we find there are all sorts of concerns that I really don't think this government considered when they brought it in.

We have a letter here from the mayor of Richmond, addressed to the three MLAs from Richmond, basically asking us to do something -- if we can to bring this to the attention of the government. It says:

"The provincial government has reduced revenue-sharing grants to Richmond this year by $3.7 million" -- I note, hon. Speaker, that was a 60 percent reduction -- "which will be implemented by a repeal of the Local Government Grants Act. The city of Richmond would like to go on record as objecting to the steps being taken by the provincial government, from two perspectives. The first area to which we object is the non-consultative approach the provincial government used to bring about the changes in the funds that are distributed to local government."

I won't read the rest. I have made some comments about that non-consultative part, but they go on quite a bit about the consultations that were promised and didn't take place.

"Our second objection is, of course, the ramification of the $3.7 million in provincial cuts to the city of Richmond. In order to deal with this reduced funding, we have had to take several drastic steps, as follows: severely reducing the hours of operation for our two outdoor pools; reduction in overtime for firefighters that might affect their level of service to the community; a reduction of six management staff and the elimination of some union positions; no funding for hiring additional RCMP officers or for replacement RCMP officers for the federal drug squad which is being moved to Vancouver. . . ."

These are all going to affect the service in Richmond. They end by saying:

"We therefore wish to reiterate our objections to the abrupt and non-consultative manner in which the cuts were thrust upon us and to the amount of the provincial cuts. One of the reasons I believe the public has a lot of respect for local government is that we live up to our commitments and are open and accessible. The provincial government has a responsibility to do likewise."

That's signed by Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt, mayor of Richmond.

[4:30]

Now I'll move on from that Local Government Grants Act to just a few of the other ones. I note that there are some changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act. The tax on alcohol-based and compressed natural gas is remaining as is. At the same time, it's allowing for the taxation of propane. I would suggest that that is a retrograde move on the part of this government. Propane fuel does, if burned efficiently in an engine, put out a lot less emission than the current gasoline that we use. So we should be encouraging people to change to alternative fuels, not discouraging them by taxing them. So that is also a retrograde step on the part of this government as far as environmental issues go.

The Municipal Act has provisions. . . . I made notes here -- oh yes, the Municipal Act. I just had some interest when I saw in the current Municipal Act, which this government brought in a few years ago, that there was a provision that when they're having an election in the municipalities, the value of donations of services -- of people to work for a given party or given group -- must be recorded as a donation to that particular group that's running in the municipality.

It interested me greatly, because when this government brought in the Election Act for British Columbia, that particular facet of reporting expenses and donations did not occur in the provincial Election Act. Yet this government insisted that it be in the Municipal Act -- a rather interesting omission, hon. Speaker, considering the things that the member from Esquimalt was saying earlier. It's a rather interesting omission, because that permits a given party -- and a certain party in this province seems to get a lot of support during election campaigns from the labour movement. . . . Indeed, they get a lot of donations of services from various labour organizations where employees are still receiving their salary. They're not working at the union office but are working for a given candidate in one of the ridings. That doesn't count as a monetary donation. The value of that donation doesn't count under the Election Act for British Columbia. It would count if they gave that same donation during a municipal election. That's just a rather interesting omission. I thought maybe if they were going to bring about some changes to the Municipal Act, they might also bring in a change to the Election Act and put in that little thing that really belongs in our Election Act.

I think the last comment I'd like to make relates to section 34, on the Tobacco Tax Act. I do remember that for the last two years we heard Finance ministers stand up -- frequently during the election campaign -- and we've heard this phrase from this government: "No new taxes. A promise of no new taxes. Taxes are frozen for two years."

Now, I have no love for the tobacco industry at all, as you know from my support for various curbs on their. . .particularly in appealing to young people on the use of that product. But nevertheless, this is obviously another broken promise. We've gone from an 8.4 cent tax to an 11 cent tax -- indeed, somewhat of a broken promise again. There are just too many broken promises on the part of this government.

I suffer -- as every member in this Legislature suffers -- as the public perception of politicians sinks lower and lower when more things said one day are unsaid or not kept the next day. This act just brings in more of those features, and people can no longer trust the government that they have elected. And I feel personally affronted by that, as every member in this House suffers from the perception that the public now has of politicians. With that, I will take my seat and leave it to somebody else.

P. Reitsma: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill. It will probably come as no surprise that I cannot support this three-D bill -- disastrous, deceitful, discriminatory. Today is April 17. For me it is a very happy day, because it is, as a matter of fact, my son's twenty-second birthday. [Applause.] Thank you, and donations are accepted for his scholarship. Of course, it's a very happy day to be 22. In fact, my daughter will be 25 very soon, but. . . .

An Hon. Member: How old will she be when the provincial debt is paid off?

[ Page 2602 ]

P. Reitsma: She'll be 45, I suppose.

It is a sad day for the province, for the municipalities. This day will go down, in some infamy probably, as bully-the-municipalities day rather than the name of this particular bill. It's a day of shame.

The government really doesn't practise what it preaches. As you very well know, because we've been together at many UBCMs. . . . In my political background, I'm very proud to have served as a council member and as the mayor of Port Alberni in the early eighties. The person who took over is a very well-known person, the now president of the UBCM. Gillian Trumper has been mayor of Port Alberni since she took over in 1983, and she is doing an incredibly good job. She is also UBCM president, as a matter of fact -- and I'll be referring to that later. I'm extremely proud to have been a mayor. I've also had the opportunity and privilege to serve as the mayor of Parksville for nine years, as well as serving on the regional district of Nanaimo and the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot.

The reason I mention this is that I was really proud to be part of presenting 12 balanced budgets. The reason we were so proud to present 12 balanced budgets is. . . . Because we had no choice. This provincial government -- and this is why I said that it doesn't practise what it preaches -- makes it law under the Municipal Act that we have to come up with a balanced budget, and I think that is very, very good. But what's good for the municipalities is indeed good for the provincial government. Aside from that, it's also good for the federal government.

You cannot dictate a law to one segment of society or one political institution, namely the municipal governments or the regional districts, and simply blatantly ignore that law for yourself. It's particularly galling because the people who put the law together to force it upon the municipalities -- and I think it's good to have a law to balance budgets -- simply are not adhering to their own laws.

When we get together in councils -- and there are many representatives of municipal governments on the other side of the House and, of course, on this side of the House as well -- and attempt to balance a budget, it is extremely difficult because of cuts, because of a lesser amounts of income and more demands. We sit down, we have long, long meetings -- day meetings and evening meetings for hours upon hours. We scrutinize. We buy more pencils, because we have to sharpen them all the time. At the very end, we are happy because we are able to come up with a balanced budget, as was dictated to us. This should and must happen to the provincial government, of course, as well.

This bill really rocks the foundation and pillars of working together. It is a breach of trust and a breach of integrity, and these are fundamental to working together. I've made presentations, and I've listened to the councils of Parksville-Qualicum and Nanaimo, and to the directors of the regional district of Nanaimo as well, and they are shocked and dismayed that this breach of protocol, this deceitful and disastrous bill, so deceptive and so discriminatory, can be put upon them. I've talked to them. I've addressed those councils, and they ask me, and of course, I ask the government as well. Of course, the government's answer is: "Well, we can do anything we want, for that matter." How can this happen?

Municipal subsidies have been conveniently ignored. When you think of the total provincial transfers of $400 million -- or $800 million, or something else -- the part of the equation ignored is the announcement in the free services provided by local government to provincial facilities. Let me explain. Schools, colleges, universities and hospitals generally pay no taxes, grants-in-lieu or user charges. Yet they receive, at no cost, local services such as police and fire protection, road maintenance and water and sewer services. Similarly, Crown corporations do not pay taxes on the same basis as other taxpayers. For instance, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries. . . . Of course, the people of my riding in Nanaimo are particularly well aware of the B.C. Ferries, and so is the government. They shut off the taps for the water for a while because they wouldn't pay. B.C. Rail only pays partial grants in lieu of taxes.

Among the services provided to many provincial agencies at substantially reduced rates or at no cost are, for instance: most school board elections; fire protection to some provincial parks; emergency services outside the municipalities; ICBC; criminal-document services, partial payments; some provincial highway police patrols; court overtime for police called to testify in the provincial court system; and the first-responder program for the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Those subsidies by local property taxes total in the millions of dollars annually. Some of the spin that's been put on some of the questions. . . . I'd like to quote some of those. The spin the provincial government wants you to believe is that it subsidizes local government by $800 million a year. Well, I go to the doctor only to get better, not to get worse. The facts are that the $800 million is misleading. It includes programs that do not belong to local government.

Upon the advice of the UBCM, we got some information: the table produced by the province to clearly distinguish between actual cash transfers to local government and other provincial programs. I'll give you some examples of the $800 million which is included. It includes: emergency health, which is the provincial Ambulance Service, controlled by the Ministry of Health, $116 million and some change; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks contribution to the Fraser basin management program, $300,000; programs that are not grants to local government, such as the B.C. Police Academy, $1.6 million; policing in small and rural areas, $47.5 million; Canada Assistance Plan, which is federal money that flows through the province to municipalities, almost $3 million; the Fire Academy, just short of a million; and most glaring, the capital and operating funds of B.C. Transit, $287.5 million.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The next spin that the provincial government wants you to believe is that the $130 million in cuts is only a small portion -- one-eighth -- of $800 million. Again, the real doctor will tell you that the estimates of the transfers to local government were under $300 million a year in 1995 -- $130 million reduction, or 30 percent of the total that has been received.

In the '96-97 fiscal year, local government will receive cash transfers of about $300 million. It is against this amount that reductions should be measured. Cutback impacts cannot be accommodated in the more than $500 million of the other perpetrated transfers, since this money never touches a municipal budget. On that, you cannot write in the chimney with charcoal, and neither can this government befuddle UBCM and the municipalities. As much as they like to try, they cannot.

The spin: a cut equivalent to 3 percent of the revenue is manageable. The facts: total revenue reported in the municipal statistics contain a lot of accounting factors. It doesn't really 

[ Page 2603 ]

represent the room available to make adjustments. For instance, the total revenue can contain one-time transfers out of reserves into revenue; revenue collected for other groups -- i.e., the regional districts -- surplus carried forward for the previous year; and revenues to finance one-time purchasers. The better measure is to compare the reduction in transfers to property taxes. The reduction in this case is 4.5 percent of the total property taxes, on average, and up to nearly 7 percent. The spin, as previous: a cut equivalent of 3 percent of revenue is manageable.

When I listen or try to listen to colleagues from across the floor representing their municipalities -- those who have been in regional districts and/or municipalities, as well -- I find it incredible and sad that none of them are standing up for their communities and for their councils. It takes courage to stand up for something. But sadly, most fall for anything.

Having talked to the mayors and the councils of the three municipalities, I'd like to give you some of the impact and tell you the real numbers rather than the spin numbers. And with all this spinning, you get dizzy, anyway -- as everybody is at the UBCM. The changed percentage of transfer in 1997: for Parksville, it's 43.5 percent, not 3; in Qualicum Beach, it's 21.5 percent; in Nanaimo, it is 63 percent.

Now, in terms of the grant reduction as a percentage of the property taxes, it's not the 2 percent; it's not the 3 percent; it's not the manageable amount. In Parksville, it makes a difference of almost 6 percent. Councils will have to raise taxes by something like 6 percent in order to have the status quo, to be at the same level. In Nanaimo -- part of that is my riding, and it's your's too, Mr. Speaker -- it is over 4.25 percent. Port Alberni, where I used to be the mayor, is just over 4 percent; and Qualicum Beach is just under 3 percent.

All those numbers. . . . I cannot help but believe that some people on the other side, if not all, as far as I'm concerned -- when you look at Hansard and you check the records -- really suffer from political amnesia. They don't remember.

[4:45]

The UBCM news release. The main lesson to be learned from the announcement that was made in November is the refusal by the provincial government to live up to its commitments to the property tax payers of B.C. This government places little value on trust and credibility. The consequences of the reduction of $113 million in transfers to local government are predictable and unavoidable. Individual communities will have to choose between increasing property taxes to make up the shortfall, or a range of other options: drawing down reserves -- if there are any reserves left that have been responsibly set aside for future capital expenditures -- or laying off municipal employees. And both of them -- tax increases and the layoff of municipal employees -- are happening.

New and/or increased user fees for municipal services and aggressively contracting out municipal services to the private sector. Thankfully, small communities are protected this year. However, this is only the famous divide and conquer, pitting one half of the communities of the UBCM against the other. Of course, once the minister gets his way, it really doesn't matter if we have a Municipal Act. He can do, as has been said so many times, what the government really wants to do.

The provincial government says that no community will lose more then 3 percent of its operating budget. But this cannot disguise the fact that in larger communities like Vancouver and Surrey, 3 percent equals millions of dollars in public services and wages. Earlier I gave you the statistics on how it affects the three communities in my riding.

It is with some pleasure that I would like to read from the report card on recent provincial commitments on local government transfers. I generally like to see my children's report cards, because they are generally very good. However, I want to warn the other side that most of them are coming in at Bs. B stands for broken.

The commitments were, in 1993, by the now Premier: "I am prepared to agree to enter into some certainty for municipal governments, which constrains my options down the road." Now, was it kept or was it broken? It was broken.

In 1994 the Hon. Elizabeth Cull said: "This legislation" -- the new Local Government Grants Act -- "is designed to deal with stability and predictability, and it does that." Broken, hon. Speaker.

The Hon. Darlene Marzari, who was one of the better Ministers of Municipal Affairs, may I add. . . . We have no difficulties bestowing praise where it is really deserved. She said: "This province has taken a stand with the municipalities to seek. . .some form of credible relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities" on grants reform. I hate to tell you, hon. Speaker, but that, again, was broken.

The hon. Premier, in 1994, said that the formula under the Local Government Grants Act is guaranteed. Broken. The same minister at that time -- now the Premier -- said that talks are to begin with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to determine how these savings are achieved. Again, it's broken.

It is really with some disgust that I go back to a promise made in 1994, whereby the municipalities agreed to write off a quarter of a billion dollars owed to municipalities by the provincial government in return for some predictability, certainty and stability in the future. And you know what has happened to that.

Even in the Municipal Act, whereby it is guaranteed. . . . Of course, what are guarantees? Because government can do what it wants; it simply changes the act and the statutes. But there was a provision that no change of more than plus or minus 2 percent would occur. Of course, with this bill, that is going to be totally eliminated, which means that the real impact is that the minister can do whatever he or she wants to do at any time. There is no obligation for the government to consult, to communicate with the municipalities -- which of course means the local taxpayers, as well.

There were ten commitments made. All ten have been broken. Normally 100 percent is excellent; however, this is rather negative.

In a circular from the president of the UBCM, whom I referred to earlier -- she is also the mayor of Port Alberni. . . . On February 12, 1997, she stated to the municipalities that as elected officials, we should base our opinions on factual analysis. "We have an obligation to seek out the facts and form our own independent conclusions. We should be accountable to our electorate, to ensure that messages being communicated to them are complete and unbiased." Again, those of us who have served in local politics at the municipal and regional level see people during the day. We see them in church. We see them in the corner store. We see them in the shops. We see them on the streets. We look them in the eye, because we see them all the time. We cannot obfuscate the truth. Once you get into further distances, like in Victoria and in Ottawa, that seems to be rather obliterated.

