[ Page 2689 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 2. I would also like to inform the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

R. Coleman: We're discussing the Budget Measures Implementation Act for what it is: the need for this government to download some of its costs onto municipalities. But why? I think it's because the Ministry of Finance has continuously fooled itself into believing its own press releases about the fact that it had two balanced budgets before, during and after the last election, and its own press releases about the fact that all of a sudden its deficit is only $185 million. Isn't it wonderful that we have a $185 million deficit? We've actually reduced our deficit. Why? In actual fact, the truth of the matter is that they were so bad at budgeting last year, they're $500 million out of whack. Now they think they look good because they're reducing their deficit this year over last year -- when they told us they had a balanced budget. The fiscal incompetence and deception displayed by this government -- incompetence in not being able to know what they were taking in and what they were spending, deception in stating in last year's throne speech that they would soon present the second balanced budget in the province's history. . . .

When I was elected in 1996 and I listened to the Lieutenant-Governor, I thought that when the government gave somebody a throne speech, it was a responsibility that the words coming out of the mouth of the Lieutenant-Governor were fact. This was not fact; this was a sham. Within months we had a $240 million deficit, and by the end of the year we had a half-billion-dollar deficit.

Who suffers? Remember those average, hard-working British Columbians this government say they represent? That's who suffers. You know, the ones that are supposedly getting a tax break -- supposedly the ones whose side this government said they were on. Those are the people that are getting hurt by this budget -- you know, those who own homes and pay property taxes. Well, let me make it clear to the people of British Columbia that their property taxes are going up because of the fiscal incompetence of this provincial government -- you know, those average, everyday British Columbians who rent accommodations: single parents, those on social assistance and others. Well, rents are going up. Do you know why? Rents are going up because landlords are going to have to download rent increases onto average British Columbians as a result of the incompetence of this government.

Who else is going to suffer because of this bill? Small, medium-sized and large businesses: those companies that are supposedly going to create youth employment; the ones that are going to create those 21,000 new jobs; those that are going to bring investments into the province. Well, their taxes are going up, too, as a result of this bill. The government is laying its competence at the feet of the municipalities.

What else is affected? Does this government believe that youth and youth activities are good for character development? How many members of this House have children and grandchildren? Do they play soccer? Do they play baseball or hockey? Do they take music or ballet lessons? Do they figure-skate? Do they curl or engage in any other community activities? Well, their costs are going up, too, because of the downloading on municipalities by this government. That's money right out of their pockets -- their parents' pockets -- for things that are for their character development and are important to their growth as individuals in our society. It's coming out of their pockets because of this bill.

What else is going wrong with this bill? This government has lost its "green." This government says it's environmentally friendly; the only thing this government ever talks about is 14 percent of the province being set aside for parks. What are they going to do about the fish? What are they going to do about the pollution? What are they doing? They're ignoring all of that. They're going to create more parks. What about the air? The Fraser Valley experiences the highest level of respiratory disease of any jurisdiction in North America, and what are they doing? They're taxing propane, which is one of the few fuels that lowers the amount of pollution in the air, while at the same time they're continuing to ignore the fact that their environmental controls are hurting the Fraser Valley, hurting the groundwater and hurting the province of British Columbia.

People in the valley -- all people; not just this government, but ordinary British Columbians -- breathe, and in the Fraser Valley those people are suffering because of pollution. So what do they do? They tax propane, a fuel that actually reduces pollution. They attack propane. They ignore the reason those people invested in the first place: because they encouraged them to do so, because it was environmentally friendly to do so. So what do they do? They take it away from them. They spent their own money when they made those propane conversions because they thought that there was some opportunity for them to recoup their investment. Because they made one fatal mistake, they're going to be hurt. They made one fatal mistake: they took the word of this government, which isn't worth anything.

This government would rather protect some pristine wilderness than millions of people affected by air quality. They would rather pay lip service to protecting fish stocks and fisheries than protecting the water entering our watercourses from leaching mushroom manure, old septic fields and groundwater runoff.

This bill is about abdicating responsibility for infrastructure. The municipalities in the lower mainland have to deal with a tripling of the GVRD. Why? First of all, this government has no vision. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars to flush our sewers in the lower mainland to one or two locations, and they keep upgrading those facilities. What's happening worldwide? What's happening worldwide is that other jurisdictions are using new technologies that our Ministry of Health cannot even recognize, as far as the handling and treatment of sewage at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. They can't get their heads around the alternatives to deal with sewer, so they download those costs onto municipalities. They would rather flush partially treated sewer into the ocean. Again, is that great for the environment 

[ Page 2690 ]

and protecting our fish? Nonsense. Why doesn't the ministry wake up and allow the new technologies being used elsewhere in Canada and the world to be used here? We can do a better job on site and reduce hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs.

[10:15]

This act is about a loss of trust. Last September a protocol was signed with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities which turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on. The announcement by the former minister about new cooperation turned out to be a sham. Any trust in this government is gone. You've got a morally and ethically bankrupt government: one that doesn't care about the environment, doesn't care about the normal taxpayer in British Columbia, doesn't care about property owners, doesn't care about renters and doesn't care about small business. They only want to download their fiscal mistakes on the other people in this province, and turn around and whine about it because they think it's their duty to do it, because they say somebody else downloaded on them. Two wrongs don't make a right, and this is wrong. There should be no downloading on the municipalities. You should get your fiscal house in order.

They've lost it. They've lost confidence; they've lost professionalism; they've lost trust. Make no mistake about it. There is no way I will be supporting Bill 2.

J. Dalton: There are several aspects of this bill I'm going to comment on. I'll just very quickly outline what those will be, and then talk in more detail.

One of the major concerns of Bill 2 is the off-loading, downloading, or whatever we want to call it. The fact is that the municipalities, who are at the low end of the scale, get hit, which means that property taxes, school taxes, fees, licences, etc., will be escalating again. As an example, I heard just this morning on the news that several of the municipalities in the lower mainland had their weekly meetings last night and were typically looking at 3 to 4 percent property tax increases throughout the lower mainland area as a direct consequence of Bill 2. So off-loading certainly is a major concern.

Secondly, the lack of consultation. I don't know how many times we have to get to our feet and tell this government -- which doesn't listen, because that's how it consults anyway -- that their lack of consultation is becoming more and more a major concern to municipalities, school districts and hospital boards. Certainly that's something that this bill again raises as a concern. We have to again remind the government that if it doesn't consult, one day it's going to come back to haunt them. But maybe they don't care about that.

I'm also going to comment in my concluding remarks about the flip-flop of many of the government members who, back in 1994, voted one way on the Local Government Grants Act. Now we presume that they will all dutifully leap -- but hopefully not -- to their feet when a division is called on this bill and demonstrate their true flip-flop nature.

Off-loading. There are many aspects of off-loading that we can comment on. I'm going to hit upon a few. As I say, Bill 2 is clearly another example of off-loading. We're all reminded of Bill 55, the railway taxation bill, which is certainly an off-loading of serious consequence to many municipalities that have railways within their jurisdiction. Just to cite one example, in the district of North Vancouver alone -- in which I am a property taxpayer -- they estimate that the off-loading because of Bill 55 and the loss of railway taxation is as high as $800,000. When you factor in the fact that the local government grant has been lost, and when you factor in the things coming down the pipeline, such as arterial highways, next year, all of these examples will only further increase the tax load on the property owners in the municipalities.

This government doesn't seem to care that at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer. That taxpayer may have several pockets to pick -- although as a taxpayer, I can tell you that whatever pockets I have are empty -- but they've been emptied by this government, and now we're going to have those pockets further emptied.

So railway taxation is a major off-loading concern. The arterial highways that I just commented upon -- the government has deferred its decision on the off-loading of arterial highways expenses until next year. . . .

F. Gingell: And they've reduced the grants.

J. Dalton: I was just going to say, and my colleague is reminding me, that some of the grants to deal with the maintenance of arterial highways have already been reduced. So they've already opened the door on that one. Next year, of course, they're going to completely open that door -- more off-loading.

In this theme of off-loading, I have to comment about courthouse closures. Just down the hall -- as I describe it, in the broom closet -- where the AG's estimates are taking place at this moment, I know several of my colleagues are once again debating the courthouse closure issue. Our Attorney General critic from Richmond-Steveston raised this issue last Thursday in the Attorney General estimates. I had the opportunity at that time to ask the Attorney General specifically about the West Vancouver closure.

Just to fill in a bit of the background before I get to a comment that the Attorney General made last Thursday, the Attorney General admitted in the estimates that West Vancouver was the first to react to the announced closure of last November -- that Langley, Richmond and West Vancouver courthouses would be closed. West Vancouver did its homework. It sent a proposal to the Attorney General ministry as to the anticipated extra policing costs if the closure went through and a game plan that West Vancouver had in mind whereby they could save the ministry money and therefore foreclose or head off the anticipated closure. So West Vancouver was more than willing and was the first to go on record to say: "We have a financial plan here that will meet the ministry's objectives to save money and will maintain the integrity of the administration of justice within the community of West Vancouver." Unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears, which is again so typical of this government.

Last Thursday, our critic -- somewhat humorously, but not completely -- suggested to the Attorney General that because West Vancouver has two former Attorneys General on its council it was being penalized. Well, I think probably that is true. However, I want to read into the record one quotation from the Blues of last Thursday which was in response to a question I put to the Attorney General about the closure in West Vancouver. The Attorney General is on record as saying: "There was no consultation on these issues before decisions were announced." So the Attorney General has done at least two things in this courthouse closure: (1) he has off-loaded onto the municipality, which is certainly going to experience vastly increased policing costs and inconvenience to the public; and (2) has admitted that there was no consultation.

Yet yesterday in the same estimates -- as I was sitting in there yesterday afternoon to listen to a similar line of question- 

[ Page 2691 ]

ing from the member for Matsqui -- the Attorney General said that in the future he anticipates that he will be consulting if there are any closures of land title offices or courthouses. I have no reason to believe that, quite frankly, but the Attorney General certainly is guilty of admitting: (1) that there was no consultation previously, and (2) that he's now trying to convince us that there will be future consultation. I have absolutely no confidence that that will be the case, but we'll have to see.

On the theme of off-loading, I want to comment on the Lions Gate Bridge issue. It has now become very topical, because as far as I'm concerned this is certainly another example of off-loading. The announcement that the Highways minister made last Friday about the $70 million pothole offer, as I have described it. . . . Keep in mind that the obligation of the Ministry of Highways is to keep the highways and bridges of this province in good repair, and as regular users of the Lions Gate Bridge we all know that repair is becoming more and more a serious safety issue. So last Friday the minister told us, in her generous fashion, that she'll throw $70 million into the pot, which would be a basic patch-up job. The off-loading that's happening is that. . . . She goes on to say that if the regular and other users of the Lions Gate crossing want anything better than a pothole-patching job, they're going to have to come up with a package that will be acceptable to the various decision-makers on the Lions Gate issue. I submit that that's a form of off-loading: (1) it's off-loading the responsibility of the Minister of Highways; and (2) it's inviting an unfair imposition of tolls on one crossing only.