[ Page 2604 ]

In conjunction with recent cutbacks to municipal grants, UBCM felt that the B.C. public needed to know the facts on intergovernmental transfers. Specifically, we need to be able to tell them if the provincial government shielded local government from federal transfer reductions. Again, you'll remember that at least the federal government, with their consultation and communication, gave the provincial government a two-year notice. In this spirit, I must add that the government here outdid itself, and I wish, with that speed, that photo radar had been there. Of course, it could never have clocked the speed of the broken promises -- they went so fast. The provincial government only gave municipalities three to four weeks' notice, rather than the two years that the federal government gave to them.

The UBCM commissioned Gary Williams and Associates -- an independent organization -- to do a review of intergovernmental transfers in the 1981 to 1985 period. The report is with us. Everybody has got a copy. It's based entirely on provincial records.

The report concludes, and this is extremely important:

"The reduction in intergovernmental transfers started with the provincial government reducing funding to municipalities in 1982. Reductions in federal transfers to the province did not start until 1988. In terms of significance, over the 15 years since 1981, the reduction in transfer payments has been greater for municipalities than for the province, no matter which of the three measurement methods is used. The notion that municipalities were somewhat protected from federal transfer reductions is not supported by the evidence.

"There will be a significant reduction -- 30 percent -- in federal transfers to the province over the next two years -- 1996-97 and 1997-98. This will be matched by a similar reduction -- 30 percent -- in transfers from the province to municipalities, but over only a one-year period."

As I mentioned, the province was given at least three years' notice of changes; municipalities were given one month. So much for the protocol agreement, which was heralded, which was touted, which was signed, which was trumpeted as something unique, something brand-new, something we could all be proud of -- the working together, the communication, the consultation. However, there was a rider under there, and that was "only on government terms." We found that out.

The unilateral cuts in grants, the fee increases, the off-loading, etc., as I mentioned before, will mean tax increases, layoffs and contracting-out in my municipalities -- in Parksville, in Qualicum and in Nanaimo. "With respect to future transfer payments, municipalities will be treated more harshly by the province than the province will be treated by the federal government."

A couple of other notes, hon. Speaker. One is the highway declassification. Recently -- in the last couple of days -- I talked to officials in the various municipalities. That too will add considerably to their budgetary problems. Although they had been told by the minister at that time -- I think they've had about four ministers in the last year or year and a half -- that no tax increases were permitted, we know that taxes will go up in order to combat the shortages bestowed upon them by this provincial government.

But many of the highways being declassified are going to be costly to the local taxpayer -- 141 provincial arterial highways will be declassified. Municipalities will assume full responsibility for them, mostly on April 1, 1997, and that date was no joke. About half of the 71 municipalities are affected, from the village of Zeballos to the city of Surrey, which will take over 115 kilometres at an estimated cost to the city of $9 million annually for capital and maintenance over the next ten years. Over 1,450 lane-kilometres are being declassified. Hon. Speaker, so much for working together. So much for implementing the protocol agreement.

In the 12 years that I've attended UBCM meetings, I have never seen such an embarrassing moment as happened last year when the Premier and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs were booed. Despite all kinds of difficulties and not working together, I've never seen that. I think that tells you something about the acceptability of the policies of this government by the representatives of the municipalities, through the UBCM. I was quite shocked but not surprised.

As I mentioned, the protocol agreement was only a vehicle, a conduit, for the province to do again what they've said all along: "We can do anything we wish to do." They make no bones about it, and it keeps on coming. But it's fine, because three or four years from now people will remember. We certainly will.

One of the last two items is off-loading to the local taxpayer, the person on a fixed income who can hardly afford it. Section 2 of the bill, the Budget Measures Implementation Act -- which should really be "Bully the Local Taxpayer Act" -- is the Assessment Authority amendment. Basically, the $2.5 million that came out of the consolidated revenue fund will now be paid for by the local taxpayer to pay for the appeal system of the property assessment. It's another tax increase; it's another fee increase; it's another hike; it's another item, like so many others, that the local taxpayer is paying for, despite the promise -- broken, of course, like so many of the others -- that no tax increase would take place. They've simply changed the goalposts and made it a fee increase.

[5:00]

The triple-A classification that the provincial government has in terms of the bond rating will be affected. However, we will always give them a triple-A rating -- and that's for abusive, abrasive and arrogant.

On the propane increase, one of the items I've had the most calls and most mail about is another broken promise. That's the increase on propane in terms of taxation of just over 2 percent. And I cannot help chuckling about the explanation of the Finance minister, who tried to explain it away by saying, "Well, the propane is so low anyway that it doesn't really matter," as if they would give a reduction if certain commodities are high. It's unexplainable and amusing, but nevertheless abusive.

I think about the people who have converted to propane on the basis that they would be getting some consideration. I'm thinking of the municipalities, and it is unconscionable that the costs would be passed on to them and through to the local taxpayer. To me, it's another hike in taxes, another tax grab. It's another promise that was made and broken. People did not expect to see that tax increase, and nor did they warrant it, for that matter.

There's a shortage of time, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked to advise the other side of the House with a litany of what the editorials have been saying. No doubt they've got a clipping service, but they don't necessarily read them.

Finally, of course, I'll be speaking against Bill 2 for the reasons I said earlier. I find that this bill greatly affects whatever smidgen of credibility this government has left. It's unfortunate. It's a 3-D bill as far as I'm concerned -- it's disastrous, deceitful and discriminatory.

Hon. D. Miller: I rise to support the bill, and I just want to deal with some of the issues relative to municipal govern-

[ Page 2605 ]

ments and try to set the record straight. Quite frankly, the speeches from members opposite have not been accurate with respect to the sequence of events relative to a protocol of recognition signed between the province and municipal governments. I happened to be the minister at the time, and I think it's important that the record be corrected. I am absolutely confident, hon. Speaker -- because I sat in the room with members of UBCM's executive and discussed this in a very candid way -- that each and every one of them who was in that room will verify my recollection of events.

It's clear that the UBCM had for many years been desirous of more recognition and had proposed that we enter into a protocol of recognition -- in fact, it was Councillor Joanne Monaghan, the past president of UBCM, who proposed it. When I was named Minister of Municipal Affairs, I studied that document and had two very key conversations with Ms. Monaghan about it. In two separate conversations, I told her that while we were interested in moving forward to sign the protocol, we were also actively looking at potential reductions to municipal transfer payments.

At that time there had already been discussions about potential reductions to municipal transfer payments. On both occasions I made the point to Joanne Monaghan that if we signed this protocol, if we could put the province in gear and get it ready and do it at the UBCM last September, we didn't want someone from UBCM saying at some future date: "Despite the fact they signed the protocol, they went ahead and cut municipal transfer payments." I was absolutely crystal-clear on that point.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is my version, and I've also said, hon. member, that you can consult with anybody who was in the room. Consult with Ms. Monaghan and with members of UBCM to see if in fact they'll verify what I'm saying here today. If you haven't done that, it seems to me you've overlooked something, but go ahead and do that.

I was absolutely crystal-clear. The answer I got back was: "We would like to sign this protocol of recognition, and we understand that you are looking at some potential reductions in municipal transfer payments." I reconfirmed that at a meeting with the UBCM executive the evening prior to a speech I made at UBCM in September. Again, you can confer with anybody who was in that room. My speech is a matter of public record, and I'd be happy to mail a copy to each and every member of the Liberal opposition if they haven't taken the time to read it.

My speech was very clear at the UBCM convention -- where I wasn't booed, hon. member. I laid out the importance of the protocol of recognition, but then I laid out in very clear terms what the protocol would not protect municipalities from, and that was the financial decisions we had to make. That is on the record. It's there for anybody who is interested in trying to obtain the facts. So I can only put it on the record. I have no ability to influence whether members on the opposite side wish to look for the facts. I can't influence them whatsoever. They can continue to stand and say the opposite.

But, hon. Speaker, I was there. I know who else was there. I looked them in the eye, and what I'm stating here today is a fact. Now I listen with rapt attention at the explanation as to why municipal governments are virtuous with respect to balanced budgets and why other levels of government are not. There's a very simple reason for that. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: You're correct that they are governed by the Municipal Act with respect to running deficits. But the second and fundamentally the most important issue is that they are a different level of government completely. They do not have responsibility for general economic conditions. They do not have to cover issues such as social welfare; they have no responsibility in that regard. They have no responsibility for education. They have no responsibility for the broader issues that are the purview of provincial governments, not just here in British Columbia but in every other province in Canada. That is why there is a fundamental difference between the municipal level of government and the provincial level of government.

I am absolutely appalled that there are members opposite who are members of municipal governments but who don't have that fundamental or basic understanding of the difference. There is a difference. You may not like the fact that there is a difference, but quite frankly, there is one. The members can stand and preach all they want, but they know that with respect to the broader economic issues that sometimes occur in provinces -- or indeed in federal states -- for example, were there to be a major recession. . . .

Are the members opposite seriously suggesting that in the face -- this is a theoretical discussion, hon. Speaker -- of that kind of economic issue, they would simply stick to some foolish notion that we would never do anything except run a balanced budget? Are they trying to convince people that they're serious?

You know, there's an old saying, and I try to follow it but I sometimes actually err. It is a caution that was given to me many years ago by someone wiser than me, and it is this: never drink too much of your own bathwater. I mean, you know what happens when you do, and we're witnessing it here today. In the give-and-take in this House, I know that it's the job of the members opposite to say that everything that happens over here is bad. But I mean, really, when you gloss over the facts to such a degree, it is a bit galling.

Finally, with respect to the issue of propane, there were no broken commitments whatsoever. It was absolutely clear, and again, it's on the record -- and I see that one of the Liberal members is nodding his head -- that when that taxation level was reduced, it was for a defined period of time. I'm not even sure that our government did it. I think a previous government did it for a defined period of time. Check the record. I don't mind political objections, hon. Speaker, but when there's distortion of fact, then I think there should be an obligation to set the record straight. It was absolutely clear from the beginning that the period of tax relief was time-limited, and now it has come to the end of that time. Finally on that point, I think they should perhaps check the prices of propane relative to other jurisdictions in Canada and see if we're really out of line. I suspect we're not.

So while I say I understand the need for members opposite to castigate the government, surely they ought to do that with the facts, as opposed to conjecture and hyperbole with a Liberal dose of bathwater.

G. Bowbrick: I want to rise for a few minutes and direct a few comments on the issue of municipal cuts, because I think it's an important issue, and it's certainly been addressed in this bill. One of the things I've discussed when I've got up in this House is the importance of context -- the importance of looking in context at all decisions that a government makes and at the entire debate that takes place around those decisions.

[ Page 2606 ]

In the last election, as I was out on the doorsteps -- and I was on a lot of them -- it was certainly clear to me that people were concerned about issues like health care and education and what have you. They were also concerned about the fiscal position of the province, and I think it's fair to say that after the election we sat down as a government and said that we have to address some of that concern, and we have to address it in a balanced way. And that meant making some decisions which were quite tough.

I understand that most of the members on the other side haven't been in government, and at times they may not have quite the understanding of how tough it is to be in government. I have to say that since the NDP came to power in 1991, it's been an education for me. Prior to 1991, of course, I was involved with the NDP -- not as an elected member, obviously, but I certainly understood the opposition mentality we had -- and it was certainly easier to criticize when you were not in a position to have to make decisions and take responsibility for them. So now we're in our second term, and we're getting quite used to having to make tough decisions, and that's really what this is all about.

For example, we had to cut the government agent's office in my own riding.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I'm glad to hear the heckling from the member for Okanagan West, because I note that at the time we made that decision, her government agent's office was also cut. I know that she suggested in her local media that it was a politically motivated decision, when in fact. . . . New Westminster has had CCF and NDP representation for 45 years. We also lost our office, and that's a very difficult thing, but it was a decision that had to be made.

[5:15]

By the same token, we have this issue of municipal cuts -- $113 million out of $750 million total -- that we decided we as a government had to make. When we made those cuts, I think we were fairly clear about saying that those cuts had to be made with certain priorities in mind. That meant that the first thing we had to cut was administration, then we would cut subsidies to businesses and subsidies we've provided to other levels of government and agencies, and the last thing that would be cut, in terms of the lowest priority, would be direct services to people.

So we made a decision about cutting. I understand the opposition's concern about spin when we talk about percentages, so I'll just talk about the actual number, which is $113 million. I started off by talking a little bit about context. I want to preface this by saying. . . . I don't say what I'm about to say by way of complaint, but merely by way of pointing out a fairly simple fact, and that is that we have been under considerable pressure for some time now with federal off-loading on the province.

After World War II there was essentially a compact in Canada that said that the way the federal government -- which didn't have authority in areas like post-secondary education, health care or social services to directly deliver services but certainly had a much greater ability to raise revenue than provincial governments did -- would participate in forming a social safety net in Canada would be by making a financial contribution. So after the Second World War the federal government agreed to be a 50-50 partner -- an equal partner -- with provinces in providing the services that I think we as Canadians still cherish today.

But what's happened since the early 1980s, and it has certainly escalated since the early 1990s, has been a continuous off-loading by the federal government onto the provinces, and quite frankly, British Columbia has been singled out more than any other province in the country. We're seen as a have province. I guess we are a have province, but it doesn't change the fact that we've been singled out for "special" treatment by the federal government.

Now we're at the point where in a few short years, shortly after the turn of the century, the federal government will only cover approximately 13 percent of the cost of post-secondary education, health care and social services in British Columbia. So as a government, you're faced with a couple of choices. Either you pass on those cuts to the people of British Columbia or you decide that you are going to step in and fill the void. We've been doing that for years now, and we've got to the point where, if we are to achieve a balanced approach to our fiscal situation, then we are going to have to -- we decided reluctantly, I think -- pass some of this on to municipalities. And as I said, it's $113 million out of a total of three-quarters of a billion dollars that we decided we had to cut. I raise the issue of federal off-loading not by way of complaint, because I think people in British Columbia simply expect us to deal with this, not to complain about it. And that means, I think, that it would carry over, as well, or apply equally to the municipal level.

I don't think that British Columbians are fooled for a moment. They do believe there is administration that can be cut at all levels of government -- certainly at the provincial level, and that's what we've done. We've saved somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million this year alone just by making cuts in the Ministry of Health, and I think that most citizens believe similar cuts could be made at the municipal level without raising taxes.

The opposition is saying that $113 million isn't manageable; that the municipalities can't deal with this. It's a little bit of a sky-is-falling type of argument, but now we're into this budget year and it seems that the sky isn't falling. Just this week we saw in the Times Colonist, I believe, that the city of Victoria is managing to absorb these cuts without increasing taxes. That's precisely what we thought they could do, and I believe the city of Victoria deserves a great deal of credit for doing that. In the same manner as the provincial government has done whatever it can to absorb federal off-loading without raising taxes, at the same time the city of Victoria is doing the same.

My colleague from Burnaby North informs me that it appears that a neighbouring municipality to mine, the city of Burnaby, is in a similar position. Instead of complaining, they sat down. . . . I heard the member for Parksville-Qualicum talking earlier about sharpening pencils and pulling out those pencils, and I congratulate the councils in Burnaby and Victoria on doing that. At the same time, I want to give credit to my own city council in New Westminster, because they could have chosen to simply play politics with this. I can certainly see how that would be appealing, especially in view of the fact that the mayor was my Liberal opponent in the last election, but instead. . . .

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: She. You should know, hon. member, that your candidate in New Westminster was a woman. I would hope that you would have known that.

In any event, the point is that our council have put their noses to the grindstone, and I'm hopeful that they won't have 

[ Page 2607 ]

any tax increase in New Westminster this year, either. Basically, their commitment is the same as ours, which is to make sure that services are delivered in as cost-effective a way as possible. As a matter of fact, the city administrator in New Westminster recently left, and they have decided not to replace that person. What that tells me is that there was excess administration. There is already one position eliminated. Once again I congratulate the city of New Westminster on that.

A number of our caucus members met with representatives of the UBCM yesterday. I think it's important that the opposition members listen carefully to this, because the head of the UBCM was their candidate in Port Alberni in the last election. Certainly she could have come to that meeting and simply wanted to grind a political axe, but to her credit, she didn't do that. The people from the UBCM came in and said: "You know, what's important now is to put this behind us. It's time to look forward." The opposition members would be well advised to follow the course of action that the UBCM is following, which is: look forward from here. We had a very pleasant meeting, and they came in and said to us: "You know, we've got this joint committee now. We think that's a positive step." They also said that they were quite pleased with the new Minister of Municipal Affairs. They felt that he has been working well with them thus far. I think that's very encouraging, and I commend them on their cooperative approach to this.

The representatives of the UBCM said something very interesting when they were talking to us about this, because, of course, there is the fact that of the member municipalities, 50 percent are smaller communities, and they didn't receive any cut at all. Certainly the people from the UBCM confirmed this in their meeting with us. But it has also become apparent to us that those smaller communities are working hard with the larger communities that were affected to address the concerns they have with the provincial government. I asked them why they thought this was, and their response was that the feeling was that smaller municipalities, even though they weren't directly affected, felt it was important to work together with larger municipalities in addressing this. It was important for everyone to be working together. So I saw that as an opportunity, because one of things I've noticed -- and that I think other government members have noticed -- is that as the province has faced this incredible pressure from federal off-loading in recent years, thus far the municipalities and particularly the UBCM, haven't been anywhere near as vocal in criticizing the federal government as they have been in criticizing the provincial government.

In the final analysis, I think we agreed that what was appropriate in terms of the smaller communities working with larger communities in the UBCM. . . . Even though smaller ones didn't receive any cuts from this government, the same logic could be applied equally to the relationship that the province has with the federal government. In fact, I'm pleased to say that in that meeting, those representatives of the UBCM agreed that it made a great deal of sense, from this point forward, for them to work hard with the provincial government in taking our concerns as a province to Ottawa when it comes to federal off-loading.

I see the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi shaking his head in disagreement, but I can only relate what happened at this meeting. As I say, the head of the UBCM is certainly partisan, and she is certainly a former Liberal candidate. But, nonetheless, there was a spirit of cooperation there, and I look forward to having the UBCM work with the provincial government in addressing this ongoing issue of federal off-loading.

In closing, I'd have to say one thing, and that is: if the UBCM is saying this, then surely the only people in this province who aren't willing to work with this government in addressing the issue of federal off-loading are the members of the opposition. They're the only people I know of in this whole province who aren't prepared to stand up and criticize the federal government for that.

I understand that we're getting awfully close to a federal election, and they may not want to offend some of their Liberal counterparts at the federal level, but come on, hon. members, first things first. I assume that all of the members opposite want to stand up for British Columbia and make sure British Columbians don't have their critical public services undermined by a federal Liberal government. And those members opposite will work with us, just as I know the UBCM will.

I will be supporting this bill, of course. I just wanted to make some brief remarks in addressing this issue of municipal off-loading.

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: I really don't know if I should be standing here with a big smile. It's comedy hour again, obviously, if we judge it by the last two speakers, especially the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who, a little while ago -- really with some theatrical anger, I think it was -- was trying to tell us, as he described it, the distortion of facts presented by us and the real facts of what happened in Penticton. I was certainly not in the meeting that the minister had with the board of the UBCM, but I do know that much of what was said could be heard outside the meeting room. The volume of the voice of the minister was such that many could indeed hear what was going on there.

An Hon. Member: You're not supposed to do that.

T. Nebbeling: Now he's beginning to heckle me. There's something wrong here. Can I see the rules, Mr. Speaker? [Laughter.]

Anyhow, as for anger in the voice of the minister during that meeting with the board of the UBCM, I can only describe it by the statements made by members who came out of that room outraged and extremely disappointed -- no dialogue, totally dictatorial commands given to that board. "You take it the way I tell you, and there is no room for any further discussion."

So I don't think that the consultative approach the minister tries to give us as the way he dealt with the protocol and with the members of the board of the UBCM reflects in any way, shape or form what did happen. When a reporter was actually reporting on one of our radio stations on what she also heard as an outrageous performance by the minister, the minister went after the reporter, as well, for daring to talk that way on the air. So I don't think the minister is really talking about facts. I think the minister today was actually involved in a bit of distortion of facts himself in regard to the protocol presentation and the meeting with the board of the UBCM.

I take exception to one particular point that he also mentioned -- three points, as a matter of fact. I believe the minister was at one time a member of a municipal council. I was really surprised to hear the minister saying that as a municipal council, you have nothing to do with the social welfare of your community, you have nothing to do with the education opportunities in your community and you certainly have no say whatsoever on the environment.

[ Page 2608 ]

[5:30]

I was a council member for ten years, six years of that as the mayor of the resort municipality of Whistler. One of the reasons that I want to talk to Bill 2 is based on the fact that Whistler had an 80 percent reduction in its grants money -- one small community of 7,500 people was the highest hit. But I can tell you one thing: as the mayor of Whistler, I was very much involved in creating education opportunities for my community. As a matter of fact, it's only because as a municipal council we were participating in the process and dealing with the Ministry of Education that we have a high school in Whistler today. The reason is that the provincial government was only willing to build a high school in Whistler if the municipality of Whistler was willing to put some money on the table. And we did it, because we felt education in our community was very important.

I am also surprised to hear this particular statement by the minister, considering that in the last five years we have had a community school program. The partnership between the community and the Ministry of Education is the essence of how we bring education to our kids and how school facilities are used as a place where the community gets together so our kids are not just educated in isolation. Again, it is a program that requires the participation of the community and the municipal council.

Social welfare. Maybe in Prince Rupert everybody was very happy. But I can tell you one thing. In my community we have about five organizations consisting of private citizens funded by the municipality to deal with much of the social ills that we face in a resort town. Without the municipal council's financial contribution and support, these social welfare agencies could never, ever exist. So I think municipalities play a major role in how social welfare issues are dealt with in communities, and I hope that it will continue to be that way -- especially considering the horrible gambling approach by this government. There is going to be much more social upheaval in small communities because of the gambling, and the communities had better be prepared to stand with the people who need the help. To say that social welfare is not an issue for municipal councils is just foreign to me.

Environment. We should not be part of the environment? It is this government that has imposed, over the last four or five years, tremendous pressures on communities, on municipalities, to incorporate environmental protective measures, be it on roads, on bridges or on sewage treatment plants. That is costing the taxpayers of these communities huge amounts of money. So again, municipalities and councils are very much involved in how we impose and employ the measures to protect the environment today.

I'm really sorry that rather than just sticking to the bill, I had to make this little statement, because I do not think that the minister spoke with facts. I think if he really meant what he said, he proved why he was such a bad Minister of Municipal Affairs. Only ignorance could have made him say that.

Why I really rose today. . . . I've already used six minutes and 15 seconds of my time, according to that clock. I would also like to speak to Bill 2. I want to speak to Bill 2, in particular, because the government is on a path of breaking yet one more promise made by the Premier to the people of British Columbia. I also want to rise because the consequences of this bill will add a tremendous tax burden to people throughout British Columbia. In order to make this point -- why I believe it will add a tremendous tax burden to British Columbians -- I would like to quickly differentiate between taxation by provincial government and taxation by municipal government.

The provincial government has got -- as we have been exposed to over the last five or six years -- tremendous powers to create new taxes, new fees and new financial burdens on British Columbians.

Municipalities, however, have only one tool, and that is called property tax. Property tax is the only tool for a community to collect funds from its property owners, that will indeed allow a municipality to work in an order that is acceptable to its citizens. The municipality is responsible for its administration. The only way that it can create the funds for paying for that administration is through property tax. They are responsible for the public safety of its community citizens and its visitors. The only way that they have an opportunity to collect funds to pay for the public safety in the community is indeed through property tax. They are also responsible for public works, road repairs, sewer treatment plants -- and name it all. Again, the only way a municipality has the power to create funding for these projects is through property tax.

The other element of property tax is that municipalities are also collectors of school tax, which is also a property tax. So it is not just the regular property tax that is a burden on the community -- and it is a burden we all have to share -- but as municipalities we are also collectors of school tax. The conclusion of that little statement is that municipalities have no tool other than collecting property tax to pay for their infrastructure, for administration and for the well-being of their citizens. What is happening now with Bill 2 is that we are going to see an erosion of the abilities of communities to indeed fulfil that mandate that they are given as a council.

I would like to go a little bit back in history. The ex-Minister of Municipal Affairs, who spoke a little bit earlier on, made the point that the agreement that was reached in 1994 -- with the $250 million that we walked away from, as municipalities throughout the province -- was the conclusion of a situation in 1993. Municipalities were basically ordered to a meeting by the then Minister of Finance -- who today is our Premier -- and the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- who today works for the chamber of commerce on a part-time basis, I believe, somewhere in Ontario.

Mayors were requested to attend the meeting, and at this meeting we were indeed informed that the committed grant program as it existed was going to disappear. One of the reasons given at that meeting was the fact that the entitlement programs of this government. . . . The member for New Westminster spoke on the entitlement programs as being the criteria that we should really focus on -- and that whatever the cost is of this entitlement program, we should be happy to take that burden. At that particular meeting in 1993, the then Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs explained to this group of mayors that the money that was committed to these communities to pay for all kinds of programs which were initiated or in the making was gone. I think at that time we were talking about $129 million-plus, a large amount -- double the amount of dollars that were committed but had not been paid out.

Total panic throughout the province. One of the scary things we saw happening was that the government, at the time they presented this message to the communities, said: "So we're going to take that money away -- the $29 million directly, and another $120 million indirectly -- but at the same time, we will start travelling through the province, and we will actually select six communities throughout British 

[ Page 2609 ]

Columbia that will get funding." That was the first time I saw this government actually start this approach, this strategy of divide and conquer. And it was clear that everybody was expected to go after the money, to be one of the six communities.

An Hon. Member: What about next year?

T. Nebbeling: And that's going to happen next year, when we're going to talk about the communities and the 5,000 people.

The next thing that happened in that saga was that we as mayors decided to reconvene a meeting after the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs left. The president of the UBCM is now, of course, our leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, and he called this meeting in the press centre at Robson Square. All these mayors got together in this room. I remember this very, very well, because every mayor who walked in, who attended the meeting. . . . They all came to the meeting with one thing in mind, and that was: "My community must be one of the six communities that is going to get funding for its improvement projects."

The most incredible thing happened there. Our leader today -- who was then the president of UBCM -- in a period of three hours was able to convince every one of us in that meeting that only if we stood together would we not be lured into this trap of: "You could be one of the six communities that gets the funding." Only because we all stood together, because of his way of handling this meeting and re-emphasizing that we could only win this battle by going west together as mayors of communities. . . . Only because of that particular attempt were we able to indeed undermine the government's approach, by speaking up as one and saying nobody was interested in meeting separately with the government. Nobody was interested in being visited in his or her community, and we insisted that this program continue to exist and that if the government was in trouble financially, let's talk about how we could help the government out of this bind. But the program had to stay in place.

That happened in 1994, and we created this new arrangement that delivered $250 million to the government. In all fairness, most of it was already spent, but at least they no longer had an obligation to the municipalities. But what they did have as an obligation was to continue to be partners in infrastructure projects and other grants support that always had been traditionally part of how the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government worked.

And I dare to say that the provincial government collects, through the taxes on resource extraction and through the provincial sales tax, a percentage of money that indeed is allocated for this specific purpose: to make funds available for communities so that they can do the things they need to do in that partnership with the provincial government. Because many of the demands that the provincial government puts on smaller communities or communities at large are concentrated.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of background on why I'm really appalled today to have to stand here. Believe me, when I was the mayor of Whistler in 1994, when this all happened, I never dreamed that I would be standing here. I thought that after ten years in municipal politics, it was definitely, you know, a nice opportunity to look at my little boat and go out and do a little bit more fishing, as I had been doing while I was the mayor of Whistler. But, like many British Columbians, I got angry with what was happening in the political arena here, and here I am today, speaking on a situation that is d�j� vu.

And it is just scary. The only really scary thing is that the then Finance minister is today the Premier. And where the Premier of the time saw the wisdom of making a deal with municipalities, that check is no longer there. So I think we as opposition have to fight extremely hard on behalf of all British Columbians, because this has an impact on all British Columbians. The smaller communities that today are exempt -- because communities under 5,000 people are today exempt. . . . I am really happy for them, to see that. But I've told quite a few mayors, and they did agree with me: don't hold your breath, because the government is doing exactly what it did in 1993. They try to find support for the program in one group of municipalities, put the kill onto the others and, when the damage is done to the people that are in the first wave of attack, after that the second attack will happen and smaller communities no doubt will be part of that second attack.

So I do feel I speak on behalf of all British Columbians who one way or another are affected by this tax crap -- because it is nothing else but tax crap. And that means I'm talking about the people who, through property assessments, have already paid a fair share towards paying for the community or the municipal infrastructure.

And when I go around and talk to people, there are a couple of misunderstandings. People who live in rental properties do not believe that they're affected by this. But then when you tell them that the landlord gets another hit, the dollars will have to come from somewhere. And it will lead to rent increases. So renters are not exempt from this; it's a misconception. Renters often think: "Well, I don't own the property I live in, so therefore why would I worry?" Well, they begin to realize that they will pay the difference between what has been paid in the past in property tax and what will be the cost of property tax because of this $113 million direct money-grab.

[5:45]

And I'm not talking about all the other grants that either have been reduced or are no longer available. Everybody living in British Columbia will feel this in their pocket. Unfortunately, there are too many people today living in British Columbia who no longer have enough in their pockets to even have a decent standard of living, and these people will be asked to put, of the little bit they have left in their pocket, some more in the pocket of the government.