The only other toll we have in this province right now is on the Coquihalla Highway, and that's because of the vast cost overruns that the previous Social Credit government dumped into that project in order to make sure it was open for Expo. We know that there was a tremendous waste of money on the Coquihalla. It's a good project, but certainly it wasn't fiscally responsible in any way, shape or form. So the imposition of a $10 toll for passenger cars was placed on it. But we have not had tolls on any other highway or government project since the early 1960s, when the previous toll on the Lions Gate was lifted. Yet last Friday the minister suggested the very strong likelihood that we'll be looking at tolls again, on that crossing only. That is an off-loading -- particularly to the residents of the North Shore, as the most regular users of the bridge -- that I find unacceptable.

The GVRD is on record as saying that by the year 2006 it would like to see all lower mainland crossings tolled in order that we can have specific revenues designated for the maintenance of bridges. We don't have that now, and that's the major reason the Lions Gate has been allowed to fall into the disrepair that we experience now. When the toll was removed back in the sixties, it removed the incentive of government to properly maintain and repair that crossing, and that's what we face today. So that's another form of off-loading.

I also want to comment on the lack of consultation and the clear record of this government since it was first elected back in October of 1991. They have never made any serious attempt whatsoever to sit down with the stakeholders and consult on whatever the issue of the day may be. Any consultation that they do is, at best, after the fact, in which case they come in and say: "Well we've already made the decision, and now you're going to have to live with it." For example, many members will recall that at the UBCM annual convention in Penticton last September the then Minister of Municipal Affairs rose before the audience and proudly waved the protocol agreement and said that the UBCM executive and the ministry had sat down and signed this protocol, which allegedly was to provide for consultation with the UBCM before any important decisions affecting the municipalities were made.

But what do we see in Bill 2? What do we find as part of the amendment, which will either reduce or, heaven forbid, incur the possibility of eliminating altogether local government grants? Because that is a possibility in this amendment. Secondly, under the heading "Consultation with Local Governments" we are told: "6. At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. . . ." What does "at least annually" mean? Does that mean on Boxing Day morning the minister might call up Gillian Trumper, the president of UBCM, and say: "Hi, how was your Christmas?" Is that consultation, hon. Speaker? I suspect that would be the only thing that we would get from the minister with this provision. So the heading "Consultation with Local Governments" is meaningless. It's not even words on paper; it's a hollow exercise.

[10:30]

We've seen other examples over the years that this government -- which, unfortunately, was re-elected last year -- has been in power. I've already commented about the Attorney General and that just last Thursday in his estimates he admitted that there was no consultation whatsoever about the courthouse closures. Yet many municipalities -- West Vancouver, Chilliwack, Richmond, Langley -- have come forward with financial packages to try to dissuade the Attorney General from his decision. All he can tell us is: "Well, sorry. I didn't consult in a lot of the cases." West Vancouver is one example; Langley is another. The courthouse will remain closed. He doesn't care about the off-loading; he doesn't care about the inconvenience to the local population; he doesn't care about his responsibility as the chief administrator of justice in this province.

The other day we asked him: "What do you mean by regional justice centres?" He had no definition; he had no idea what a regional justice centre is or might be. So everything that is happening in that one ministry alone, as an example, is to save a few dollars, look good, present the annual budget to say: "We've reduced our ministry by X percent." Yet what do we have? We have off-loading of a very serious nature, and we have zero consultation affecting the very people who, at the end of the day, are going to have to pay the bills, which is the local property taxpayer.

I guess there is an irony in that, because I presume some of the members opposite actually pay taxes. I know that none of them really have any business sense, but perhaps they are in that disadvantaged position that they are going to get their property tax and their school tax bills in short order. I hope they are comfortable living with those, but I doubt it.

There are other examples where there has been zero consultation from this government. The other day several of my colleagues and I attended the GVRD council of councils meetings. We were informed that the GVRD is now in consultation with the government on lower mainland transit. Well, heaven forbid! I've cautioned George Puil, chairman of the GVRD, and other members: "You had better be careful before you walk in the room and start consulting with these clowns opposite, because they're going to shaft you. And don't be led down the garden path to think that the government is the good guy. They're not." I am happy to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs is sitting there. He's smiling. I don't know whether that smile is good news or bad news, but the fact is that the GVRD is starting to play with the devil, and they are going to get burned if they are not cautious.

[ Page 2692 ]

I would also deliver the same caution to the Council of Tourism Associations, COTA, because they are in the process of sitting down with the same government to consult on the new tourism agency. Now, that may be a good thing, and quite frankly, if it was another government opposite -- and happily one day it will be a Liberal government -- we would know that there would be consultation and that there would be a business plan coming out of the exercise. But with this group we have no consultation and, of course, there is no such thing as a business plan.

We've seen the fiasco with this government's last three budgets -- which are its major business plan, as to how they are going to waste $20 billion of our money every year. That's the way they operate. I've already commented on the lack of consultation on the Lions Gate Bridge. I don't want to beat that thing to death. If we shake it any further it will fall down on its own, and then we've got ourselves a truly serious problem.

But clearly -- and I know this is a fact, because yesterday I rode over here on the helijet with the mayor of West Vancouver. . . . She restated, as all the other mayors of the North Shore have done constantly, that there has been no consultation with local government on the important issue of the Lions Gate crossing. Any consultation is, at best, after the fact.

So what do we learn from last Friday's press conference of the Minister of Highways? We learn that she's put a package together -- the blackmail list, as I described it -- holding a gun to the heads of the North Shore municipalities, which until last Friday's conference had no idea what the government's plan, if any, was on the Lions Gate Bridge. We recall that, back in 1993, a former Highways minister, who was an engineer and had some professional understanding of the issues, developed a five-year time line. Well, of course, that five years has now practically evaporated. Four years have gone by, and four years into that five-year plan, the now minister gets to her feet and says: "By the way, we sort of have a plan. We're going to allow you to think about it until next January. If you don't come up with something that's acceptable to me and my government, we'll reject it, and we'll throw in the $70 million and fix the potholes." That's the sort of consultation that we get from this government.

I just want to make a brief comment as well, while I'm on this theme of lack of consultation, about something that I guess I would have to describe as even more serious than that. Unfortunately, from some of the members opposite there has recently been a demonstration of not only the failure to consult with the constituency of this province but also a demonstration of, for want of a better term, intolerance. Quite frankly, it is intolerance. I'm referring, for example, to the recent attempt of a government backbencher to try to convince a hotel in Vancouver to prevent the running of a public meeting in one of its hotel rooms because of what the participants in that meeting might discuss -- not what they have discussed or what may be on the agenda, but what they may be discussing. Now, I personally find that objectionable, to say the least, and frightening in the extreme. If government members -- members of the back bench or cabinet, it matters not -- are prepared to suggest to legitimate businesses and organizations in this province that their conduct is going to be held suspect because of certain views that they hold or may espouse in a meeting, whether that be private or public, I find that intolerant in the extreme.

So we move from the general lack of consultation that this government has constantly demonstrated, to a very disturbing example -- and other examples, as well -- of a government that is prepared to abuse its power and authority by saying to legitimate businesses and organizations: "We are not going to tolerate what you may be saying."

I invite the Premier -- in fact, I did so on a CKNW talk show on Saturday afternoon, when this issue was being commented on by callers. . . . I phoned in, and I said to the moderator: "I'm hoping that the Premier will pay some attention to this issue and the conduct of that member, because if the Premier of this province, the head of this government" -- I was about to say the dictator, but of course, we know this is not a dictatorship -- "is prepared to tolerate the intolerance that that member demonstrated through his comments the other day, I find that the Premier's conduct is suspect as well." It is, I submit, his responsibility to ensure that government members and backbenchers conduct themselves in an appropriate manner, whether that be as an MLA or as a private citizen. I cite that as an example of something that's gone from the mere lack of consultation, which is disturbing enough, into a very dangerous realm of intolerance.

There's one more thing I wish to comment on. In 1994, when the Local Government Grants Act was debated in this House. . . . It was brought forward by the previous NDP government under Mike Harcourt. In 1994 the Local Government Grants Act, the bill that we're now amending, was supported, of course, by all government members. It was supported as well by the opposition, and rightly so. But now we see that there's going to be, I presume, a very serious flip-flop by many of the members who formerly voted on that bill and who were re-elected last year and are now sitting in this House, still on the government side. I see from the list that unless there's a tie there is one member of that previous government who will not be voting on this particular bill, because, of course, hon. Speaker, that is yourself. However, there are many other members opposite. I see two of the members from Burnaby, for example, sitting opposite as I speak. They're both on record as having supported the Local Government Grants Act. I invite those two members to get to their feet when Bill 2 is called on a division and vote their conscience and vote consistently -- how they used to vote, not how the Premier and whoever else is running the show over there will tell them to vote. There are many other members . . . . In fact, I've added it up. There are 13 cabinet members who are on record as having supported the Local Government Grants Act in 1994 -- 13 cabinet members. So we'll see how they vote. In total, in the absence of yourself, hon. Speaker, there are 27 current government MLAs who in 1994 got to their feet and happily supported the Local Government Grants Act.

In 1997, what do we expect? Well, it would be nice to think we'll have 27 government MLAs -- cabinet members or backbenchers -- on their feet saying to this bill: "No, this is not acceptable." But I think that's utopia. There is no way, of course, that it will ever happen. But it would be nice. I do challenge the members opposite, all of whom are on record as having supported the local government grants initiative, to defeat this bill.

As I said earlier, this bill dealing with the Local Government Grants Act is dangerous in two aspects. First, if this is passed, the possibility does exist that all future grants could be eliminated. We've already seen some very serious off-loading from this bill and others; but it is possible that all grants to local governments could be eliminated altogether in the future.

Second, as I commented earlier, this consultation process is a farce, to put it mildly. "At least annually, the minister must 

[ Page 2693 ]

consult with. . .the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. . . ." I have no idea what that means. I don't know whether he consults with them at all now. I do see them up in the gallery almost every second day, coming over here pleading with the government for some ear that hopefully they've opened and that will listen. I hope pressure from the UBCM executive is kept up, and I know that it will be. But I have no confidence that any consultation process will take place.