I think, for that reason alone, that any member of the opposite side who speaks in favour of this bill and who will vote for this bill because they have been told by their masters to vote for it. . . . I think we can label them as hypocrites. These are the people who constantly stand up and introduce all kinds of programs that they believe will bring the standard of living up above the poverty line for many people, be it single parents, be it anybody who today, according to the government, lives below the poverty line, while the government is so committed to bring them above the poverty line as far as income is concerned.

I think it is a very hypocritical approach when, at the same time, the government introduces bills such as this one, which will take $113 million out of the same pocket. So I think it is, again, a matter of doubletalk. Obviously, the consequence of this bill is that every British Columbian will see less disposable income, a reduced quality of life and reduced status of decent living.

[ Page 2610 ]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is focus for a couple of minutes on what is happening in my own communities. As I've stated before, the town of Whistler is a small community of 7,500 people, and believe me, these are working people. These are not the people who are supposed to be the millionaires of Whistler. These are people who have an income that is an average income on a British Columbia level: $36,000, $40,000. They're living in a very high-priced area, and as a consequence of that, they often have to have two incomes, so mom and dad work, both together. Thank God the municipality of Whistler has a social conscience and has introduced a comprehensive day care program that is available to every person who needs it, working in the resort of Whistler. That's the social conscience that the minister felt was not the responsibility or the spirit of the communities of British Columbia. Well, it is there.

But 80 percent of the traditional grant money of the municipality of Whistler has been reduced. That's 80 percent. It means that $800,000 a year will have to come out of the pockets of these families, these hard-working families, on top of everything. There is no justification for it, and I think this government should really think of what they're doing to all people and not try to say: "Oh, well, they're from Whistler, so therefore they can afford it." Nobody can afford this money rate. The wallet is too tight right now.

West Vancouver. There are many people living in West Vancouver who live on a fixed income. Senior citizens who have had their home all their lives, who paid maybe $20,000 for the property and today sit on a property worth $500,000. . . . They don't have an income that reflects the value of their home. It is just that sometimes they have been loyal to their home for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. These people are going to be hit by the additional burden of $2.5 million. I'm not talking about the courthouse today, Mr. Speaker, because the transfer of the courthouse means another $600,000 to that community.

I can go on like that for a long time. I'm looking at the hour. I see everybody coming in, and maybe I should move that we adjourn for today.

T. Nebbeling moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

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

The committee met at 2:55 p.m.

On vote 16: minister's office, $429,000 (continued).

G. Plant: I was asking the Attorney General earlier today some questions arising from a press release which the ministry issued on November 13, 1996, and I wanted to continue with a few questions on the various subjects touched on in that press release. The second page of the press release talks about reallocation of moneys and reductions in positions, and I note that there's a list of some items that are part of what the restructuring was said to include -- the first of which is a reduction of 164 positions in ministerial management and administration. I wonder if the Attorney General could give us a progress report on whether that reduction has taken place, or on the progress towards it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it has taken place.

G. Plant: So those positions are no longer there as of the fiscal year which began on April 1?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: The press release also announces an examination of the criminal injury compensation program. The question, I suppose, is very simple: what's happening or what's underway in relation to that examination?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are currently reviewing that program to make it more efficient. Possibly, over the next few months, we will look at it to see if we can reduce some duplication. For instance, I am currently thinking about dealing with double recovery. If somebody gets a wage loss at the same time as they are entitled to a disability pension from elsewhere, I want to look at whether or not it is appropriate for us to allow someone double recovery under this program, so that while they get disability insurance, we pay them as well -- those kinds of issues. I haven't made up my mind, and maybe I'm just thinking out loud about putting an upper limit on how much money you can get from this particular program in pain and suffering and in wages.

G. Plant: I thank the Minister for that answer. Would I be fair, then, in saying that the examination of the criminal injury compensation program, which has taken place since this announcement in mid-November, really consists of a consideration of some of the ideas that the minister talked about. Or is there something more than that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, in addition to what I have just said, we've also asked the Workers Compensation Board to streamline their administration to see if we can bring in some efficiencies and save some money that way, as well. All of that is going on while we are reviewing it.

G. Plant: From a management point of view, it has always seemed interesting to me that this program is administered essentially by a board that is outside the purview of the Ministry of Attorney General. What is the relationship 

[ Page 2611 ]

between the ministry and the Workers Compensation Board? And I don't mean whether you have a nice relationship; I mean more formally than that. What are the lines of accountability? How does the ministry, for example, assess the performance of the program in relation to whatever criteria may be developed to determine whether the program is a success or not? And how easy is it to do that when in fact the administration of the program is taking place largely outside the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Workers Compensation Board has been managing that program. We do consult with them from time to time, and they do listen. Ultimately, we are considering as part of the total review whether or not we should bring the program into the Ministry of Attorney General, to make it more effective.

[3:00]

G. Plant: That's helpful. I thank the minister for that, and I may come back later with some other questions about how the ministry determines in a formal way and on an ongoing basis whether the program is working or not, and what the criteria are for assessing that. Well, maybe I'll pursue that now.

I was interested in some of the ideas, which the minister just expressed to the committee a few minutes ago, about capping compensation limits and avoiding double recovery. I wonder what the context is for this consideration. What is it about the program that isn't working from the government's perspective?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The costs are skyrocketing, and I don't know whether a government should be in the business of ensuring double recovery for victims. I don't know whether we should be in the business of ensuring gross income for anyone, or whether we shouldn't be looking at aftertax income in terms of wages, even if we don't deal with an upper limit on what you should be compensated for in terms of your wages. Those are some of the considerations. But the larger consideration that's moving us to this review and all of these considerations is that the costs have been really increasing every year. If we don't deal with it, then the day will come when we might not be able to afford it. I want to make sure that we are able to use our resources efficiently and in fact put them at the disposal of the victims, in terms of counselling -- those kinds of necessities, rather than maybe indemnifying wage earners at the upper end, those that earn high salaries, to the fullest. Those are competing interests, and we have to look at what we want to emphasize. Generally, I'd rather emphasize dealing with the victims, in terms of providing more counselling, better assistance and some minimum basic assistance in terms of indemnification for wage loss or some money for pain and suffering.

G. Plant: To what does the ministry ascribe skyrocketing costs? Is it the significant growth in the number of claims being made, or is it the significant growth in the quantum of awards, or some combination?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, in general terms, just let me go back to the earlier questions that the hon. member asked. One of the concerns we have in terms of our desire to review this is that there have been many complaints from victims that the program is not responsive -- it is too slow or too insensitive -- to women in particular. We want to make sure that we deal with those issues as well as others.

There was a 50 percent increase in expenditures between 1992 and 1995. I don't have the '96 figures at this time. There was an increase of $9 million over those four years inclusive. While the cost per claim has risen only about $600, from $7,200 to about $7,800, there has been a net increase over the four years in the number of claims -- about a thousand claims. Those are the statistics, and all of those lead us to begin to look at this as well, because it's important that we bring some of these issues under control.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

G. Plant: I had occasion a year ago to speak with one of the deputy ministers in the ministry about this issue. I remember at the time being struck by the particular unfairness of a particular case, given the approach that was being taken by the people making decisions in the program. But as I thought about that problem over time, it seemed to me that the real problem is to put any kind of logical limit on entitlement in a program like this. Once you acknowledge the principle of compensation for criminal injuries, there is a real challenge in drawing lines around the entitlement, and I wish the minister well in trying to continue that process of drawing lines around entitlement.

But there are also process concerns, and in that regard I listened with interest to the minister say that there is some thought being given to moving the program administration out of the board and perhaps elsewhere. When this happens in other agencies, boards and commissions within government, I am always struck by the difficult situation that applicants must face when they have an adverse decision made by an adjudicator. They seek to exercise internal appeal remedies, and sometimes they find that the person hearing the appeal is, of all things, the same person who was the original adjudicator, or just another adjudicator now sitting as an appeal person.

So I would urge the Attorney in any look at process in relation to this program to keep those kinds of concerns in mind. I know there is a balance to be struck between perfect process and reasonable cost. But the thing that strikes me -- and in some measure here, I'm just reflecting the comments that I get from concerned members of the public -- is how to design a process in a program like that one that will work to satisfy the perception needs of the people who are applicants. That's more of a comment than a question.

Any time I hear that the ministry is considering making changes -- we're here several months after the public announcement of these changes -- the issue that I am concerned about is: what is the process for examining and considering that change, and to what extent will the public be a part of that process of examination, if at all?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, when we do get out of this House at some point -- at the end of June or in mid-July or at the end of July -- we do intend to go out and consult with those that we serve through this program, particularly women's groups, and make them part of the process of change. I am cognizant of the issues around due process and the balance that needs to be attained, and we will keep those in mind.

G. Plant: I didn't want to leave an examination of this very interesting press release of November 1996 without pausing for a moment before I get to the even more interesting subject of courthouse closures.

On the aspect of the press release which deals with the reductions in FTE -- full-time equivalent -- staff people. . . . 

[ Page 2612 ]

And this was something that was discussed in a backgrounder that was attached to the press release. The announcement was that as of March 31, 1997, there would be about 125 -- well, actually 125.0 -- FTE savings resulting from "reductions and delayed implementations." I've never been completely sure what that means. I could guess, but rather than guess, I wonder if I could impose on the minister to explain what it was that was being reduced and what was being delayed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In some programs, such as adult guardianship, which hasn't been implemented so far -- we're reviewing it -- we did not need the FTEs that had been budgeted for. That's how you account for the 125 FTEs: delayed implementation -- or maybe never implemented -- from different programs.

G. Plant: Well, the minister has excited my interest. I know one of them now: adult guardianship. Is it possible to identify any others, so that I know not to expect the delivery of services from those programs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of my favourite programs: photo radar enforcement. We did not need as many FTEs as were projected, because it didn't come on at full speed -- no pun intended -- as was intended.

G. Plant: The delay in adult guardianship implementation and the transitional delay with respect to photo radar enforcement -- does that account for all 125 FTE savings that are referred to in this backgrounder?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am advised that those two programs account for about 70 of those FTEs that were projected. We could provide you with details between now and the end of this process with respect to the others.

G. Plant: Thank you. I am going to impose on you for that, if I may. I'm mainly interested in knowing if there are specific initiatives that occasionally get referred to from time to time as being good things but that aren't going to happen on the same timetable.

It strikes me that the delay in the implementation of adult guardianship is a significant step, a significant decision by the ministry, and one that deserves some attention. I want to know what else is lurking behind this phrase "reductions in delayed implementation." So if I could impose on the minister and his staff for that, I would do so.

I want to move on, then, to talk about the decision to close three court facilities. I want to talk in particular now about the three court facilities that were the subject of the announcements in November. Those would be the Richmond adult criminal court, the West Vancouver courthouse and the Langley courthouse. If I can, I want to understand this process as it developed, rather than simply start with where we're at now, although I know that we're going to get to that point. I know that things that were announced in November were unannounced, or changes were made, and then more announcements were made in February and more changes were made in March. I actually think there is some value in walking through at least part of that process.

[3:15]

If we could go back to the beginning -- back to November 1996 -- could the minister explain what the principles were that motivated the decision to close those three court facilities in November, as opposed to other court facilities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We could discuss the individual courthouses, but in general terms, as I indicated earlier, we have a situation in British Columbia where 40 percent of the courtroom capacity isn't being utilized at this time across the province. With some of these changes, we were essentially increasing utilization and saving costs. So essentially, the factors were improving courtroom utilization, increasing efficiency and, of course, maintaining reasonable levels of access.

With respect to Richmond, I understand that the Richmond courthouse was in a building owned by the municipality. They requested that the building be vacated, and we did not have capacity available in other space in Richmond to accommodate the adult criminal facilities. We had space in Vancouver; we made the decision to move that particular one to Vancouver.

West Vancouver I have already sort of spoken about.

Langley is a very low-utilization courthouse, and there are facilities available in Surrey, so that was an easy decision to make.

G. Plant: The Richmond situation, as I understand it, is that the government has been aware for a number of years that the city wanted the space because the police station was getting too crowded for the police. So I suppose the question that arises is: when a city says, "Well, we need to talk about moving the court facility out of the city building, because it's increasingly crowded, and we need to have the complete building for the police officers," is that necessarily the same thing as the city saying: "We no longer need a court facility"? I'm not sure that was what the minister intended. I see the minister shaking his head no, and that's reassuring.

I'm curious to know what the utilization levels were, if they're readily available, for each of those three facilities. I understand that the minister says the utilization rate of Langley was quite low, but I don't know what that exact number is. I'm afraid I also don't know the numbers for West Vancouver and Richmond. If they're available, I'd be grateful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, the utilization in Richmond was very high, of course. I have advised you, hon. member, under what circumstances that was done. The utilization rate in Langley is about 73 percent, which one would not say is very low, but we have courtrooms available in Surrey. As I indicated, we do want to move to regionalized justice centres across the province so that we do save money in areas where there is access available. For instance, if someone comes from the southeastern end of Surrey to the Surrey courthouse. . . . It isn't too far away for some community members from Langley to come that distance to the Surrey courthouse. We looked at all of that. We had space available in Surrey, and we felt that it was a better use of tax dollars to regionalize the facilities for Langley in Surrey.

G. Plant: Is there a utilization rate for West Vancouver at the time of the closure announcement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, 50 percent.

G. Plant: I know that there are courthouses and court facilities in British Columbia that are used for a couple of 

[ Page 2613 ]

days a month, which I suppose roughly translates to about a 10 percent utilization rate. We could look at a few of those specifically, in due course, and probably will, because I'm not sure that the answers in those cases are all that simple either.

It does strike me that Langley, at a utilization rate of 73 percent, and Richmond, at a utilization rate which the minister describes as very high -- which, I assume, is a lot higher than 73 percent -- and even West Vancouver, at 50 percent, don't. . . . I guess I have to say that they don't seem to me to be very compelling instances of the application of the principle of increased utilization. So I suppose, then, that one has to examine the closure of those three facilities from the perspective of whether they really meet the test of increasing efficiency and maintaining reasonable levels of access.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let's look at West Vancouver and Langley. West Vancouver is about five kilometres away from the receiving location, which is North Vancouver, in terms of the courthouse-to-courthouse distance. Similarly, in Surrey it is about. . . . I'm told it's five kilometres; it may be more. I've driven there. I don't know whether this is correct, but it may be ten kilometres. It says it's five on this piece of paper. So that's not that far from courthouse to courthouse.

Richmond, of course, we've already talked about. If Richmond municipality had not approached us and had not made the submissions they did, it was my view that at the end of the day, on an interim basis, people from Richmond. . . . Having to come to Vancouver isn't that far; there are people who travel much longer distances under much more difficult conditions to go to court in many parts of the province. The idea is that you increase utilization in centres which are easily accessible to people around in the communities. We couldn't do that in Chilliwack because of the transportation problems; we relooked at that issue.

G. Plant: The minister may not have had the same experience I had for 13 or 14 years: practising law in downtown Vancouver while living in Richmond, and being told by virtually every client who ever walked in the door from anywhere other than the four-block radius of downtown Vancouver that downtown Vancouver was actually a very expensive, difficult place to get to.

Without really making that a major aspect of the consideration for now, one of the things that's interesting about this debate, looking back on it, is the extent to which we have tended to focus on the communities which have lost court facilities and tended not to spend as much time thinking -- or at least I haven't spent as much time thinking -- about the communities that I will call the receiving communities. In that regard, I wonder if the minister has available to him the utilization rates for the Surrey, North Vancouver and Vancouver courthouses, which would be the places that it was intended would receive the files that would no longer be going to the three courthouses that were going to be closed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The post-consolidation utilization rate at North Vancouver would be 73 percent, and in terms of Langley moving to Surrey, the post-consolidation utilization rate at Surrey would be 80 percent. So there is still room in both of those locations, either to grow in terms of the population base or to receive work from elsewhere.

G. Plant: I wonder if that's so, and I must admit that I don't have anything other than my own experience to go on, as someone who is a trial lawyer. But it seems to me that the task of attempting to manage a court facility, especially one like Surrey or Vancouver, in a way that would ever exceed anything like an 80 percent utilization rate on an ongoing basis would be a pretty significant task. It probably happens in Vancouver, but Vancouver has a pretty large staff to do it.

I remember always being struck by how many courtrooms were empty from time to time in the Vancouver trial courts -- the Supreme Court -- while at the same time, there was no prospect of getting a judge to hear anything at short notice. I mean, there may be an answer to this, but it strikes me that once you reach a utilization rate of 73 or 80 percent, you're in a facility that's pretty close to capacity. I may be wrong, so I invite the minister to correct my guess.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Can you go at it again?

G. Plant: Well, the guess is that when you hit the 73 to 80 percent level of utilization, you're at the level of capacity in terms of what the administration of justice can, in fact, deliver to litigants on an ongoing basis. And I really don't know anything to support that analysis, other than my own experience.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, you may be right, because what happens is that you schedule trials, and some collapse and others proceed, and some judges are away on vacation or holidays and some may be sick, and there may be staff problems due to similar circumstances. So it is extremely difficult to get 100 percent utilization on an ongoing basis. But that is no reason for us not to try. One of the things that we want to do, with the assistance of the judiciary, is move into a situation where we can get the highest possible utilization both in terms of our judge time as well as the courtroom time. And, of course, Mr. Justice Williams, the Chief Justice, is moving in that direction as well. I understand that there is now going to be a 12-month roster, rather than having courts slow down in the summer.

So we are trying to do everything possible from all angles, with the assistance of the judiciary, to make sure that we utilize our resources in the best way and to the maximum possible.

G. Plant: Was there any formal consultation with any of the six communities affected by the November courthouse closure announcements before the announcements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there were consultations with the judiciary only and that there were no consultations with anyone else. The way these decisions move, once they move out of the ministry into the Treasury Board and cabinet, it is very difficult to have consultations. Sometimes the consultation, unfortunately, happens afterwards, and that's why I have been very, very open to reconsideration of the issues.

[3:30]

G. Plant: The problem, of course, is that when you make decisions on that basis, you tend to catch communities by surprise. I think the result is to create a fair amount of stress and anxiety in communities, and I think that has been the result of the way that these various announcements have been made. I must say that it strikes me as odd that circumstances apparently forced the minister to spring these announcements by surprise at the same time that I hear the minister express his great desire for community consultation around justice reform.

[ Page 2614 ]

If that doesn't sound like a question, I guess the question would be: surely there is some way of doing a better job of bringing communities into this dialogue so that we don't have this kind of flip-flop -- a term that I suppose gets used but probably doesn't express with enough seriousness the level of anxiety and anger, frankly, in many of these communities that occurs when you have important decisions like this made without any consultation with the communities affected by them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I've already indicated how these decisions are made, but let me turn it around. Would there be any community in British Columbia where I went and said, "I want to shut down this courthouse," that would ever say to me: "Yeah, go right ahead. It's a wonderful decision"? I can't imagine any community in British Columbia today that would say that to me. That's not to say that we shouldn't consult, but there are limitations in the system of government that we have and in the way some of these decisions are made. That is why I have been very, very open to reconsideration. I have in fact met with everyone who ever wanted to meet with me on any of these issues and have looked at them seriously.

G. Plant: I think that the minister does an injustice to himself when he says that that would be the question he would ask. I understood that there were some interesting principles motivating these decisions to close courthouses -- principles like increasing the utilization of court facilities, increasing efficiency of government buildings and maintaining reasonable levels of access.

I guess I have to suggest to the minister that if he went to communities across British Columbia and asked questions. . . . "How can we increase the utilization of this building that at the moment is only being used two days a month? How can we maximize the efficiency of a wide range of government services and their delivery in this community? How can we maintain reasonable levels of access to justice, given cost constraints?" That actually might have been a productive dialogue, and it might have, in fact, avoided some of the anxiety that was created by the decision-making process and the way it took place.

If the minister can assist me by telling me whether that's a debate that can or cannot take place, I'd be interested in his response.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I believe that if one had the luxury of lots of time, that's a debate that perhaps, in abstract, could take place: "What if we closed this courthouse; how would you feel?" or "How can we increase the utilization of this courthouse?" I don't know how one could, other than by putting other services in those courthouses. In fact, we want to reduce the flow of cases through those courts, so there might be more time available, and the buildings would be used less than before in terms of the court facility. I think it's important that we keep that in mind and that we also keep in mind the fact that, while it is sometimes impossible to consult under certain circumstances, you have to make some quick decisions.

What happens afterwards is also important. There is no question that there is anxiety -- there was anxiety -- related to these issues. I've heard from many people across the jurisdictions where we decided to close courthouses, but I took those anxieties into account. In fact, I empathized with them, because I understood, as I said once in one of the comments, that in some communities when you lose a courthouse, it's like losing a member of your family. I recognized that, and I went out of my way to make sure that I took into account as many of the concerns of the communities as I could.

G. Plant: I suppose, to carry this theme forward just a bit further. . . . There was a series of announcements -- three courthouse closures -- in November; then we got another series of announcements -- 11 -- in February. I suppose the question that British Columbians would be asking themselves. . . . Some may have thought after November that they didn't have to worry about this problem -- that the damage had been done where it needed to be done, I suppose. Then again, after February, the same question could have been asked: how much more? How many more courthouses will be closed?

It's interesting to me that the paper released by the minister for the first time this morning, which outlines his visions for justice reform in British Columbia, speaks of consolidating court facilities as a current initiative. This leads me to think -- and I invite the minister to correct me if I'm misreading him -- that it's an ongoing initiative: that is, that the ministry has plans to close more courthouses in British Columbia. I would say that looking at the experience of what has happened over the last six months, not the least of which is the very unusual position that the minister has been in. . . . He's kept his door open, as he says, but he's had to completely and continually reconsider each of these decisions over the course of that time. If there is more planned, why can't we get it out on the table now? And what is it that's planned?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's no question, as I said this morning -- and I have actually said it many times in the last few weeks and months -- that consolidating courthouses and establishing the regional justice centres is the approach that we're taking. There are no current plans to consolidate anything. Nothing is being considered, except that there is an ongoing discussion around the Fraser Valley area on whether or not a regional justice centre should be placed in Chilliwack or Abbotsford or wherever. That's a discussion that's going to take place in the next few months and years. People in that area know that; in fact, they're talking about it even now.

Other than that, I can't think of any other particular area where that discussion is ongoing. If we were discussing establishing a regionalized justice centre in a particular area, I can tell you that there would be extensive consultation before we arrived at the final decision.

G. Plant: It seems to me that the driving force for the announcement of three closures in November, and then again in February, was the requirement that the court services branch reduce its spending. The principles which have been identified as being the principles which governed the decision about which courts were to close were principles that were really created after it became apparent that cuts were going to have to be made because of reductions in budgets. With that in mind, it seems to me that we're kind of driven to examine the question of court closures in the context of the savings that were said to flow from them. I know that in the November announcements, there really wasn't a claim of a certain amount to be saved. But when we come to the February announcements -- the 11 courthouse closures in February -- cost saving was a big part of what I might call the ministry's sales job to the public. I mean, we have again the news release 

[ Page 2615 ]

that says that this second round of justice reforms is going to result in savings of $4.7 million annually and, in particular, that the courthouse closures are going to result in savings of $1.6 million.

I guess I could begin the questions I have on this subject by confirming that the announced $1.6 million saving was a saving that was projected to result from the 11 closures in February; it wasn't to include the three in November. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

G. Plant: The thing that has always struck me about the announced saving is that there are two problems with it. First of all, the impression created by the announcement was that in some respect, the people of British Columbia as provincial taxpayers were going to be $1.6 million better off. I'll return to that one in a moment. And the second impression, I suppose, was that the people of British Columbia would, generally speaking, be better off rather than worse off financially from the savings.

The problem with the first proposition is that it seems to me that a significant portion of the $1.6 million that the government said would be saved, when it made the announcement in February, was really only savings that were going to be made by the Ministry of Attorney General, as opposed to absolute savings on the part of government as a whole. I wonder if I could ask that question of the minister: if that's a correct statement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I anticipate your next question. And I'll tell you that I'm not an accountant, so I'll give you the answer that I can give you: yes. I see an hon. member here who has more expertise in that area.

I think the next question you will have is that it is another arm of government that collects building occupancy charges from the Attorney General ministry. Therefore it's government paying to government. However, if we in the Attorney General ministry were not using those buildings, and they were owned by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, they would be able to utilize those buildings for other purposes and perhaps even collect rent from outside tenants, not necessarily from government tenants. That's the complete answer to your possible next question.

So in a sense, if one took this line of questioning to its logical conclusion, yes, there are savings at the end of the day; yes, we were paying much of that money to the B.C. Buildings Corporation; yes, the B.C. Buildings Corporation could rent to someone within government once the buildings were vacant, or to someone else outside government.

G. Plant: It seems to me, though, without assuming any greater level of expertise in the matter of accounting than the minister claims, that the truth, in the most part, is that what's happening here is that moneys are moving back and forth between different arms of government. Government is paying government. The question of whether or not savings actually will result at the end of the day from some decision that a successful manager of a BCBC project is likely to have an opportunity to make down the road is really all sleight of hand and subterfuge. The people of British Columbia were told that they were going to. . . . Right away, was the impression -- and I hope that that doesn't excite the Attorney General to strongly reject my proposition.

But the point is that the government said: "We're going to save everybody $1.6 million annually by closing courthouses." And it seems to me, when I look at the list of court facilities that are going to be closed, that really all that was happening was that the Ministry of Attorney General was going to be passing some costs and amounts over to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. How is that in any real way a saving?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've already answered the question.

G. Plant: Well, it's helpful to know that I already have the answer.

[3:45]

F. Gingell: So there wasn't one.

G. Plant: Yeah.

Of the 11 facilities that were on the list in February, is it possible to say, in a fairly summary way, which of the 11 are facilities were or are on BCBC-owned properties?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that I have that information. However, I'm given to understand that they all are, with the exception of the Richmond facility. But if we learn to the contrary, we'll get back to you.

G. Plant: So the current understanding, subject to being later corrected, is that 13 of the 14 are actually BCBC. I haven't done the addition.

Another item on the list of announced savings, which was provided to me by one of the ministry staff when we had our briefing, is Chilliwack land. That's a reference to the land that BCBC was holding in anticipation that there would be a new courthouse built in Chilliwack at some point down the road -- that project now being, I suppose, abandoned.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That property had been secured by BCBC for us, and $312,000 per annum was simply the holding cost for us for that property.

G. Plant: The "us" in this case being the Ministry of Attorney General. So as a result of the decision to abandon the project to build a new Chilliwack courthouse on that land, the Ministry of Attorney General is no longer responsible for making the $312,000 annual payment to BCBC. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Did any consultation take place, prior to the announcement on February of the 11 courthouse closures, with any of the 11 communities where the facilities were being closed, or with the receiving locations? This is the second half of the question I asked earlier about the six locations in November.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no if you are talking about the receiving locations being the receiving communities.

G. Plant: Yes, that's right. That's what I meant -- the receiving communities.

I meant to ask this earlier. The Attorney General spoke a while ago about what I took to be a contrast between two principles: one is the principle of equal access to justice, and the other is the principle of equitable access to justice. I understood from the Attorney General's comments that he was saying he advocates that we move along this path, adopting 

[ Page 2616 ]

the principle of equitable access to justice, which is something different from equal access. If I've got it right, I wonder if the Attorney General could explain what he means by equitable access to justice.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought I did this morning, in terms of the urban and rural areas. Let me just give you an example. Let's take Richmond, for instance. If we had to continue the closure of Richmond adult criminal court, which would mean that people who would normally go to the Richmond court would end up going to Vancouver court. . . . I would much rather have that happen than somebody in the rural, the interior and the northern regions of the province having to travel 100 kilometres more to come to a courthouse. It is much more difficult even under ordinary circumstances, but particularly under difficult weather and environmental circumstances, for people to travel.

So if one was suggesting that each community should have a courthouse for itself, that would be equal access -- absolutely equal access. If one thought courthouses should be reasonably accessible in different regions and areas of the province, depending on circumstances as they exist in those regions, then that would be equitable access. I think that equitable is somewhat less absolute than equal.

G. Plant: That's helpful. How does that principle apply to someone in Hope, for example, who, the morning after the decision was announced to close the Chilliwack courthouse, was then faced with a choice of defending a foreclosure petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as far away as Kamloops, New Westminster or Vancouver? How is that a good example of the principle of access to justice, or maintaining reasonable levels of access?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It isn't. That's why, shortly thereafter, I announced that if we were to expand and add courtrooms in Abbotsford, we were going to install a Supreme Court registry in Abbotsford so that Hope did not have to travel to New Westminster -- or the other way around, elsewhere -- for Supreme Court purposes. I think that when we made those changes, we recognized that sometimes and for some communities, these changes were harsh and extremely inconvenient.

G. Plant: In the calculation of the savings -- the announcement in February, again, was that the closure of the 11 courthouses would result in savings of $1.6 million -- I understand that the ministry did internal adjustments to that figure to accommodate the additional costs of housing Crown counsel or probation officers who had their offices in the courthouses that were being closed. So the $1.6 million figure was the net of some of those costs, or it was intended to be net of all of those costs.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Was any calculation made by anyone in the Ministry of Attorney General about additional costs for police overtime, police/Crown/witness travel, support services like social workers, and probation officers, and those kinds of costs that would be borne perhaps outside the court services branch budget?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the ministry costs were taken into account in making these changes.

G. Plant: Let's deal, if I may, then, with the community of Houston. Houston, as I recall, is a town of under 5,000, so the province is responsible for RCMP services in and around Houston. Now, the decision to close the courthouse in Houston creates an interesting situation for the people in Houston. There isn't a very large detachment in Houston. On those days when RCMP officers would have to travel into Smithers to give evidence -- perhaps two or three times a month -- an officer or a couple of officers would have to spend the day in Smithers, leaving Houston with, I suppose, a choice over which it had no control.