After other colleagues have commented in second reading of this bill and when a vote is called -- and it will be a standing vote -- I again challenge the members opposite who are on record in 1994 as being supportive of local government grants to be consistent and true to their values and to their municipalities. They have to go back into their home communities at some point and face the music, so I invite those members to vote along with the opposition and defeat Bill 2.

[10:45]

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in regards to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997. It has some 40 sections that deal with all different aspects of government, different ministries. I guess it's the kind of act that they call housekeeping or housecleaning -- trying to rectify the sins of the past, I guess you could say, where there were mistakes made. We understand that. But, definitely with the NDP, what we've found in the past and what we see today is that you have to be some kind of a Sherlock Holmes at times to pick out all these little housekeeping errors that seem to come forward from this government.

It deals with a number of serious issues, and I'm going to leave those to the last. I just want to touch briefly on a couple that deal with transition costs in the Motor Vehicle Act. It clearly defines in here what it's intended to do, and that is to fund further government actions, further government policies, through ICBC.

I guess that's why I've never been in favour of ICBC. I think it's a system that should be privatized. It should run on its own, and it should run in competition. I think we would find a much better operation for everyone in British Columbia. Then, at least, they would know that things are happening, because someone else would try to provide the service better or at a lesser rate.

But what we have with ICBC is that it's dominated by the government of the day. It doesn't matter what government it is. This is not just a sin of this government; it was a sin of the past government -- someone deciding that they want to freeze rates just to make it sound good before an election. Like I read in the paper the other day, there should be an election every year, because that's when it seems that things happen in both the provinces and in the Dominion.

So when we see that part of the act is transferring money from ICBC, again, into the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, it makes me wonder just how much. There's no definition -- by whose definition, and by where. . .? I mean, the heading is pretty broad, as to what will be transferred back. Why, hon. Speaker? If you want to transfer the operations of the motor vehicle branch over to ICBC, which was something we discussed well over a year ago in this House, I would have thought it could have taken place by now. But I wonder if next year we'll have another little act with another little bit of housekeeping that says: "Hey, we're going to transfer some more, because we haven't finished transferring it." Hon. Speaker, that's wrong. That's why the people of British Columbia have some problems with this government; that's why the people of British Columbia have problems with all governments. It says one thing and does another, and that's entirely wrong.

Another issue, and I guess it's closer to the heart of the Premier . . . . I know it's not a huge issue, but it's the principle involved. When the Premier stands in front of everybody in the province and says, "No new taxes," but brings a bill in -- and in a little one to the Tobacco Tax Act it says "is amended by striking out '8.4›' and substituting '11›' " . . . . Well, if that isn't an increase in taxes, I don't know what is.

An Hon. Member: It's just levelling out the tobacco field.

R. Neufeld: They say it's just levelling out the tobacco field. Well, I think we could probably do that in a whole bunch of areas. If that's what you mean when you talk about your budget, that when you tell the people of British Columbia, "We're going to level it," you mean: "We're going level you in the procedure. . . ." We may level the whole province, because that's exactly what's happening in this province: we're being levelled with debt. Those are the things that you have to pick out of the bills that are put forward.

Two of the larger issues that affect, in fact, all of us, -- and maybe more so on one issue that affects northerners more than it would the south . . . . The issues surrounding the Local Government Grants Act -- the transfers of money from the provincial government to municipal governments -- are huge issues that are going to impact all of us in some way or another in our constituencies. Communities that are under 5,000 people will, of course, not have costs transferred onto them. But that's not entirely true all the time. The government did try to transfer some costs to those people. What we see in the bill is that next year it's going to be a little different. Those people will soon be facing higher taxation costs.

It's downloading, hon. Speaker; it's downloading of the worst kind. It's downloading to municipal governments that must maintain a balanced budget. They must by law maintain enough revenue to offset the expenditures -- something that we should be looking at seriously in this House.

But it goes a lot deeper than that. It's promises that were made by members of this government a long time ago. It goes back to the approximately $250 million that was never distributed to the municipalities. And they lobbied hard; they lobbied this government, wanting to get the money that was rightfully and deservedly theirs and, again, was to be spent in the municipalities for the people that they represent.

The NDP government of the day, in its wisdom, decided that they would meet with the municipalities -- that they would consult with them, consult with the UBCM. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- all ministers -- met with those agencies, with those elected councils, to try to figure out something that they could do so that there would be some certainty in the amount of money that was transferred in the form of grants to municipalities.

I clearly remember sitting in this House in 1994, listening to the accolades from across the way -- from the NDP -- about how this grants act of 1994 was going to bring some certainty and stability to municipalities across the province. In fact, I want to read a couple of quotes from the then Minister of Finance, Elizabeth Cull, who is no longer sitting as an MLA. During second reading debate, she made these comments:

[ Page 2694 ]

"The bill. . .commits the government to annual consultation with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities on grant administration and to a review every five years of municipal general grant support. I believe that it achieves a fair balance between the needs of the province and local governments."

When you read that and listen to it, it makes good sense, doesn't it? It makes absolutely good sense. In fact, it was something that was needed. I think all of us in the House at the time stood up and said: "Yeah, we agree with those kinds of statements. We think it's time. We think it's time that you quit trying to squirrel away the $250 million" -- to spend it on something else that the government of the day wanted to -- "and start returning the money to those communities that are closest to the people, to be spent on all kinds of issues, supplying services to those people."

I find nothing wrong with that quote in the context of the time. I find a tremendous amount wrong with what's taken place since then, because the NDP government has lived up to nothing in that quote -- nothing. Should it surprise me? Maybe not; maybe it shouldn't surprise me after what we have witnessed over the last year. Maybe it shouldn't surprise anyone in British Columbia that the folks across the way sometimes really don't want to tell the truth. Or should I say "strangers to the truth"? That's maybe the better term, hon. Speaker.

At the time, she also said: "This legislation is designed to deal with stability and predictability, and it does that." When one reads that sentence, one wonders today what she really meant or what the government really meant. "It provides stability in grants." Stability in grants. Yeah. All of a sudden, within 30 days, you find out that your grant has just about been annihilated. That's stability with the NDP.

"The one thing I got out of my prebudget consultation with the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, as well as with the many mayors and councillors I met around the province, was that they wanted to see some stability. . . . They said: 'Give us stability and predictability.'"

Neither of those is what we're witnessing today, and it's sad. This was just in 1994, just a short time ago. Many of the NDP that are sitting here today stood then, along with Ms. Cull, and spoke in favour -- about how great a bill this was going to be, how it was going to bring predictability, stability, consultation. None of the three has this government of the day met, none of the three.

For a government to go around and talk about how they represent the people and then do these things, that is not going unnoticed by the population of the province. It's not going unnoticed. You folks have got a lot of problems out there in British Columbia with some of your backtracking, with some of your promises that have been broken.

In fact, one of the more respected Ministers of Municipal Affairs . . . . I don't mean this as a slight to the new Minister of Municipal Affairs; I'm talking about before his time. I have a great amount of respect for that minister also; I've said it on many occasions, and I will again. He's got a tough row to hoe here with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the mayors and councillors from around this province, with the government taking the attitude that it has.

Darlene Marzari, I remember, was very well respected by all members on that side of the House, by many members on this side of the House and by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and mayors around this province. I can tell you the mayor of one of my communities, Fort St. John, always talked about how good it was to deal with Darlene Marzari. Darlene said it was "an honest and forthright bill. . . ." It "finally brings predictability, plus a legislated guarantee of consultation." She said it was "an example of the kind of successful collaboration that is possible when two levels of government sit down and try with certainty, stability and predictability to give municipalities exactly what they're asking for. . . . " That comes from a well-respected politician of the NDP and minister at the time.

Unfortunately, that was all lost. Once you take that amount of time to climb that mountain -- to get the respect of the majority of people that represent those communities -- and then have it slashed off and levelled, as the member talked about, in one fell swoop, it's going to be tough to come back to. I don't care who the minister is, it's going to be tough to come back to.

We constantly hear that the reason we have to cut all this back is because of cutbacks by the federal government. Well, whoop-de-ding, hon. Speaker. Did they just happen on this last year? Every government before this group came into power has faced the same thing. There has always been cutbacks from the federal government, in one form or another, to the province.

I. Waddell: Not true.

R. Neufeld: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview sits over there and chats away to me about "not true." Well, I was in municipal government when we had to deal with many of those things; I've read it in lots of the newspapers. When I arrived here in 1992, was first elected, the first thing I heard out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance at the time -- who is our Premier today -- was: "We have to deal with those darn Liberals in Ottawa that are cutting back in every direction." We'd listen to the Minister of Health stand up and say exactly the same things. We'd listen to the Minister of Social Services stand up and say the same thing. This is no new phenomenon. We have faced those cutbacks constantly in British Columbia.

[11:00]

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Unfortunately, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview lived in a different world at that time. He's trying to get himself adjusted to the politics of British Columbia. Please, let's give him some time to try to figure out what really happened in the past and what's happening now.

But that in fact is true. The government of the day cannot sit here and say: "Well, last year we got the first big hit." If the member just goes back and looks in Hansard, he will see, day after day, that government talking about cutbacks. So to try and tell me today that this was a needed thing because it was the first time it ever happened is absolutely ridiculous.

In fact, the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time that the cutbacks were announced, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, I believe . . . .

An Hon. Member: Employment and Investment.

R. Neufeld: Employment and Investment, I'm sorry. The members across the way got me a little bit excited, and I kind of lost my train of thought.

That minister talked, in his press release this past September, about the protocol. "The protocol won't protect any of us from federal off-loading or hard fiscal reality," said the minister. "However, it is a vehicle that will keep our 

[ Page 2695 ]

partnership strong through good times and bad." That's a quote from the minister of the day: ". . .keep our partnership strong through good times and bad."

Well, here they are. I'll tell you how strong they are, hon. Speaker. Right at the same time, you go to any part of the province of British Columbia, and you read the newspaper headlines. "Civic Politicians Declare War on Province" -- is that strong? Is that a strong partnership through good times and bad? Or "Municipalities Will Lose $113 Million in Assistance under B.C.'s Tough Plan," "Study: Pain and Transfer Cuts Shared" and "UBCM Threatens March on Legislature"? It's absolutely amazing that one minister could term something like that a good working relationship. That's what's so wrong about the way this government has gone about the cutbacks.