The choice is: either there's less police presence in Houston -- particularly on days when court is happening in Smithers -- or, alternatively, the people in Houston could come and ask the Ministry of Attorney General to increase funding for the RCMP presence at their local detachment. Now, are those kinds of considerations. . .? I take it that they're not represented in the ministry's figures that the announced savings from the courthouse closure in Houston for 1998-99 was $95,000-some-odd.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The RCMP have a global budget, so we did not take dollars into account. But we did take distances into account in terms of receiving locations. In terms of the level of policing available when police officers are in court, with the exception of the travelling time that might be added to a police officer's downtime, as you might want to call it, in terms of active duty. . . . With the exception of the travelling time, the police officer would ordinarily be away and not able to do regular police duties, when the police officer is in court, anyway.

G. Plant: Yes, but the. . . . Not wanting to get into an argument on the point, I suppose there is a bit of a difference between whether it's a five-minute drive or a 90-minute drive, particularly when we're dealing with a community like Houston, and the factors you've, as minister, said earlier of winter travel and all that that means. I know that in community after community affected by these closures, there were calculations done that put the cost, in terms of increased policing costs -- which, generally speaking, resulted only from this minor issue of travel time -- in some cases at hundreds and thousands of dollars -- which doesn't seem to me to be a minor item at all.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of Houston, if we're discussing Houston specifically, that's why Houston is not on the list of permanently closed courthouses. It's under review, and we will look at that issue. I think it's important that we look at the transportation issues and look at distance issues. Parksville is in the same category, because of transportation difficulties.

By far the largest element in additional police costs due to having to attend court elsewhere is the time the police officers spend waiting around to testify in the courts, rather than travelling. I don't recall whether there's a pilot project or whether we're working with the police on that issue, but we definitely are discussing that issue with the police and the judiciary -- that we begin to schedule trials in a way that minimizes waiting time for police officers.

[4:00]

We are also making some changes to the legislation, at some point, which would allow people to represent themselves and perhaps even to testify through affidavits and the like in certain situations -- not in serious-offence situations, but in certain situations. Those are the kinds of mechanisms 

[ Page 2617 ]

we are looking at. The question of police overtime, whether or not there have been any court closures, is a question that is a very important one, and my ministry has been working on that issue for some time. Hopefully, we will have some results soon.

G. Plant: I'm glad to hear that the ministry is working on it, because it does seem to me to be a significant issue, not just in the context of decisions to close the courthouses. But, unfortunately, the courthouse decisions and the announcements -- the way they came about -- and the sort of miraculous way that the consultation process is something that gets engaged in after the decisions are made is. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was good, nonetheless.

G. Plant: Well, I don't know. Some people could call it holding a gun to the head of municipal taxpayers.

The particularly acute issue around travel time is the one that arises in the context of West Vancouver or that would have arisen in Richmond, and that to some extent does arise in places like Chase. . . . Well, not Chase, I suppose, but Houston, where the RCMP officer is five minutes down the street -- or, in the case of Richmond or West Vancouver, virtually across the hall -- and is therefore in a position to carry on doing paperwork or whatever else is part of that officer's office routine and is readily available to give evidence at a moment's notice if that should become necessary -- as opposed to the situation that's created where, if you send the RCMP officer down the road from Houston to Smithers, he or she is more or less stuck waiting to determine whether or not he or she even gets called. It does seem to me that there is an additional cost there.

I suppose the point, really, is that if you're trying to determine whether or not these closures pass the test of actually saving British Columbians money -- of being the kind of carrot that we get in return for the stick, or the loss of some level of access and the increase in crowding in some court facilities. . . . The reality is that there isn't really any saving and that, in fact, if you run down this list -- certainly if you did it in February, before there were some changes of mind -- British Columbians were actually going to be worse off rather than better off as a result of these decisions. I suppose it would be remiss of me not to make that observation and point in the context of this debate.

It comes back, I think, to the question of the very unfortunate process that, as I understand the minister's perspective, we're more or less driven to where these decisions are made in an environment that precludes the kind of consultation and discussion that would have raised all these issues and made it apparent way back when that some of these court facilities should not have been closed -- that they would not meet the principles that have been expressed here as being the reason they were happening. Really, they're not a step in the right direction in terms of anything like what people might call reform of the justice system. I think that was a speech, but what the heck.

From my perspective as a critic over the last year, I have to say that, of the issues that have arisen, since the last time we met here to talk about what this ministry's plans were -- and I must say that I also don't recall this being on the list of things we were going to expect this year -- this has been an issue that has caused tremendous anxiety and anger. I guess, at the very least, I commend that problem to the Attorney General for his consideration in the designing of a process that ensures that if this has to happen again, there is proper consultation and adequate consideration of all of the costs and, fundamentally, a little bit more honesty in terms of communication of the message. Because I'm not sure that British Columbians were really told what was going on when they were told that 11 courthouses were being closed in order to save $1.6 million.

It sounds to me from the discussion here that, at least from the minister's perspective, there was a careful process of attempting to select particular courthouses for particular reasons. That's a good thing, but it also sounds to me like in the long run there isn't going to be any significant cost saving here in the way that was originally announced. There has to be a way to do it better. I don't know if there's a response to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, if my hon. friend is looking for a response, I would certainly take all of his comments into consideration.

G. Plant: What's the difference between West Vancouver and Richmond, other than the observation that the distance between the West Vancouver and North Vancouver courthouses is five kilometres? Let me flesh out that question: my understanding is that the council of West Vancouver has essentially approached the Ministry of Attorney General with virtually the same offer, conceptually, as the offer that was made by Richmond. The offer that was made by Richmond led to discussions and to a decision to keep the Richmond adult court open. What's the difference between Richmond and West Vancouver, and why doesn't West Vancouver get the same opportunity?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Building occupancy charges, or rental, isn't the only issue. At the end of the day, judge time is also very important. If you have cases consolidated in one courthouse, that judge would be available at the receiving location. As soon as the cases are over in one courtroom, or there's an accused to be tried or there's a case to be heard, the judge comes free; it's heard. So it's a matter of trial scheduling; it's a matter of utilization of judges as well as of courtroom capacity in a particular location. If you had a judge sitting in West Vancouver, five kilometres away, and there is downtime, then the judge, to utilize the rest of his or her time, would have to move over to North Vancouver for the next half-day, if that's available; whereas if he or she were in North Vancouver, and there was proper scheduling of all the trials, we're better able to utilize that, as well.

So it's not just dealing with the direct rental issue. West Vancouver came to us first, long before Richmond ever came to us, and they offered the amount of money that we were going to save in terms of the occupancy charges. If that was the only issue, I would have grabbed it. If there is any courthouse in British Columbia that is a prime candidate for consideration for closure, it's West Vancouver. The communities are essentially the same; it's five kilometres away, transportation exists. We don't have the possibility of another regional justice centre coming up in that area. We already have a court in North Vancouver, so let's use it to the maximum use possible.

G. Plant: I understood part of that answer, but I didn't understand what was different about judge time in Richmond and judge time in West Vancouver. That was the factor: I didn't understand how it was different in those two locations. I mean, I understood what the minister said about judge time in West Vancouver, and what happens when cases collapse and there's no work to do. But I didn't understand how West Vancouver was different in that respect from Richmond.

[ Page 2618 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Richmond courthouse is a much busier courthouse. It has high utilization, more cases and a larger, growing population base. Therefore it was never the intention to permanently move the courthouse or the adult criminal court from Richmond to Vancouver. It wasn't a permanent decision; it was a decision until we could deal with the issue over time. It may have been a two-, three- or four-year decision. When the Richmond council came back to us and said, "We will provide you this facility," we said: "Fine" -- because it's a high-utilization area where the population is growing, with more cases and less down time for judges, as well.

G. Plant: I don't recall being of the impression in November that the government's announcement to close the adult criminal court was a sort of temporary measure. Is the Attorney General saying that that was the intention all along and that it was announced as the intention?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. That particular view wasn't articulated, but it was always in the back of my mind, and the ministry knew that this was a temporary decision. The family and small claims courts were in Richmond, and we wanted to make sure that there were facilities in Richmond. If at the end of the day it was decided that Richmond should have a courthouse, then adult criminal court would have gone back. This was a temporary decision.

G. Plant: When the minister speaks of Richmond as either an actual or a prospective regional justice centre. . . . Maybe I'm wrong; maybe I haven't heard that. Is Richmond a prospective regional justice centre?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is. If you look at Ladner, Delta and Richmond, it might be. It might, on its own -- if you had family, small claims and criminal in one area -- support a small courthouse, not a large one. But that wouldn't be very cost-effective. If you took into account Delta and Ladner, it might make sense. It is difficult to travel across the bridge, as you know.

G. Plant: The tunnel, I think, actually.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was talking about the Knight Street Bridge.

G. Plant: Oh, I thought the minister was making an announcement of a new bridge across the south arm of the Fraser, in which case I would rush out and make sure that people knew.

So am I to infer that the ministry or the minister has under consideration the possibility that Richmond might become a regional justice centre which would include Delta? I think what the minister probably means is Ladner and Tsawwassen. Or is the region larger than that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be premature to really define a region here. There are no active plans underway. We have no capital budget to do this for the next four years, at least. But I'm thinking ahead and looking ahead and visualizing that that's a possibility.

G. Plant: One specific question that I made a mental note of a while back: what is the current status of the announcement to expand the court facilities in Abbotsford by three courtrooms? Is that something that is on hold as a result of the decision to keep the Chilliwack court open for a while?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

[4:15]

G. Plant: Looking again at the document that the ministry's staff helpfully provided me with, I want to make sure that I have the right status report as of today. The decision to keep the Chilliwack courthouse open is a decision that has a two-year life span. Is that correct? Or a minimum two-year life span?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The decision to close the court in Mission has been reaffirmed, if you will, as a result of whatever reconsideration was given to it. Does the fact remain that it is a court that will close or has closed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Maple Ridge is a court facility that's going to remain open. Is that a two-year deal?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The decisions on the courts in Ganges and Sidney and the family courts in Victoria and Ashcroft: are they to remain closed or are any of them open for reconsideration at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The former.

G. Plant: The situation in Ashcroft is quite disturbing for me because of the fact that the community lost its building and for some time now has been making do in a way that I think is a perfectly good model for small communities -- by holding court in the basement of a leisure hall, or whatever, and having a small registry.

I was struck by something the minister said a while ago about how when you close a courthouse in some communities, it's a bit like losing a member of the community -- or whatever the exact words were that the minister used. Nowhere in my tour of the various communities where courts were to be closed did I feel that more strongly than in Ashcroft, where it seemed that the town was experiencing an ongoing erosion of the presence of the government.

The minister may or may not have heard the stories, but when I went to Ashcroft, I was informed that almost immediately after the decision to close that court facility was announced in February, two businesses closed and a third was put up for sale. As I recall, these are not businesses that were direct court services facilities. I mean, we're not talking about closing an office of the John Howard Society or something like that. We're talking about restaurants, hotels, bakeries. People had small businesses in town that depended in part, for their viability, on the fact that two or three days every month -- whatever it was -- there was something happening in Ashcroft. The court was happening. It may have been happening only two or three days a month -- maybe it was two, maybe it was three, maybe it was one -- but it was a significant enough event in the life of the town that the closure had a spinoff effect.

I know that at that point I was quite caught up in the business of trying to calculate what the spinoff costs were in terms of things like closing Crown counsel offices or overtime 

[ Page 2619 ]

for police. Only in Ashcroft, really, did I become aware of the greater harm -- probably harder to quantify, but nonetheless real -- that happens when you start to go out and make these decisions.

I know that in the case of Ashcroft, the community is concerned, and has been concerned, about what's going to happen with the pot of money that they thought existed as a result of the fire that destroyed the original building. I also know that the mayor of Ashcroft was here in Victoria a day or so ago. I wonder if the minister can assist me in telling me whether the decision to close the court facility in Ashcroft is in fact permanent, or whether there is still some discussion of that -- and how that plays in the larger context of this insurance money, if the minister knows about that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that some personnel who are related to the courts, like probation officers, would stay and work in Ashcroft, despite the fact that the court isn't there. I am concerned about what happened in Ashcroft. I met with the mayor and some members of that community several weeks ago, actually. They indicated to me that it wasn't really important for them to have the courthouse per se. What was important was the principle of government investment in that town.

I spoke with the member for Yale-Lillooet, in whose constituency that falls; he was present at the meeting. I have discussed that issue with the Minister of Employment and Investment as well, and it's my view -- the minister has made no commitments -- that if you have that kind of investment in a small community such as Ashcroft, it is an important principle that that money should be reinvested by the government into that community in some other form so that the community prospers and can benefit from it. However, that's my view, and it doesn't bind the government. I have had discussions with the Minister of Employment and Investment and the MLA for the area, and I'm hoping that they will work on this issue and that something may come of it.

G. Plant: Carrying on with the list. From the Ministry of Attorney General's perspective, am I correct that the decisions to close the West Vancouver and Langley courts remain fixed -- that is, they are no longer open for reconsideration? What is the status of that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fixed, subject to my meeting with the esteemed former Attorney General, who is a councillor in West Vancouver and who I have a lot of respect for. I'm going to be meeting with him, I believe, some time next week. Subject to that, they are closed.

G. Plant: West Vancouver is in the extremely enviable position of having a city council that has two former Attorneys General on it. If they can't persuade you to open a courthouse, then I can't figure out. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've heard from both of them -- at least, they have attempted to call me.

G. Plant: The list that I'm looking at says that decisions with respect to the courthouses in Parksville, Kimberley, Chase and Houston are in abeyance, which I understand means under review. Is the list correct in that respect, as of today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: What does it mean, from the ministry's perspective, that these decisions are under review? What kind of process is underway, if any, to look at these decisions? What is different, for example, between something that's in abeyance and something that's subject to a two-year deal with a city government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ministry is looking at those courthouses and consulting, of course, with the Crown and the courts, and is looking at the transportation facilities in those communities. For instance, I was told that transportation facilities from Parksville to Nanaimo are almost nonexistent. Those are the kinds of issues they would look at, and decisions would be made.

G. Plant: I want to see if I'm correctly reading the document that I was provided with. The savings of $1.6 million in respect of the 11 courthouses plus the Chilliwack land, originally announced in February, is a number that has now -- at least as of March 21, 1997 -- been reduced to just over $988,000. Is that figure correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, $988,000 is the annualized saving on a permanent basis.

G. Plant: And am I right that included within that $988,000 annual savings is the $130,000 annual contribution, at least for the next two years, from Maple Ridge and the $325,000 net contribution that Chilliwack is contributing over the next couple of years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Hon. Chair, could I seek your indulgence that we adjourn for five minutes -- have a break? I move that. . . .

The Chair: A five-minute recess? Is that what you're suggesting?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

The committee recessed from 4:27 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

G. Plant: One concept or term that has been used a bit over the past little while is the idea of regional justice centres. I suspect that when I read the "Strategic Reforms" document that the Attorney General released today, I'll probably find something in there about that. Is there an agreed-upon definition of this term "regional justice centre," or is it something that is kind of an evolving idea within the ministry?

[4:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is an idea that has evolved somewhat but continues to evolve, as most things do, but I think the words you would find used in the document that you refer to are "consolidation of court services." There might be the use of that term in the document; I don't recall. At the end of the day, the effort is directed toward consolidating court services in areas that are accessible to people around the particular focal point, so that we don't duplicate and quadruplicate court services in a region where a particular focal point might be accessible to everyone.

G. Plant: I know we've also heard some discussion about "principles of efficiency," "maintaining reasonable levels of access" and "increasing utilization" -- a number of different principles that could be created, I suppose, to rationalize decisions in a way that makes some sense.

[ Page 2620 ]

A lot has been written about courthouse closures over the last few months. One particular thing that was in the press, which I was struck by, was a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Maple Ridge, I think. It was an open letter to the minister from someone identified as Marion Smith, the executive director of the Cythera Transition House Society in Maple Ridge, and it says in part:

"As an organization that works with women who often need the services of the courthouse in Maple Ridge, we were distressed to learn that it is one that is slated for closure. The women we work with often need to have legal services to protect themselves and their children. They come to us often without access to transportation, and it is difficult now to get to court; but it will be virtually impossible if it is in another community. We expect that with fewer court services it will be even harder for them to get a swift disposition of their legal requirements. This could be a matter of life or death for women."

Then the letter goes on to urge the Attorney General to ". . .reconsider the decision to close the Maple Ridge courthouse, for the sake of the women and children we serve."

As it happens, Maple Ridge is a courthouse where the decision has been reconsidered and the courthouse is to remain open for a time. But I was again struck when I read this letter by the point that courts are more than simply buildings that have judges and Crown counsel and police officer witnesses in them -- and lawyers. In continuing a policy of courthouse consolidations -- that is the minister's intention -- I would urge the minister to continually be mindful of the peripheral but fundamental stuff that goes along with the delivery of court services in a community.

I also have a newspaper article from, I think, the Merritt Herald of February 19, 1997. This is something that is probably a result of my own confusion, but the newspaper article says: "Court cuts have finally severed some of Merritt's judicial connection. Last week it was made known Merritt would be losing its regular sittings of the Supreme Court as of January 1, 1998." The article goes on to talk about the problems that would create within Merritt. I think I missed that in the announcement in February, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.

So the first question would be to ask the minister if indeed this newspaper article is correct. And then secondly, are there other court sittings that are part of this general process of consolidation, where the decision has been made to close particular Supreme Court sittings in particular communities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of any other locations where the Chief Justice may have decided to not hold a sitting of the Supreme Court. That was a decision made by the Chief Justice, based on low utilization in Merritt. I'm aware of a situation, perhaps in Campbell River. . . . In Ashcroft, I understand they had made a similar decision, before the fire occurred, that they were not going to sit. Those are decisions that are made by the Chief Justice.

G. Plant: One of my colleagues from West Vancouver is here, and I know he has an interest in the issue of courthouses, so I'm going to yield to him for a little bit.

J. Dalton: I thank my colleague for allowing me to get in at an opportune time, at least from the point of view of the topic. Needless to say, I want to ask some questions of a specific nature about West Vancouver's closure. As the Attorney General has admitted to this committee, West Vancouver was actually the first to come forward with a proposal, which is very similar to one that Richmond and Chilliwack and others have made. Yet it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps there's a penalty for having two former AGs on the West Van council. I hope not. I hope that Allan Williams, one of those two former AGs, will at least get a good reception next week when he comes to visit.

However, before I get into any of that detail, I'd like to ask the Attorney General about this whole question of regional justice centres, which seems to be floating out there. He responded to the Attorney General critic's question about a definition; the one he provided was "consolidation of court services." Would I take that to mean -- and I'll ask this first -- that the Attorney General is now considering the North Shore to be a regional justice centre? And is he therefore consolidating services because it's sort of convenient on a geographic basis to do so?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not a mathematician, and therefore quite averse to very precise definitions of concepts that are usually rather fluid and have to be applied with some imagination and creativity. That's why it's difficult to say what a regional justice centre might be in one area as opposed to another area. Whether or not North Vancouver would be considered a regional justice centre isn't something that I have considered. We simply made this decision based on the fact that there was a very short distance between the receiving location and the original location -- in terms of the courthouses -- and the fact that West Vancouver is a satellite court location of North Vancouver in any event. Sheriffs travel from North Vancouver to West Vancouver for court, it has 50 percent utilization, and we have courtroom capacity available in a North Vancouver courthouse. So those were some of the factors.

A regional justice centre is a concept that would have to be varied from region to region, and it may contain court services, Crown counsel, the region's police forces, maybe remand facilities -- many things. So it's difficult to say these are things that would be or should be contained in the regional justice centre for any given region. I think we have to be flexible, by the very nature of the work we do, in terms of the courts, police, Crown counsel and the like.

J. Dalton: We know that the government is in some -- shall I put it mildly? -- fiscal difficulty. Of course, as we see in the current budget for '97-98 when we look down the line ministries, most of them have taken some fairly severe cuts in some cases, and most have certainly taken at least reductions. So I'm wondering, and I would like the Attorney General to respond if he would: is this regionalization process we're now going through in the justice system. . .? I guess I'm reminded of the rather negative experience that the health system is facing. Is this regionalization or restructuring motivated strictly by allowing the budget to look good, shall we say, or is the objective hopefully more than just a monetary saving issue, one whereby the administration of justice will truly be better served?

The Attorney General may recall some comments I made in my response to the throne speech, because he was sitting opposite me in the House. He had commented previously that morning about diversion, which is an excellent idea for getting things out of the courtroom environment and dealt with otherwise, which I would consider a good administration-of-justice issue. But I'm not so sure that what is happening in West Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Parksville and the other communities in this province is truly serving those communities in 

[ Page 2621 ]

particular in any positive sense, and I certainly don't feel it's doing the administration of justice overall. Is this strictly motivated by budget, or are we truly going to end up with a better product at the end of the day?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For my hon. colleague from the opposition, I have answered all these questions this morning and earlier on, so I will try and give you the answer briefly. I don't want to say I've already answered it, because I don't think that's appropriate -- at least for an Attorney General. I will give you the answer.

No, these measures and reforms aren't driven strictly by fiscal considerations alone. As I said this morning, we started talking to the bar, the judiciary and some representatives of policing in the fall of 1995, shortly after I became Attorney General. There were no fiscal issues that were of concern at that time, at least in my mind. They were not in the forefront of any issues we were talking about at the time.

We started talking about how we can do the job better: how we can reduce costs, how we can streamline the justice system, how we can make it more accessible, how we can make it user-friendly and how we can begin to reduce the flow of cases through the courts and the burden on Corrections. At the end of it, yes, there would be fiscal benefits of doing what we were going to do. The benefits then would be replowed into the community so that we put that money at the front end for diversion, education and training, health and those kinds of issues that make better communities for all of us.

No, it's not driven by fiscal considerations alone, but obviously -- and it's for all to see -- fiscal issues intervened. The process became faster, and we began to work on it more quickly.

J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for answering the question. I would not have been offended if he had said, "Refer to the Blues," because it is true that if we don't happen to be physically here when issues are raised, quite often we will inadvertently raise those same issues again. I thank him for his answer on that.

Just before we took the break this afternoon, the Attorney General did respond to some specific questions from the opposition critic on the extra policing costs and other costs that West Vancouver and others are going to be facing from the closures. The Attorney General admitted that a lot of time waiting around is a factor in extra policing.

[5:00]

I would like to know, in the particular case of West Vancouver -- which, as the Attorney General admitted, was the first out of the gate to make what I thought was a very positive proposal, and perhaps next week we'll get another airing on it. . . . When it's well demonstrated with a municipal police force such as West Vancouver has and with the courthouse being physically in the same building as the police station, why is it that the Attorney General is not concerned about the extra policing costs that West Vancouver is going to have to absorb? I needn't remind the Attorney General that all municipalities in this province are taking a lot of off-loading these days through railway taxation reduction, through the local grants in Bill 2 that they're debating down the hallway and many other factors. When you factor those in, which are a very important part of the administration of justice, I submit -- and certainly West Vancouver has always submitted -- that that's an unfair fiscal burden to place on a municipality.

Quite frankly, in the case of West Vancouver, with the courthouse and the police station in the same building, it truly doesn't make any sense to have police officers sent five kilometres or whatever down the road to North Van to wait around. Whereas in the case of West Vancouver, with an independent police force, they can be waiting around in their own building, doing paperwork and dealing with community policing issues. In fact, they could be out on patrol, and I'm sure that within five minutes they could be paged and they'd be in: "Get to court. You're now appearing to testify on a matter." But I don't think they can do that in the case of having to run up and down the Upper Levels Highway. If the Attorney General could assist us with the burden being placed on municipalities like West Vancouver with extra policing, which. . . . How many taxpayers are there? There's only one I know of, and I guess it's a question of which pocket of that taxpayer is being picked.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member actually made the case beautifully for the transfer we did in this particular case. If it takes longer to travel from North Surrey to South Surrey courthouse than to travel from West Vancouver courthouse to North Vancouver courthouse, and if the hon. member agrees that they could be doing community policing and in five minutes get to a courthouse in West Vancouver, they could actually do the same on the North Shore to the North Vancouver courthouse.

It is not as clear-cut a case as the Chilliwack case was. I recognize that when a community loses a courthouse, it's a serious concern. But I think that if there was one courthouse we could close and not cause much inconvenience -- I mean, there is some inconvenience related to any court closure -- it is the West Vancouver courthouse. I think, over time. . . . There are no closures planned. There are no regional justice centres planned at this point, with the exception of the Fraser Valley -- that has been under consideration -- but over time, as population grows in British Columbia, we're going to have to do that. These are difficult decisions. I recognize the concerns of the hon. member, but this was the best decision.

J. Dalton: Well, of course the issue is not yet dead as such, but it may be close, so I won't pursue that any more at the moment. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware that the UBCM has raised some issues under its mandate on behalf of all municipalities, and in its newsletter of March of this year the UBCM raised two interesting points that perhaps the Attorney General could assist us with.

Firstly, they are challenging the Attorney General to produce a full analysis of the real cost of delivering justice, which shows how these court closures are going to impact on the administration of justice. Is the ministry contemplating providing such a full analysis over time to alleviate or at least address the concerns of the UBCM?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, if the hon. member is suggesting that we provide some paper on this issue to the UBCM at some point, I'd be happy to provide that. There was no consultation on these issues before decisions were announced. There has been consultation subsequently, and if the UBCM is interested in speaking to me, I'd be happy to talk to them. I don't have a problem, and I would be happy to provide them with any analysis or figures they seek of me.

J. Dalton: That's useful to know. Thank you, hon. Chair. I certainly would be more than happy to pass that on to them if they care to pursue this further, and I'm sure they do. I think 

[ Page 2622 ]

it's obviously important for all municipalities to have some analysis as to what the ministry is doing, particularly when the Attorney General has now admitted that there was no prior consultation. The consultation, if any, is after the fact, which is better than nothing, I guess.

The other thing that is raised -- and this is an interesting point and certainly part of our official opposition position -- is that a bargain was struck 20 years ago, whereby the government would live up to its bargain of sharing fine revenues. Of course, that has been abandoned, so we're now going through this whole process of off-loading onto municipalities such as West Vancouver and Maple Ridge and others that have faced closures.

Would the government then consider, at least as a reciprocal arrangement, that they would be prepared to share some of the traffic fines and other revenues that now go to Victoria? What Victoria is doing is saying: "Fine, we'll continue to collect those revenues, but by the way, you're also now facing the extra policing and other costs that courthouse closures provide." I think the UBCM has hit upon an excellent point, and I would be interested in the Attorney General's thoughts on the revenue-sharing proposition.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, hon. Chair, these kinds of Ministry of Finance issues really don't belong with the Attorney General, but I can tell you that the Premier has said very clearly that he has asked the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to raise this issue with the UBCM with respect to sharing of traffic fines, including photo radar. I understand that both my ministry and his ministry are working together to prepare a discussion document that we will take forward for discussions with the UBCM.

J. Dalton: I think those are the questions I want to raise at the moment. I believe we may be returning to the West Vancouver issue next week, given the fact that other meetings are being contemplated. It's not just because of West Vancouver. The inconsistency -- and I'd like this to go on the record -- is where some courthouse closures are announced and then reversed, and others are announced and then put on hold. In the case of West Vancouver, which was the first to react to this, they say: "Well, thanks for your proposition, but it has fallen on deaf ears." I did, of course, listen with interest to the Attorney General's responses to travel time and things, but it's quite different being located in a municipality like West Vancouver, and literally within five minutes you could be back at the police station at 13th and Marine and appearing in court if need be. It's not quite the same as having to travel across the Upper Levels Highway -- with or without the Westview interchange, I might say -- and get to a courthouse at 23rd and Lonsdale. So I'm not quite convinced by that response, but I do thank the Attorney General for what I've heard so far, and I'll pass it on.

G. Plant: Part of the context of this issue -- which I know we're going to be returning to -- that I think is important is that the goals of increasing utilization, increasing efficiency, avoiding judge downtime and, at the same time, maintaining reasonable levels of access. . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: And police downtime.

G. Plant: Yes, police downtime.

. . .are all good goals. What has coloured this issue from its outset, really, are two aspects of it that have been kind of unfortunate. One is the fact that these announcements come without consultation, as a matter of surprise. But second is that we were told as British Columbians that these decisions were somehow going to save us money -- not very much money in the scheme of things, but some money. It seems to me that if you look at them from the broader picture, they are in fact going to cost us more money.

It's one thing to look at those goals of increasing efficiency and utilization and reducing downtime in the context of: "Well, let's move forward. We're going to end up spending a little bit more money, perhaps, in the short run, but in the long run we'll be better off, because we will be increasing utilization." But it's quite another thing to look at the whole thing in the context of an announcement and say, "Wow! We're going to save $1.6 million," but find that. . . .

I think that if you look at the matter from the perspective of the taxpayer -- who, after all, only has one source of income or one wallet or however we say it -- then it puts quite a different context on the debate. And so, with that in mind, I think the Attorney can expect that others of my colleagues will come forward over the next day or so to express their perspective on these issues from the perspective of their constituencies. So I'm afraid I can't promise you that we're leaving the subject of courthouse closures for the duration of the debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As long as they don't repeat the questions. Just make the statement, get it on record and let's move on.

G. Plant: There are lots of other questions, I'm sure, that could be asked.

In the time remaining between now and the end of today, I want to see what kind of progress I can make on one or two other subjects. The first one is the issue of probate fees. There was an increase in probate fees announced in the February news release. I don't think we need spend a lot of time here on the details of the amounts, but, as I recall, it's an increase from $6 to $14 per $1,000 of the value of the estate for estates over $50,000. And I, obviously, put on record the observation that that seems to be a fairly significant increase in probate fees. So now the questions are: why is it being done, what's the objective here and how much is the government expecting to take in? I'll deal with those sort of one at a time.

The backgrounder that accompanied the February press release said that probate fees had not risen since September 1993. And then the ministry said that the fees were being revised to increase cost recovery for court matters. Now I take it that that wasn't cost recovery for probate matters, but it's a cost recovery device to cover all court matters. Is that correct, that latter part?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is the minister able to say whether probate costs have themselves risen since September 1993?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's been a general increase in court services costs. We haven't separated the actual increase in costs around the probate section itself. That's almost impossible to do. We're talking about increases that have occurred throughout the system.