I think everybody realizes we have to go through some cutbacks. There's just not the kind of money around that there used to be. I think local politicians are quite willing to look at things and see what they can cut back on. But one thing that the federal government at least had the decency to do in cutbacks was to let the province know two to three years in advance that they were coming -- to get ready and to start looking at ways that you could deal with it. This group from across the way, when they talk about consultation, when they talk about good working relationships, it all hovers around about 30 days that you get to know. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: If he doesn't believe it, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview ought to travel up to Fort St. John and just check it out. Ask the mayor of Taylor, Mr. Jarvis, ask the mayor of Fort St. John, Mr. Thorlakson, ask the mayor of Fort Nelson, Mr. Edwards, or ask the mayor of Hudson's Hope, Lenore Harwood, how much notice they were given by this great group of consultative politicians about cuts to transfers, to grants, and what they were going to have to live up to.

It's disgusting. When you make a statement, you ought to be able to live up to it. If you can't, at least have the presence of the day to stand up and say: "I made a mistake; I'm sorry. We're going to have to deal with it. But we're not going to drill you right now. We're going to work it over time." Not this group -- they try to stand up and say they've done everything right. I guess the old term "holier than thou" still stands. Even after all the mistakes this group has gone through, they just haven't learned.

I spoke a bit about the cutbacks that affected smaller communities, and what's going to happen to them. In conjunction with the cutback to municipal grants came the off-loading of highways. That was one of those really good little consultation processes, too. Everybody was kind of surprised when they read it in the newspaper.

Ask the mayor of Hudson's Hope what she felt like when she was told by the ministry that they were going to have to take care of the road from Hudson's Hope to the dam -- the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, the dam that produces 40 percent of the hydro for export and domestic use, in a community of 1,100 people. You've got it. It's yours -- 15 to 20 klicks. Just fixing up the hill out of Hudson's Hope is only going to cost you about $6 million to $8 million, by ministry records. Talk about cutbacks; talk about downloading. This government -- every one of those members -- should hang their heads in shame. You should hang your heads in shame.

On top of it, Fort St. John was the other community that was affected in my constituency. They got a downloading of about $350,000 for two roads that went through their community: 100th Avenue and 100th Street. The numbers given by the ministry said it only costs $42,000 to maintain those roads. But what was magically not brought forward when the message went out to the community is that it's going to cost $9 million to upgrade them and $160,000 annually to maintain them. That's the kind of untruth -- that's the kind of downloading -- that is so unpalatable to communities across the province, not just in my constituency.

You know, we had the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. . . . And I'm glad he's here, because I jotted down a note when he was making his speech -- that there is a lot of fat in all of those communities out there, and all they have to do is carve it out, and they can accept all this downloading. I'll tell you what: I challenge that member to come to the community of Fort St. John, the community that enjoys the highest residential tax rates in the province of British Columbia, the highest business tax rates in the province and the worst infrastructure in the province, the worst roads. I commented the other day that if you want to get ridership up on transit in Vancouver, let the streets get to the same condition they are in the city of Fort St. John. I'll tell you, you'll have to buy more trains like you wouldn't believe.

I challenge that member to come north with the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Premier, and to stand there in front of a group of people -- I don't care who; a public meeting -- and tell the people of Fort St. John: "You've got too much fat." They have held taxes five years in a row, and we've got a member from Fraserview down here, who doesn't understand anything outside of his little realm of Vancouver, talking about fat in other municipalities. That's what is unacceptable, too. This is a group that knows everything about everyone and everybody, and it's totally unacceptable in my constituency.

I challenge him here publicly to come to the north. Stand in front of the public of Fort St. John who are buying new vehicles every two to three years because they're wrecked, because of the roads that they have to drive on -- some of them are not even roads, but are still tote roads from the fifties -- and tell them that they've got too much fat. You just tell them that they've got too much fat. I'd suggest that we do it right around tax time. I'd suggest that at about the time people are paying their municipal taxes. . . . That's when they come and make those kinds of claims. That gentleman would never come back; he would never come back. I challenge him to do it right at tax time, because the people in Fort St. John are going to face some tax increases or a cutback in services, regardless of what those folks across the way want to say.

The other part that is unpalatable about this bill -- and this is the last issue I want to speak about -- is the amount of fuel tax on propane. I can't imagine a government with its head so far in the sand that it would tax propane. It demonstrates to me what happens, again, with the big-city mentality: yeah, we'll just put the 7 percent sales tax on; we'll just put a 7 percent sales tax on it, and we'll tax those folks. It really doesn't matter about those in the north who have to have their vehicles running for hours. How many of you folks across the way go out and start your vehicle 20 minutes before you go to work in the morning in the winter, for four months out of the year, or to go home at lunchtime?~ Not very many. Or, in a lot of cases, leave it running because there are no plug-ins and it's too cold to shut them off? Not very many.

On top of it, what really adds insult to injury is that all our buses in my constituency are propane-powered. Every one of them is propane-powered, because it was reasonable. 

[ Page 2696 ]

This is a fact that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview kind of talks about, but these folks are so far ahead of that hon. member it isn't funny. They went to propane a long time ago, because it was cheaper, because it was cleaner -- environmentally friendly -- and because there was lots of it. And what happens? This group of financial wizards decides we're going to go out and put a 7 percent sales tax on propane. Then you come back to the school board and you say: "Cut the fat, folks." You know, those two things just don't match.

I'm not exactly sure of the dollars it amounts to with the 7 percent tax in my constituency. But I know that when the issue about the tax on propane was first discussed -- it was going to be 10 cents per litre -- it was about an $80,000 increase in the one school district in my constituency. And then you folks come back, and you cut back on funding for schools, and you say: "Cut your fat." Your only answer to trying to cut things in the north with school districts was to amalgamate two and create one school district for a third of the province. I mean, really -- lots of thought went into that.

Even down here in the lower mainland, when you think about the pollution problems, the air quality problems: why would we want to go out and tax propane? I had the Minister of Environment at the time -- he's changed now; he is the Minister of Education -- tell me that it's time that those folks who burn propane start paying their fair share of road rehabilitation. He said that those folks who are using their barbecues and what not. . . . "It's time they started paying their fair share." I couldn't believe it -- the Minister of Environment talking about looking for money from someone who operates a barbecue with natural gas or propane. It's a tax by any other means. It's an absolutely stupid thing to do -- to start taxing an environmentally friendly fuel just to get a few bucks in revenue.

We also see that, although the government says -- and those are things that maybe some people don't know about -- that they're not taxing natural gas for use in vehicles, another reason why people in the north are so upset about money that should come north not coming back north is that they are taxing natural gas. Every compressor station that uses natural gas for compressing is taxed. It gives the province about $13 million to $15 million a year from that compressor tax. The majority of that is gas that's burnt in the north. But guess where the money goes: right down here, for these financial wizards across the way to try and spend.

No way can I support this bill -- no way whatsoever. It's a bad bill. It's badly drafted, and it's one of those little housekeeping items that is just unpalatable in many, many parts. I know the mayors of my community agree with me wholeheartedly.

[11:15]

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

I. Chong: Sitting and waiting patiently are visitors in the gallery, a grade 6 class from Glenlyon school, in my riding, with their teacher, Mr. Bowers, and a number of adults and other people in their party. They are on a tour of the Legislature. Their grade 6 class is one that's specializing in social studies, so government and parliamentary procedure are important to them. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: I rise today to speak to the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I think it is appropriate that I follow my friend from Peace River North, who has set the tone for dealing with northern issues and northern residents. I believe that my colleague from Cariboo South will also be dealing from the perspective of northern issues and concerns. While I don't presume to speak for northerners, I do speak on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca, and I am grateful for that privilege.

I do have a few comments to make about this legislation. I want first to consider the impacts of this legislation on local government's ability to develop and implement realistic financial planning for the communities, a concern that I know has been raised by a number of people who are involved in municipal government and who I've talked to in my community.

In 1994 local government was promised stability, certainty and predictability -- something that is very important from the point of view of municipal government. Amendments to the Local Government Grants Act effectively end all of the stability, predictability and certainty which was promised in 1994. Provisions determining grants provide government with a free hand, and municipalities have no recourse. Another concern that communities under 5,000 people have is that, while they have a temporary reprieve under Bill 2, this government will have the unfettered ability to dictate their terms. Certainly there is some lack of trust in that regard.

I wish to focus for a moment on the community of Houston, which lies just outside the riding of Prince George-Omineca in Bulkley Valley-Stikine. The district of Houston recently commissioned a study on economic contributions and benefits received by KPMG Management Consulting. I believe that this report, in its findings, served to underscore the sentiments of many northern resource-dependent communities, whose growing sense of isolation, alienation and frustration with the current government is increasingly evident. I believe that the legislation we are considering here today has the potential, certainly, to create further hardship for communities like Houston, in which the KPMG report details a number of closed or significantly reduced services, all tied to the provincial government.

Just summarizing some of the key highlights of this report, which was commissioned by the district of Houston, which lies just north of Prince George-Omineca in the riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine. . . . I see the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine is here. I'm certain that he is as familiar with this report as I am and has many of the same concerns as I do in terms of the impact of this legislation and, generally, the provincial treatment of communities such as Houston.

Since 1995, the report indicates, the government has closed or significantly reduced the following health, safety and information services in our community: government agent -- the position was eliminated in 1995; the notary public service -- this service was lost to the community when the government agent position was eliminated; court administrator -- this position was eliminated in 1995; public health nurse -- position vacant since December of 1996; the Houston community health council was eliminated; RCMP position -- Houston detachment was reduced by one position in 1996; courthouse -- the Attorney General has announced the closure of the Houston courthouse effective August 1, 1997; B.C. Hydro office closed in Houston and moved to Smithers; and 1996 saw the closure of the federal government's Canada employment centre office -- again, transferred to Smithers. 

[ Page 2697 ]

This report, as I suggested earlier, was commissioned and prepared for the district of Houston by KPMG Management Consulting in 1995.

Just by way of background, Houston is an important contributor to the regional and provincial economies in the northern region of this province. As the second-largest municipality in the Bulkley-Nechako area, Houston's contributions to the province are significant. Its forest companies lead the area in providing employment. In output capacity, over a third of the annual allowable cut for the Prince Rupert forest region is allocated through licences to the forest companies operating out of Houston.

Equity Silver Mines, operated by Houston employees, produces over a third of the province's silver each year and generates $50 million to $70 million in silver sales each year. The strong economic performance of the Houston area benefits the province directly in the form of tax revenues. Stumpage revenues collected from the Maurice district were $15 million in the 1987-88 year and are expected to be even higher in subsequent years, with changes to the stumpage rate system. The taxpayers of Houston, with higher than average incomes in the region, pay the highest average taxes to the province each year. Houston is a long-established and thriving community that makes a substantial contribution to the regional and provincial economies.

Finally, the province provides Houston with direct per capita grants that reflect its size. Yet in comparison to other communities of the area, Houston receives relatively few provincial services. Those that are available are often delivered on a less frequent basis or at a lower level than in other nearby communities, some of which are substantially smaller than Houston. Provincial government employment -- important to the Smithers area, for example -- is also much lower in Houston. On balance, it appears that despite its size, despite its economic importance, Houston receives a relatively lower level of benefit from the province.

I think it's helpful to consider a report of that nature, in that legislation must be considered in the context of the overall impact on northern communities. As I suggested earlier, Houston is representative of the concerns of northern communities, many of which are found -- the smaller communities, that is -- within the Prince George-Omineca constituency. Towns like Fort Fraser, Fraser Lake, Vanderhoof and Fort St. James are all small communities which are very much dependent on the goodwill of this government, in terms of their dealings with them.

Another city that I wish to consider the impact of this legislation on is the city of Prince George. The impact on Prince George will be fairly significant, in that it would be in the $1.8 million range. This is a substantial reduction in revenue, as you can appreciate -- a significant amount for the citizens of Prince George to absorb.

I spoke recently with the administration in Prince George, and the city managers, in their report to council, rejected what was described as a "slash and burn" approach. This is terminology which I think is familiar to our colleagues on the other side of the floor, and certainly is terminology that was used during the course of the last provincial election campaign. So they can appreciate, from the point of view of the city managers and their recommendations to council, that they rejected outright a "slash and burn" approach to handling this $1.8 million shortfall. Rather, what they've opted for is a public consultation process to examine the impact of seeking additional revenue and/or cuts in services. They will also be examining their own organizational structure for potential savings. But in the end, the result for the citizens of Prince George will undoubtedly be increased taxation and a reduction in services. That seems to be where Prince George finds itself today.

On behalf of my constituents -- the constituents of Prince George-Omineca -- and northerners in general, I reject this government's mismanagement, in terms of their economic policy. Certainly, as my colleague indicates, the impression of many of the constituents that I represent. . . . They have the view that this government doesn't care and certainly doesn't understand their concerns. That's unfortunate, because I think it's important to have trust. It's important to have a good working relationship between the provincial government and constituents generally -- and in this case, specifically the constituents of the north, Prince George-Omineca.

This is particularly vexing to those of us in the north, many of whom have worked long and hard in an attempt to secure a future for our children. We have struggled through bone-chilling temperatures and in resource-rich communities watched resources move southward, with an expectation that there would be a return someday of a fair share of the benefits derived from these very resources. We're still waiting for a return of our fair share, in terms of these resources.

Sadly, on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca, I must say that I reject this legislation. I would hope that there might be some move towards a better understanding, a better development of trust and a good working relationship between this government and the constituents of Prince George-Omineca and northerners generally.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, and put on record the views of members of the PDA as well as members of my own riding association, members of my riding -- and, probably, members of the province, if every citizen were to be aware of what's going on with respect to this bill today -- I echo much of what has been said by members of the official opposition in my remarks today. Because I think that what this bill represents -- this omnibus bill, this bill that brings together a whole potpourri of various acts that must be amended to accommodate the problems that the government has run into as a result of what must be seen as fiscal mismanagement in the last year at least . . . . What is revealed is that this government has not yet come to grips with a financial strategy that recognizes the need to move away from annual budgeting towards a four-year-based financing system.

Now, let's be very practical and clear in our discussion here about what we are dealing with in terms of the philosophy behind an act such as the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, and the fact that we have to go into this defensive position -- and in some senses that's what this bill is -- to try to make good what has been done so poorly over the last year and a bit. One could pick out various aspects of this bill -- and members of the official opposition have picked out various aspects of this bill -- and outline how poorly thought through the financial and monetary strategy of this government has been.

[11:30]

One might look at this bill and ask oneself: why is it that now, in April 1997, we have to be providing accommodation for the government's approach to spending throughout 1996? Why is it that municipalities, for example, with respect to the amendments to the Municipal Act under section 23 of this bill. . .? Why is it that we now have to go back and, essentially 

[ Page 2698 ]

retroactively, deal with matters that were so hotly debated, so vociferously defended, when they introduced in the House the amendments to those acts back in 1996 -- and in some cases back in 1995? The answer to that question, hon. Speaker -- and I think the people of British Columbia have to know the answer to that question -- is because, in the development of the strategy for financing the province of British Columbia and in putting out their priorities for spending and for the management of our public moneys, the government has failed to put in place a long-term vision. They have failed to recognize that there is a long-term strategy. I don't believe that they realize that they must put before the people of British Columbia a vision that has at the end of it some kind of final goal that they would like to accomplish.

What we end up with is a knee-jerk reaction to a whole bunch of public pressures that are raised from time to time. We had, in the intervening months, an election that required yet another set of books to be concocted and put before the people, so that the people had an opportunity to review what they believed to be a balanced budget but which we find out was not in fact a balanced budget. Now we are faced with having to fix the leaky holes in this rather sinking boat across the way by putting in place this Budget Measures Implementation Act.

It's no wonder that members on this side of the House can't support it, because we shouldn't have to have it. If the government had a strategy, if the government had a vision, if we knew where we were headed as a government, then clearly we would not need to have the repeal of the Motor Fuel Tax Act with respect to additional costs and fees. We wouldn't need the repeal of the Municipal Act section that deals with the transfer of payments. We wouldn't need to have to deal now with amendments to property transfers without a substantive change in the manner in which it's done, and Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, and so on and so on and so on.

What the omnibus bill does, in a sense, is fix up the problems we face as a result of this inaction, this inactivity, from the members opposite in the government with respect to putting in place a long-term strategy, a vision for where we are headed. I think probably the one issue that sticks out -- and there are many. . . . And I'm not going to repeat the words that have been spoken earlier by others who participated in this debate, because I don't believe that would be a productive use of my time.

I do, however, want to spend a little bit of time talking about the Municipal Act -- section 339, which is dealt with under section 23 of this particular bill, in which we are talking about the desire to repeal and put in place some substitutions with respect to matters that deal with land improvements and exemptions on taxation. What this section deals with is the Assessment Act. It deals with how we are able to purchase land, live in our properties, retire in comfort without constantly having to face the cost of additional land assessments, and it falls so far short of what is needed.

What we should be seeing is an exemption of capital improvement from property tax assessment rolls, so that people who purchase land -- who build a home, who live within a community, who work within a community, who are able to provide for their families and to retire on their property on fixed incomes -- are not forced out of their homes because the tax man cometh every year to check out how much their property is worth, on a market-driven system, and ends up taxing them more than they are able to pay or can afford to pay as a result of their retirement income, which is traditionally fixed on some pension plan.

So what we were hoping for -- certainly what the members of the PDA were hoping for, what I was hoping for -- was for the government to recognize that what we need to do is remove capital improvements as a tax on property and shift away from a market-driven tax assessment base toward the establishment of a base which is driven by real market value -- i.e., the sale of property: how much did you actually pay? Then recognize that the municipalities must have the right, through the establishment of a mill rate, to be able to assign a mill rate to that property in order for people to be able to afford to retire in a home even though the community or the neighbourhood around it may in fact be going up in price.

What a tragic thing it is in British Columbia to have people retired, on a fixed income. . . . They've been solid citizens, worked all their lives. They have a fixed retirement income. They're living in their family home -- physically fit, physically able, not a drain on anybody, on our health care system or on our welfare system. These are people who have done well for themselves through sheer hard work and determination.

Because of the statutes, the laws of this province put in place by governments such as the one opposite, they find themselves faced now with property taxes rising so high that they can't afford to pay them, so high that they're being told by members opposite: "Just defer them." So when you finally retire debt-free, able to live out the last years of your life without being a burden on anybody, the government is saying: "Defer your taxes and now become indebted or put your heirs in debt, because what we are now telling you is that we're going to continue to jack up the prices on your property."

What a shameful thing to do! What a sad commentary on a system of governance, of land tax, of assessments of land tax, that punishes those who are successful through sheer hard work and determination. The system that needs to be changed is one that I think all members opposite are aware of. Certainly we're aware of it, because we hear from people who find themselves facing these rising taxes.

What we see in this omnibus bill is a shell of the kind of amendments and changes that we need -- an entrenchment, once again, that this government is not prepared to substantively change the Assessment Act to provide the protection that's necessary for people to be able to retire in their homes without facing ever-increasing, inflated values and therefore having to pay prices that are more than they can afford.

With respect to the matter of the municipal changes, I want to draw attention as well to the issues that deal essentially with the municipal grants, because this also has to be one of the most offensive sections of this particular bill. We had a situation where the former Minister of Finance, Ms. Cull, stood up in this House -- and it is clearly recorded in Hansard for all time for any who choose to read -- and said that they, the government opposite, the New Democratic Party, were committed to putting in place long-term security with respect to municipal grants. What the members opposite, the government opposite, wanted to accomplish was certainty. That was the word that was used -- that the municipalities need certainty with respect to grants from this level of government to their level of government for the provision of services to people in their community.

Well, the only certainty we find now is that there is nothing certain at all when you're dealing with the members opposite and this government, because no sooner had they passed that bill, no sooner had that bill come forward. . . .

Let me tell you that in preparing for this debate, members in our own research group had a great deal of difficulty being 

[ Page 2699 ]

able to thoroughly prepare for committee stage, because until yesterday the consolidated statutes that deal with these bills were not available to the public. We could not find, until yesterday, the consolidated statutes with reference to the sections outlined in this legislation, because they're not printed yet. They're not available for anybody.

Thankfully, and with credit to the Clerk's office, we got them on the Internet. So at least we can now get the information we need to adequately do the detailed research on this by going to the Internet and being able to do the cross-referencing that's needed. Hon. Speaker, I want to thank your office and the members of your Clerk's office for having that available to members of the opposition. Without it we would be unable to adequately debate this legislation, because the Queen's Printer tells us it's going to be two or three weeks before that information is available to us.

So we can see that preparing and doing an adequate job of research and understanding the consequences of this bill. . . . This government didn't seem to care. They didn't seem to care about the fact that nobody in the public. . . . Even people in the public today are going to have a hard time checking out the sections, cross-referencing each section and looking in detail -- as I do, and I know that certainly my research staff are wont to do, because we like to check every single line, word, clause and every change that's made so that we know what it is that this government is doing. How difficult that was, hon. Speaker, when we came to find that this didn't coincide or correlate with any of the statutes printed. Now -- and only thanks to your office and the Clerk's -- we find it on the Internet. We can in fact pick it up and do an adequate and proper job of research. It's a shameful thing for this government, because this government knew that those consolidated texts would not be available for at least another two or three weeks. What a shameful thing!

When we look at the implication of the changes with respect to municipal grants. . . . I know that this is of great concern to the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, who clearly inherited this problem. This was not a problem of the minister's making. The minister -- I know, because I've had a chance to sit and meet and talk with this minister -- is very sensitive about the financial burden that this has put upon the municipalities. He has met with the UBCM, with reps of the AVIM and is meeting with members of the municipalities. Certainly, when that minister came into my riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I arranged for meetings with all of the municipalities in my riding. This minister was most forthcoming to meet with them and hear their concerns.

So I know that this minister and this government understand the consequence of what they've done. The great tragedy is that they don't seem to be prepared to reverse it. Now, some would argue that it's because we're in a financial hole here. At the provincial level of government we have the need to try to solve their financial crisis. Well, you don't do that by dumping it onto the backs of the municipalities, who will simply have to turn around and put it onto the backs of property owners because there's nobody else out there who's going to be able to pay it. You certainly don't do it by bringing in these amendments and then. . . .

I. Waddell: What about some efficiencies in local government?

G. Wilson: Oh, hon. Speaker, I'm finally being heckled from the members opposite, who rise to this challenge to suggest: "How about some efficiencies in local government?" Absolutely. I was a member of local government; I worked in local government; I was elected to local government. I understand that there are greater efficiencies that can be brought to bear on all levels of government.

Hon. D. Streifel: You were a double-dipper.

G. Wilson: The Minister of Human Resources suggests that I was a double-dipper. Actually, you should do a little checking. I wasn't a double-dipper. In fact, if the member would like to check the record, he will see that I brought on an alternate to take my position and did not take a salary after being elected as an MLA, because I don't believe in double-dipping. But nice try -- it was a good try at a heckle.

The point is, hon. Speaker. . . .

D. Jarvis: Poor research.

G. Wilson: Yeah, poor research indeed.

Hon. D. Streifel: It was the Liberals who told me.

G. Wilson: Well, it may have been the Liberals who told you, but don't believe everything you hear.

Hon. Speaker, the point is that the consequence of this change is well known to the members opposite. They understand that problem. When we see in the federal government, with respect to the amount that comes back . . . . It's interesting to note that when we look at the loss of transfers federally and provincially, there's a huge hue and cry about how unfair it is, how wrong it is to stop the transfers back into this province and to download the cost of social services, health and education.

And it is wrong. Hon. Speaker, do you know that on an annual basis we pay, in terms of our net contribution to Canada, roughly $23-point-something billion? It's almost $24 billion that we send out of the province every year, and we get back about $1.5 billion now, I think. So we send them $24 billion, and we get $1.5 billion back. We're told to pick up all of these costs. In large measure the loss of those transfers coming from the federal government is responsible for and the reason that we now have to have this kind of legislation, because we are having to pick up those additional costs.

[11:45]

But don't come into this House. . . . I'm sure you would agree, hon. Speaker. I know you would agree, because you're an honourable man who understands the workings of government. You don't come into this Legislative Assembly, pass a law that puts in place a guarantee of a 2 percent rise or fall with respect to transfers, have the municipalities buy into it, have them all go out and budget for it, have everybody believing that's what's going to happen, and then at the eleventh hour change the game, change the goalposts, and then say: "Sorry, guys, we were wrong -- a little bit like our forecast in the last budget. We weren't quite on target here. We're now going to change it, without consultation, without any opportunity for preparation. By way of this omnibus bill we're now going to have to turn around and off-load the cost of doing that to you, the municipalities."

They know -- every one of those members opposite knows, especially every one of those that sit in cabinet -- the consequence of a loss of transfers, because they deal with it from the federal level. Each one of them does. The Minister of

[ Page 2700 ]

Health does. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food understands. We've just gone into a historic new agreement. Now we'd better start to work out who pays for what with respect to our fisheries, because you can't trust Ottawa to keep the money coming this way. They know the problem. Yet they do precisely the same thing on a provincial level, downloading to the municipalities.

So what should we do? How could we do something different that will not force us to have this kind of legislation? The solution lies in going to multi-year budgeting. The solution lies in going to four-year-based budgets. Establish a budget that will run for four years at a base level, using zero base in the first year. If you do that, you will allow people who are dependent upon government revenue to be able to budget long-term.

If they are successful and run surpluses in the first year, allow them to carry it into the second year. If they are successful in the second year, allow them to carry it into the third. And in the third year, again go back to your negotiation on zero base and negotiate the next four years. You always have one year in lieu of new budget preparation, so nobody is caught by surprise in November knowing that they have to have a budget tabled in December in order to be able to meet their costs in January, which is what happens under the current system. Four-year-based financing, long-range planning: that is what is necessary.

For goodness' sake, let's get off this ridiculous formula-funding system, because when we look at the opportunities for government to gain revenue, to bring in revenue, we have to recognize -- and it has been said by members of the official opposition -- that there is only one taxpayer. That taxpayer pays every single time they turn around, whether it's property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, taxes that they pay in the form of fees, licences, ferry fares. Every time we turn around, there is somebody out there with their hand out saying: "You owe the government a little bit more."

Our population is rising. Our need to be able to finance and bring together dollars to look after the most important aspects of our community is certainly there. It seems to me that what we need to do is to find a new and better and more creative way of dealing with the revenue we get and to make sure that this money goes where it is required.

There are some interesting aspects with respect to matters in this bill in terms of what I've just referred to, four-year-based financing. It has to do predominantly with the sections that deal with the Financial Administration Act in this particular bill. For those that follow along in these sorts of things, it's section 3 and section 5, with respect to financial services, fees, deductions and so on.

What I think we have to recognize -- and the reason that I think this is entirely the wrong way to go about this -- is that if we were to put in place a new system of financing, a four-year-based financing system, and if we were to set by statute a fixed budget day, and if we were able to run on a fixed term of office, four years, we would be able to put in place an opportunity for a single spending authority in government to be able to put that money out on an ongoing basis, using quarterly audit reviews to determine whether or not we have value for dollars spent. If we do that, it seems to me that we will be able, on a month-by-month basis, to have a much more accurate assessment of how our moneys are being spent.

But most importantly we will also be able to determine, on a reasonably frequent basis, probably a quarterly basis, whether or not revenues to government are meeting our expectations. We're not going to have ministries, which recognize the folly of the revenue decline, unaware or unprepared to accept the reality of the changing fiscal situation in the province, because a single spending authority will put constrictions on those areas where budgetary expenditures are out of control.

Right now, in the other committee we're dealing with the Attorney General's estimates, that's one area where that has happened. It hasn't happened because we've got a lousy Attorney General; let me make that very clear. It's happened because there have been demands on the legal system, through legal aid and other systems, that we are statutorily obliged to pay into -- similarly with health care.

It's great as a member of the opposition to be able to stand up and lay at the feet of the government all of the blame for all of the things that went wrong, including the fact that it rained on Sunday. But the truth is that this government -- any provincial government, of any stripe -- is limited in its ability and its capacity to be able to manage the economy, because the forces that affect our economy are more and more being driven by international influence. So let's recognize that; let's agree to that. And let's be smart enough to make some changes in the way that we run this institution so that we can accommodate those changes and be flexible enough to be able to meet those changes when they occur, not eight months, nine months or a year later. We cannot continue to play catch-up, because it doesn't work. It's expensive; it requires additional borrowing. That's an expensive proposition.

In conclusion, let me say this. I put forward in my comments today what I think are workable, sensible changes to the manner by which we finance government. It allows greater flexibility. It allows a greater degree of certainty with respect to our ability to manage the finances of the people of British Columbia. It provides to those who are dependent on those finances -- our health regions, our community health boards, our municipalities, our school boards -- four-year-based financing. It provides security, dependability and, most importantly, fairness in the application of funds. The people who will most benefit from the proposals I put forward today are the taxpayers of British Columbia, because we will be able to far more accurately assign a levy against them for the services that they demand government put in place.

For those who say this must be accompanied with significant amendments or changes to the manner in which government is done, I say, "Right on; you're right," because the institution of government, like an inefficient engine, cannot run beyond the efficiency for which it is designed. This institution -- as much as we have come to love it, to honour it, to respect it -- is an inefficient institution with respect to managing in the 1990s and through the year 2000. So we have got to have the fortitude to say that not only will we change the manner by which we assess and assign our tax revenues with respect to British Columbia, but we are now prepared to put in place the structural changes to government that make government a more efficient, more effective vehicle to be able to meet the needs of British Columbians.

Without that, I can guarantee you that next year, in 1998, those of us who will stand will be debating the "Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1998." What that budget measures act will do is change everything we just did today, because once this institution rises -- once we go off to the warmth of whatever is left of the summer, because my understanding is that there's not going to be much left by the time we get out of here, but when we do -- what I'm told is that there are going to be changes. Government, through order-in-council and through cabinet decree, will make changes.

[ Page 2701 ]

We'll be right back here again next year debating another bill just like this one, saying almost exactly the same thing we said this year. Nothing will have changed, save and except that the people of British Columbia will continue to pay more, get less and become more and more frustrated and more and more disillusioned, not just with the members opposite in government but with the entire institution.

We have to meet that reality. I hope the government has heard the words I have said today. I hope they will take seriously the offer that I put forward for change, because I believe it to be constructive, to be sensible. But more importantly, it is doable. It's something we can do within the terms that we have today.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to committee stage, when we can debate each of these clauses in this omnibus bill in detail.

C. Hansen: Rather than starting my remarks at this time, in view of the hour I will move adjournment and continue after lunch.

C. Hansen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

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

The committee met at 10:14 a.m.

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

M. de Jong: When we left off yesterday, the Attorney General and I were discussing the issue of the plans for a regional justice facility in the Fraser Valley. It's a fairly simple question, I think. Someone within the Attorney General ministry has been charged with the task of coordinating that effort and receiving submissions, and I'm wondering if the Attorney General can indicate who that is.

[10:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The person to contact in that regard would be the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Malcolm McAvity.

M. de Jong: One of the things we learned yesterday from the Attorney General is the time frame around which this project is presently seen to be developing. The Attorney General knows that poses some difficulties for the existing facilities. I will now particularize my questions and comments with respect to the Abbotsford facility. I wonder what plans exist to alleviate fairly immediately the overcrowding situation that does exist and which I think the Attorney General previously acknowledged in some of his other announcements.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no facilities plans in terms of expansion. We are hoping that our programs for mediation, diversion and others kick in at the earliest possible and begin to then deal with the overcrowding in terms of the backlog in the courts. Even if there were expansion plans, they would be very short-term. But there are no expansion plans in Abbotsford, as the decision on Chilliwack was reversed.

M. de Jong: I wonder if at this point I can try something unique and engage the Attorney General in a discussion that revolves around some alternatives or suggestions from the opposition. "What a novel approach that would be," I'm sure the Attorney General is thinking.

We have talked of this informally in the past -- that is, the expansion of use of existing courthouse facilities. I'm thinking now of night court sittings and weekend sittings. I approach it from this point of view: we tend to concentrate or focus our attention, when we talk about courts, on the criminal courts. That is particularly so at the Provincial Court level.

The Attorney General will know that the complaint one hears most often from people making use of the small claims court system is that because of the very nature of the claims involved -- which tend to be on the lower end of the scale for many small business people, many individuals -- the notion of having to take a day off work to attend a courthouse makes pursuing the claim almost irrelevant or more costly than it's worth. So the idea that those kinds of litigants would have an opportunity to attend -- be it for small claims court in the traditional mode that we know it, or for settlement conferences or for arbitration hearings -- at times beyond the more traditional working hours is something that would attract a lot of people and would go some distance in lessening the burden on the facilities that now exist, in terms of freeing up additional court time for things like criminal trials, which, because of the need to transport prisoners, are more closely bound to traditional working hours. Is that something that the Attorney General ministry is actively investigating? And what plans, if any, exist to move in that direction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those initiatives, particularly those relating to small claims, are being considered only in locations where there is a question of backlogs. We already have evening courts dealing with traffic matters sitting in two locations in Victoria and Richmond. We are having discussions with the judiciary to see if we can double-shift in areas where there is a need for small claims matters to be resolved more quickly than they are being resolved currently. So you may see that happening very shortly.

[ Page 2702 ]

M. de Jong: I sense -- perhaps incorrectly -- in the Attorney General a reluctance, almost to the extent of: "If we're forced by circumstances into this, we might consider it." I suppose I look at it from a different perspective -- as a means of offering a better service. Maybe the Attorney General can indicate this to me: what does he see as the drawbacks of moving to night courts or weekend court sittings?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I actually appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member. If there is reluctance in my remarks, it comes not from the fact that we would obviously be able to solve our capital expenditure problems and utilize the courts more efficiently and for longer hours. My reluctance comes from the possibility that when you begin to do this, you will be increasing operational expenditures. If we move in that direction -- and we are thinking about it -- if we make the decision to do so, it would only be done in the areas where there is need. But we are open to that. I'm not opposed to it. It's a very valuable suggestion. We have been considering it. There is reluctance for the reasons that I've indicated.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate whether consultation on this question has taken place to this point with either the judiciary or those unions whose employees would be affected? Without violating any confidentiality, can he give some indication of what the responses have been from those two agencies?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can confirm there have been no discussions with the union at all. There have been ongoing discussions with the judiciary. As the hon. member might know, the judiciary has been preoccupied with other things that we've been changing and with rescheduling matters. We are in discussions with them on this issue. Once those discussions are concluded and the judiciary is able to move with us in that direction and a decision is made to do that, then we will speak to the union.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate in a general way what manner of response he's received from the judiciary? Does he perceive a willingness to consider expanded hours, expanded beyond what have traditionally been sitting times of between 9:30 or 10 o'clock and 4 p.m., five weekdays a week?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. The judiciary is very cooperative in that regard, both Provincial and Supreme Court, actually, although we're not talking to the Supreme Court judiciary. But Chief Justice Williams is making many changes, and Chief Judge Metzger is also open to all the changes that would be in keeping with trying to meet the needs of the people that we serve. Both courts are very, very receptive to those changes.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate again who within his ministry would be coordinating the initiative to expanded hours?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for court services.

M. de Jong: Just one last point. We were talking about consultation with the judiciary, and it occurred to me that I failed to canvass one thing with the Attorney General relating back to the notion of a regional justice facility either in the Fraser Valley or elsewhere in the province.

The Attorney General will know that communities, in the face of cutbacks from senior levels of government, are trying to be innovative in developing proposals that stand some chance of being accepted. And they are, I would submit, fairly realistic insofar as they are trying to develop proposals that will not require the traditional injection of capital from the provincial coffers. One of the things they are looking at is a model that would incorporate a private component, and that may ultimately include the provision for commercial space being included in a courthouse facility or a justice centre facility along lines that we have not heretofore seen in the province. There has been the suggestion that this may meet with some reluctance from the judiciary.

Again, my question to the Attorney General: is he prepared to entertain. . .? Would he look favourably on a proposal that included a commercial component as a means of making a private-public partnership viable? And if that is the case, does he believe that his view on that matter would prevail over what we might term a reluctance in certain quarters of the bench?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Far be it for me to say whose view would prevail in that regard. I'm sure the hon. member knows about the independence of the judiciary.

You have appropriately described the situation. We are open to all constructive arrangements that could be made to accommodate our needs. We will have to, of course, persuade the judiciary to go along with us.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks and understand that in making comments I may not be as constrained as he is on these matters. And I'm sure that the bench will be reviewing the text of our discussion here on this point. So let me say that I think we would all hark back to a day when the centre of town was a municipal hall and a courthouse, and the courthouse tended to be the exclusive domain of the resident judge. That was his bailiwick, and he reigned supreme over all that took place there. Unfortunately, we seem to find ourselves in a position where, for purely fiscal reasons, we are not in a position as a society to provide those facilities in that traditional way. For what it's worth -- and this is our opportunity to provide the Attorney General with our thoughts on these matters -- it was not that long ago when court was held in some less than desirable locations, and in certain communities that still exists.

[10:30]

I would suggest to the Attorney General that for an esteemed member of the bench to take offence at the fact that there could be a restaurant or a printing facility or any of those other professional services that we might associate with the delivery of justice services -- I suppose even to the extent that there could be law offices, although I'm not sure; I haven't thought that through myself. . . . But I would urge the Attorney General to bring his office to bear to the extent he can in impressing upon those who are charged with the task of delivering justice in communities across B.C. that there is a cost associated with that and that the whole thing becomes rather moot if we're not in a position to provide the facilities that are required to offer that service. It will require adjustment on all our parts, and I urge the Attorney General to impress that fact upon the bench and the judiciary to the extent that it's possible.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously this is a matter that would require careful deliberation and consultation. We as the ministry are open to the possibility that the member has outlined. Of course, we have to work with the judiciary, and we will.

[ Page 2703 ]

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask a question in regards to the Land Title Act. I appreciate that you probably have no one here to answer it fully, but perhaps you could take it on notice and have your deputy contact me afterwards by letter or something like that. It's with regards to section 148(1) and form 16(a), which is the statement as to citizenship. I've had the occasion to be involved in a couple of instances over the past years. The question always came up as to why this statement was necessary in the purchase of a property, in the sense that all it's going to do is add to the statistical bulk in this province. There's no purpose for it as far as I can see; it doesn't seem to prove anything. You don't have to be a citizen in this country to purchase property. I can see it on the sale aspect with regards to taxation. So I wonder if you can advise me as to what evidence there is for the need of it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is a very old provision of the legislation, and I also understand that no analysis has ever been done of the information that has been gathered pursuant to the declarations. I would certainly take the hon. member's point and determine whether or not we really need to continue to do what we're doing. And if I am persuaded -- which I might be very easily, because I was a lawyer in practice doing this once, too -- then we would undertake to deal with it and repeal it, if possible.

M. Coell: I have three areas that I'd like to ask some questions on. One is courthouses, which I'm sure the minister is looking forward to answering. The second is police boards, and the third is consultation.

Just as a way of introducing the issue of courthouses. . . . As you know, there are 75 ridings in the province, most of which are serviced by a courthouse or two -- or more in some instances. My riding has two courthouses. My riding also takes in the area of the Gulf Islands and the Saanich Peninsula. Both courthouses are to be closed. That's 100 percent of the court facilities serving my riding. I just wonder whether the minister could tell me if there was any consultation with the citizens or the municipalities in my riding prior to the decision being made.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

M. Coell: Thank you for that answer. I'm sure that is not the answer the minister would like to be able to give. Is there going to be a review of this decision? And if there is, when? Will there be consultation with the ridings that have been affected after that review has taken place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is asking about the two courthouses in his particular constituency, the answer is that we actually took a thorough relook at some of these issues and reconfirmed the decisions with respect to the two courthouses in his constituency, while changing some others. And no, we're not reviewing the decisions with respect to the courthouses in the hon. member's constituency.

M. Coell: I think it would be a good idea, after six months or a year pass, that if decisions are not going to be changed, the effect of that decision on the Victoria courthouse and the Langford courthouse be reviewed as to whether the increases in costs to those courthouses, which are going to have to take the cases from Sidney and Ganges. . . . They may well take more money than it took to run those two very small court facilities. I would hope the ministry would undertake that, at least, to see whether the decision costs more in the long run. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that courts, for effective utilization of the courtrooms and court services, are always being monitored. I can assure the member that this decision, or the implementation of this decision, will also be monitored. If we find that at the end of the day we're not succeeding in the objectives that we started with, those issues can be reconsidered.

M. Coell: On Saltspring Island, the transition house for women had been getting grants of $30,000 a year to help with its functioning. That grant was not approved this year. With the closure of the courthouse, I would ask the minister to consider this: women who may be in abusive situations are now going to have to press charges. Possibly they will not have a safe house to go to, and they will now have to travel to Victoria for court cases. I would ask the minister to consider that. I know it's something that he probably won't be able to answer today.

The hardships placed on people on the Gulf Islands are quite significant compared to the hardships that may be experienced by people in the greater Victoria area: the length of time that people have to take off work to attend court in Victoria now that the Ganges facility will be closed, and the cost of legal fees which will possibly double or triple for residents of the Gulf Islands. So, in hindsight, I think that the cost to the average taxpayer on the Gulf Islands in time and money will be quite significant with the loss of this facility. I hope that over the coming months the Attorney General can consider that particular case.

The other issue that I wish to canvass is that police boards, in the municipalities that have them, have traditionally had the mayor as the chair. I wish to ask the Attorney General if there are any discussions or considerations for removing municipal representations on the police board by his ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no plans to change the current situation, which is that the mayor of a particular municipality is automatically the chair of the police board. That would remain in place unless the municipalities say to me that we should change it. There has been, as the hon. member will know, a recommendation by Judge Oppal that we should look at changing that. But I can tell you that I have had discussions with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we will not be making any changes, as I understand the municipalities aren't very happy.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. I would echo the sentiments of the members of the municipality who the Attorney General has spoken to. It would be a very retrograde step for government to take -- to make any changes -- I believe.

I would just ask the minister that if there are any more dealings with courthouse closures or changes, municipalities be given an opportunity for consultation beforehand. I think that his decisions may well have been different had that discussion taken place. And I thank him for his answers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to consultation, I gave that undertaking yesterday, so I would basically reaffirm that.

In terms of the transition house issue that the hon. member raises, that is funding which comes from the Women's Equality ministry. I would certainly follow up on that and speak to the Minister of Women's Equality to see if there is some way that that funding, or a portion of it, can be reins-

[ Page 2704 ]

tated, because it is very important for us to continue to deal with the victims in a way which assists them in rehabilitating themselves and becoming productive members of society.

P. Reitsma: Good morning to the minister. I would like to pose a couple of questions and comments and get them on the record. I must say, I listened with quite a bit of interest yesterday to the comments and the argument of the minister in terms of the consultation and communication, which I very much welcome. Of course, I think -- in fact, I know -- that the feeling in my area, and I'm specifically thinking about the Parksville courthouse. . . . The two or three prevalent feelings are that it's just another opportunity to off-load and download to the municipalities. The kind of yo-yo, flip-flopping situation we've had -- it's going to be closed; it's going to be open -- is really an enormous amount of waste of energy and anger and anxieties, because of no consultation and the question why being asked all the time. The last one, at least certainly in my area, is the connotation that it's a broken promise, in that consultation and communication were supposed to take place. So I applaud the minister for that, because I think it is extremely important to communicate and to have energies channelled into other areas.

Might I ask the minister: when was the first notion. . .? When did it come about, in terms of the general closures that were anticipated for the courthouses, and specifically the Parksville courthouse? When was this first talked about, or when was there any notion of the potential for closing of courthouses? Was any communication made to the municipalities affected?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When I became the Attorney General -- even prior to that -- there had been considerations of these issues. There was a list of ten or so courthouses kicking around. I don't recall what was on the list and what wasn't. No decisions had been made. I had not been party to any of those discussions prior to getting into cabinet.

The hon. member is talking about the Parksville courthouse situation. When I visited Parksville and spoke to a group of students at a secondary school, no discussions to which I had been a party had ever taken place on any specific courthouses being closed, if that's what the member is trying to ascertain.

P. Reitsma: Yes, I am. In fact, as the minister knows, we've been pretty forthright in sending information via your officials, trying to clear it up -- let me assure you, not to bash -- because this goes beyond party lines. But indeed -- I'll quote from an article in the PQ News of October 29 -- the minister did visit Ballenas high school. It was indicated at that time that:

"[The minister] denied a rumour that the government may close the Parksville courthouse as part of its $750 million budget reduction plan. 'I can't tell you specifically which courthouses are marked for closure,' he said. He did say: 'Parksville is not on the list I have that's kicking around,' adding '. . .but no decisions have been made yet.'"

Again, I thank the minister for the overtures made to our communities. We had quite a big rally the end of March. We had four mayors: the two from Parksville and Qualicum, one from Port Alberni, who's also the chairperson of the UBCM, and the mayor of Nanaimo. We are a growing community. I don't think that the ministry has, through lack of communication and consultation, really understood the fact that we are a fast-growing community. We don't just service 10,000 to 11,000 people in Parksville; we're serving something like 36,000 to 37,000 people in the district. I'll come back to that in a wee while.

[10:45]

The minister stated yesterday that he doesn't foresee any new closures in the near future. Could the minister indicate how safe the Parksville courthouse is in terms of impending closures, so that we can have some stability?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Quite safe.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister explain "quite safe," please?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the foreseeable future, I can assure the member that the courthouse will continue to operate as it has been.

P. Reitsma: Would the minister undertake to make sure that if there's any potential of closure, he would communicate not only with myself but certainly with the community leaders affected?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

P. Reitsma: During the estimates, I listened to the minister with anticipation. I was able to ask him a question through an interjection, which wasn't noticed. But the response was, of course, which was important. The minister mentioned on April 3, which I appreciate, that after the House is finished, he will go on the road. So I take it that nothing will happen until the House adjourns. If that's the case, who will be the person coordinating it, and when will that happen?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I did mention that to the hon. member, but that has nothing to do with the closure or reopening of the courthouse. It has to do with general discussion on justice reform, separate and apart from consolidation of the courthouses. That has occurred. At least this year I will not be discussing it -- or any of that. So if that reassures the member . . . . I may be back in Parksville discussing other issues -- but not the closure of the courthouse.

P. Reitsma: For the record, I know that the two mayors went to see the officials of the ministry and made an extremely good proposal. I would like to go on the record that certainly, being such a growing area and servicing 36,000 to 37,000 people -- and by the time the years 2001 and 2002 come around we expect to have about 50,000 people -- it is not the time, of course, to close down facilities. If anything, it's time to open or to enhance them.

Something my mayors have proposed quite seriously -- the diversion program, potential legal aid, but also the suggestion of, maybe, as part of a regional centre. . . . As the minister no doubt understands, having been in Parksville a number of times, the cost to the community in terms of additional lawyers' fees, having to go to Nanaimo, the transit . . . . We have kind of an anemic transit system in terms of the number of buses going to Nanaimo. The young offenders, particularly, don't drive. They can't afford the extra hours. You think of the people that are on a fixed income, of course. The cost of travelling for the police, for the lawyers, for the social workers, for the parole officers -- justice-related services . . . . I think it all could be well served by a regional centre, because of the socioeconomic cost. Might I ask the minister if any thought has been given -- what the possibilities might be -- to considering this as part of a regional centre?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said yesterday, there is no capital budget for the next four years in our ministry. I haven't given 

[ Page 2705 ]

it any thought with respect to the Parksville area. If and when we have the money, we would certainly be interested in looking at that area as well as others in the province. So there are no plans underway or under consideration at this point. We are focusing on the Fraser Valley area for the next couple of years.

P. Reitsma: May I ask the minister. . .? The minister recognizes the situation in our area in terms of the benefits that a regional centre would provide.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

P. Reitsma: I would like to ask the minister what minimum level of service we can expect in the Parksville-Qualicum area in terms of justice, I suppose, but also in terms of the facilities there. Is that related to a minimum quality of service that the ministry has?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the current facilities and services in Parksville, that level would be maintained. If the hon. member is concerned about whether or not we'll be able to improve the service, I'm hoping that the other justice reform measures which we've talked about -- family justice centres, mediation, counselling, both adult and youth diversion, all of those issues -- might alleviate the need for the level of service as it exists, by shifting the need into other areas and doing precourt resolution of these issues. We have established, as I said, a dispute resolution office in my ministry to assist communities and organizations with that work.

P. Reitsma: I'd like to ask the minister: when the Parksville courthouse was under siege, how were those decisions made in terms of either to keep or to cut, to postpone indefinitely, to consider or to reprieve, which has happened now? How were the decisions made, particularly for the courthouse? Again, did any consultation take place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No consultation took place before the decisions were made. I have said that before with respect to all of the courthouses. I have also outlined factors that we took into account in terms of arriving at the decisions with respect to putting particular courthouses on the list. In terms of reconsideration and why it is that Parksville is on the list of those that will remain in operation, the most outstanding factor in that regard is the lack of transportation, which the member has rightly indicated is somewhat anemic. That was the major issue. Of course, all of the other concerns went along with that. The factor that stood out in my mind was the lack of transportation, as in the case of Chilliwack.

P. Reitsma: I do confirm that there was very limited, if any, consultation, because I was still mayor of Parksville at that time. While it is a Parksville facility, it's only in Parksville because of the location: it does serve, of course, the whole of the district.

A number of numbers have been bandied around. One is the savings of $170,000 this year -- being, I guess, this particular year. And $78,000 in subsequent years, in a way, must be found. Of course, now the municipalities do not have to find it, although if they're talking about the diversion program, we're looking at $30,000 or $40,000. What cost analyses have been done, and how did you come up with the $170,000? Have in-depth cost analyses been done in terms not only of the direct savings but the direct and indirect costs to the municipality, the direct and indirect services such as the additional costs of social workers, parole officers and policing overtime for having to go to Nanaimo? How did they come up with $170,000 in savings?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the savings in 1997 and 1998 would have been $46,000 approximately and in future years would have been $76,000. Those are the figures that I have. The member may have been misinformed either by me or someone else in terms of the figures, but those are the real figures. In terms of the indirect or direct costs to the municipalities -- and I have always been very candid about this -- there's no question that it would have meant some additional costs in terms of policing overtime or travel time to go to the other court locations. Those are difficult to quantify; nonetheless, those are costs. All those factors were taken into account when making decisions upon reconsideration.

P. Reitsma: I go by an article in the PQ News of March 25. After the two mayors, Mayor Macdonald from Parksville and Mayor Luchtmeijer from Qualicum Beach, went to see your officials, it was stated that the mayors had asked "for guidelines to ensure the municipality's idea of a diversion program meets with provincial expectations," which is fine. "The municipal representatives were told three criteria must be met to keep the courthouse open. The saving of $170,000 this year and $78,000 in subsequent years must be found. The district must initiate a diversion program, and the courthouse must be part of a regional centre."

Those are the numbers from your department -- $170,000 -- and I'm somewhat surprised that I hear the number now. Of course, numbers are for statistics, and I know something else about statistics. But they were told $170,000, not $46,000, so that equates to the confusion and lack of communication, the wasted energies, I suppose. I wonder if the minister could enlighten me on the numbers, if possible.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I just advised the member what the numbers are. Obviously it's an error on someone's part to indicate the numbers that the member has indicated -- either in terms of communicating wrong numbers or in terms of someone misunderstanding the numbers as they were mentioned. We're not here to attach blame. Obviously it's an error. It may have originated with my officials.

P. Reitsma: Well, hon. Chair, I'm not here to bash. I'm here to broadcast good news -- not to bash, obviously. Plus, we're very happy with what's going on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am advised that it was probably a misprint in the media.

[11:00]

G. Plant: Let's bash the media for a while.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have been advised; I don't know.

P. Reitsma: I guess the $170,000 number stands out to me, as well, because that number was used even during the time that I was mayor. It is not insignificant, but it is really insignificant in what we are trying to accomplish. I think we're going at a pretty good speed, actually -- that is, to keep the courthouse in Parksville not only open but, with all of us really trying, to make it a regional centre, if at all possible, and to have all those components in one particular area.

I really have one or two more comments. Again, I thank the minister and the officials who have certainly worked quite 

[ Page 2706 ]

nicely together with the mayors of my communities. I only wish that -- it's past -- communication and consultation had taken place last year. I'm relieved -- and those were my opening comments -- that the minister said yesterday that consultation will take place. It's never too late for that. I think it's extremely important, and I'm somewhat relieved. But we've heard that before, I suppose, in terms of the longevity of the courthouse in Parksville, and we'll stay on top of that.

My last question. . . . Really, I would like to quote from a newspaper article when the mayor of Nanaimo -- and this is public information, so I