G. Plant: Have any calculations been done to predict the amount that will be collected as a result of this increase in the years to come?

[ Page 2623 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be an increase in revenue of about $11 million per year from probate fee increases.

[5:15]

G. Plant: Just as a technical matter, is that an offset against court services costs within the court services budget, or is that something that goes into general revenue and is kind of an indirect offset, if you will?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It goes into general revenue, and is thereby an indirect offset.

G. Plant: There are probably more than two interesting questions -- larger questions, I guess -- that arise when fees like this go up. But there were a couple that I wanted to pursue. First of all, when you take a fee like this and turn it, potentially, into a significant fee, particularly in the context of larger estates, my observation as a lawyer -- not as a solicitor but as a litigator who practised with solicitors and watched the kind of advice they give -- is that when you start to make something expensive, particularly the cost of a government service, you start to create an incentive for people to find a way to avoid using the service. In the case of probate fees, there are ways in which people can reorganize their lives to avoid having to probate their estates: taking assets out of their estate ahead of time, causing them to be transferred outside the estate by some other means.

I know that in the general area of the study of taxation, people talk about saturation levels and what happens when you reach a point where people are taxed to such an extent that they start to conduct their lives in ways that avoid paying tax. This is why the black-market economy is so large in Canada, because the GST and things like that make life so much more difficult. So when the ministry calculates actual recovery at around $11 million a year, I'm interested to know whether that has any assumptions built into it about what I think is the almost certainty that a whole lot of people are now going to start avoiding probating their estates -- with the possible outcome, in fact, that the government will end up worse off from having done this rather than better.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fees and fines -- and I'm now giving some more information than you have sought, so that you know it -- contributed only about 40 percent of the '96-97 budget to operate the court services branch. With the fee increases, it would move to about 50 percent recovery of the total costs of the court services budget. Obviously, when you raise these kinds of fees, they have some consequences. I'm sure that the ministry would have looked at those issues, but I'm given to understand that these fees were in effect in Ontario. The Court of Appeal in Ontario made a decision that this is not a taxation, and it is an appropriate fee to be levied -- not commenting on the level of the fee, but in terms of. . . .

G. Plant: Its constitutionality.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's right. I'm not aware of any indication that as a result of those fees, any capital or assets flew out of Ontario. There are always tax avoidance schemes that individuals engage in, whether it's as a result of the Income Tax Act or anything else, and estate lawyers have a great deal of work for themselves. But I don't believe that would have any serious impact on what we recover in British Columbia, because I understand that for the first $200,000 in assets, there was no increase at all. For the first $50,000 in assets, there was no increase, and for the next. . . . Anyway, you have those figures from previous. . . .

For the first $50,000, there are no changes; anything over and above, there are changes, of course. I'm cognizant that people who have assets and who have access to bright lawyers and accountants will deal with these issues as they see fit, but I don't believe that that would have much of an impact.

G. Plant: I suppose the question is, building on the Ontario experience. . . . I can't remember how long ago it would be that an increase of this magnitude was brought in in Ontario. My question would be: has the ministry -- this ministry -- here in British Columbia looked at that experience to determine whether or not there is an increase in alternative estate planning? I guess the question is, again: is there a basis for a reasonable expectation that there will be an $11 million a year addition to the province's revenues? Or is it just a fond hope?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Based on many factors, $11 million incremental recovery was simply projected. This may or may not have been one of the factors, but it was believed that this is about the figure we will receive.

G. Plant: The result of that is that we're. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just clarify. I'm told that no, the fee avoidance schemes weren't taken into account. Nor did we take into account the population increase which happens.

G. Plant: I suppose we might be here a year from now, congratulating the Attorney General on having expanded employment in the high-end service sector for bright estate lawyers. Maybe we won't be.

The other issue that is raised by fee increases like this is, I suppose, a basic issue of fairness around taking money from one source in order to pay for expenses in another place. It strikes me that notwithstanding what I've just said about the possibility that some people will be able to seek advice and find ways to avoid paying these increased fees, what the ministry has done here is take an easy hit on a fairly vulnerable group of people, at least in terms of the short run. They're older folks who have their life savings invested in their family homes, and so on. I guess I have to question the fairness of using that relatively small part of the legal system, which is involved in the administration of estates, as a cost-recovery tool for the criminal justice system and the whole rest of the court system. I'd be interested in the Attorney General's response to that basic problem of inherent unfairness.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there is any unfairness. In the last four years, other court fees went up 100 percent and the probate fees weren't touched. The probate fees have now gone up 100 percent. So if you look at the increment, percentage-wise there is no difference. If you look at the intake at the end of the day, you may come to the conclusion that there is more coming in as a result of this increase than from the other increases. I'm not sure what the figures are, but they have gone up by the same percentage, in essence.

G. Plant: The details of that probably aren't as significant as the basic point, and I appreciate the basic point. I think the increase in probate fees is 133 percent, and that's a bit more than 100 percent. I wonder if we can take some comfort from 

[ Page 2624 ]

the implications of that: that for those people who use the court system, there won't be any increases in other court access costs, like filing fees, over the next year or so.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I missed that. I should have paid more attention.

G. Plant: Well, having argued that there's really no unfairness here because you had just done to probate fees what the government had done to other fees in court services over the last two or three years -- although the numbers aren't right -- the question, I suppose, that then arises is: does that mean that the other fees are more or less safe for another year or so? Or are litigants in British Columbia to look forward to increases in fees for court filing services in other areas?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fees increase from time to time. Those are really fiscal initiatives, and I can't give any undertaking that there would be no fee increases in the next few years. I don't make those decisions by myself. I think it's important to recognize that these are difficult issues, and you do the best you can under the circumstances.

G. Plant: I want to ask a few questions about court reporters. The decision announced in February to reduce court costs by using audio equipment to produce the court record in the B.C. Supreme Court generated a fair amount of controversy. Again, I think part of the reason for the initial outcry was the sense that the decision was sprung as a bit of a surprise. I'm not sure of the facts here, so I'll start with this question: was there any consultation with the court reporter community before the announcement in February about this specific initiative to basically throw them all out of work?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there was consultation with both the judiciary and the union representing the court reporters.

G. Plant: This was another part of the $4.7 million justice reform announcement. I think it was probably the biggest part, because the news releases around it said that this initiative would save something like $2.3 million annually, without reducing the accuracy of the court record or service to the public. While it may save $2.3 million annually at some level, I haven't seen much to indicate that the second half of that proposition is true -- that is, I think there is a risk of inaccuracy and a loss of service, but maybe I could just deal with that specifically in a minute.

I guess the subject of what court reporters should do, how they should be organized, how they should be paid, how they should provide their services and what kinds of services they ought to provide -- whether or not they should be doing it longhand, shorthand, audio, video with computer assistance -- is a subject that has been much studied. My first concern with this decision in February was that it seemed to have been a bit of a change of approach on a whim dictated by fiscal imperatives rather than a reasoned and carefully discussed decision about service quality and objectives. I invite the Attorney General to comment on that statement first.

[5:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware that my ministry looked at the business case for digital equipment, as well as audio, and it also looked at other jurisdictions across the country where similar equipment -- although a less modern version of similar equipment -- is functioning appropriately. It was decided that this was something that was doable. Of course, there was consultation with the judiciary as well as representatives of the court reporters.

G. Plant: The fact that there was consultation with the judiciary is almost less helpful than more helpful, because it's not really easy for those of us outside the very small loop that constitutes that consultation process to understand what the judiciary would like and what their preferences are. They generally don't tend to make that known, although I seem to recall that the Chief Justice of the trial court wasn't very happy about this decision and actually took the unusual step of going public with his unhappiness.

The claim is that there are going to be some cost efficiencies and no compromise of accuracy. I want to examine that for a moment. First of all, I guess I'm not sure that any comparison between what you're planning for the Supreme Court and what has been happening in the Court of Appeal is a valid comparison, because witnesses don't give evidence in the Court of Appeal and, by and large, the technology that is used in the Court of Appeal, at least in my experience, is used for recording reasons for judgment, which are then edited by the judges before they're released. So I wasn't particularly struck by the attempt to say: "This is what's happening in the Court of Appeal, so we can do it in the Supreme Court." The question then becomes whether the attempt to compare this initiative in the Supreme Court with what's been happening in the Provincial Court is very persuasive. I don't know that there is much evidence to assist the government on this.

There was a report done just a few years ago by a committee headed by Peter Leask, which examined the quality of audio transcription in the Provincial Court. I'm sure the Attorney General is as familiar as I am with the many statements in that report that criticized the quality of transcripts emanating from the Provincial Court. It talked about the time that it took to fix them up and about the evidence that was irretrievably lost. I have also seen -- and I'm sure the Attorney General has seen -- the American studies that indicate that stand-alone audio technology is not really as accurate or as efficient as other forms of transcription. So is the government planning to use the same technology in the Supreme Court as is currently being used in the Provincial Court and the Court of Appeal, or is the government planning something new and better?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This would be the latest modern version of the technology that's currently being used in the Provincial Court and the Court of Appeal. There will be rigorous training of both of the operators, as well as those who are going to be participants in this process. We're going to be monitoring this over time.

In terms of the report that the hon. member has referred to, I'm aware of that report and I've looked at it. We're going to be dealing with this issue by having some demonstration trials. I understand that a former version of that technology is being used in chambers, as well. Unknown to me, I understand that some trials with the old technology have in fact taken place in the Supreme Court. We will have further demonstration trials in May and monitor the situation and rectify any problems that may occur.

G. Plant: Well, that's partly encouraging, because it struck me that if the government was looking seriously at taking this step, then this would be a classic instance of an 

[ Page 2625 ]

occasion for a pilot project. Yet what happened was an announcement that all the court reporters were essentially going to be terminated and that the entire system was going to be switching to an audio technology system virtually overnight, as it were. I think that is the wrong way to effect significant change like this. If the Attorney General is saying that the plan now is to examine the success of this on a trial basis by demonstrations and to move forward gradually with assessments of the success of the project as and when appropriate, then I'm delighted to hear that. Is that in fact what's going to happen?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't want to leave the hon. member under any misimpression. We are moving rather quickly to do this, but we are going to do some demonstration trials in May and monitor those and work on this issue. Since 1984, this technology has been working in all of the courts in Saskatchewan. They've been able to live with this, and I think we'll be able to do so, too. But we are open to doing demonstration trials and proper training and taking as long as it takes to do that.

G. Plant: As I understand it, the intention is to move to what people who write about this call audio technology. I guess I have to say I'm not sure that's the right step forward here, either. I'm happy to admit that I'm a lawyer, and therefore, by nature, I'm someone who tends to think that the way things have been done for a thousand years is the right way to do things. I know the Attorney General has the same views.

I can't count the number of letters I've had from lawyers in the profession complaining about the prospect of a move to a 12-month rota. I know what motivates that. It's this sense that this is the way we've always done things, and we shouldn't change them. I don't think it's right to approach decisions made by this government on the basis that every decision made is wrong because it is a change, and all change is bad.

I'm mindful, on the other hand, of the fact that this decision will cause personal hardship to perhaps 125 court reporters. I think it's appropriate that we look at the decision to make sure that the right decision has been made from that perspective. I also think it's appropriate that we look at it from a perspective of whether or not we are in fact compromising the delivery of justice, as I fear we may be doing. What I would like to do is improve the delivery of justice services in British Columbia. The specific question, then, is: if we're going to change, instead of moving to audio technology -- which is something that has been around for half a century or so -- why don't we move toward generalized use of computer-assisted technology in the courtroom? It would seem to me to be a step forward rather than a step almost backwards in terms of technology. Now, maybe I don't understand the technology that's going to be used, and if I've got it wrong, then I invite the Attorney General to correct me.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If we move to the latest technology that's available, it is nice to know how to operate it, but it is not really required to do the job that we need done. In terms of the court reporters, I want to let the members know that I'm mindful of the fact that the 120 are mainly women -- there are very few men -- who are part-time employees of government and part-time independent contractors. They would be provided placements in other jobs in government. They would have the opportunity to bid on other jobs. And they would, of course, have the opportunity to continue to do discoveries, arbitrations, even transcription from the audio that might be available from the courts where transcripts are required. I'm very mindful of that situation, and we've put in place appropriate labour adjustment strategies to deal with those who might need assistance.

G. Plant: I have one other issue to raise in this context, and if the Attorney General wants to take the additional question and think about it, that's fine. But it's the last comment around this decision for now.

The other concern I have about this is that, in effect -- to borrow a phrase that we use improperly in other contexts -- this is a step toward creating a two-tier justice system. The reason is that litigants who can afford it are now using real-time court reporting in our courts, which is a computer-assisted transcript technology that allows everyone in the courtroom who has a laptop to be plugged into each other, including the judge. The judge can sit at his or her bench and, with the computer screen in front of him or her, look at the evidence as it is being transcribed by a court reporter sitting in the courtroom, taking down the evidence in the conventional way, which trial workers are used to doing in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, using technology that allows the words to be transcribed immediately through a software program. Everyone looks at what is happening on a screen, and, in fact, you can read the evidence as it's being given.

It's an extraordinary tool, and it's extraordinarily valuable in some contexts and probably unnecessary in others. But as we move away from the system where everyone had access to a higher standard of transcription than I think we will have in the audio-based system, we are moving toward a system where litigants will increasingly use real-time technology because they aren't prepared to take the risk associated with audio technology. Access to justice will then increasingly take on a dual dimension. There will be more justice for those who can afford it than there is for those who can't.

I'm sure the Attorney General would agree with me in an instant that the system of justice has never been perfect in terms of access. But I think our goal should always be to reduce those impediments rather than increase them. I guess I want to leave the subject of court reporters with my observation that this is a wrong step down a road that will have the result over time of creating differential access to the justice system -- a result which I'm sure the minister would like to avoid.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm quite cognizant of the very serious issue that the hon. member has raised. However, I'm comforted by the experience in Saskatchewan where this has been in place for several years, I understand. My ministry is aware of only one incident where a court reporter was invited to sit in by a party or by the court, because the microphone had been damaged by the prisoner. I hope that doesn't happen, but at the end of the day I think that access to justice isn't the same in the system in any event, despite the fact that we don't want it to happen. We want to make it the same. Some people can afford armies of lawyers, and other people can afford only a legal aid lawyer. I wish that we had the money to provide armies of lawyers for everyone, but we don't.

I think that, by and large, you would have litigants and the lawyers satisfied with the system, because if the judge is part of the process of using this system, there would be no use by the judge of the real-time system that the hon. member is talking about. So the real-time system would be beneficial only to the litigant who has the financial capacity to bring the private court reporter in.

[ Page 2626 ]

However, with this system that we are proposing, you would have essentially the same capacity. If you wanted transcripts right away, you would have the tapes going over to the transcribers, who might be in the next room transcribing as the tapes are being recorded. So at the end of the day, you may have a certified transcript available at about the same time or maybe an hour or two difference.

At this point, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada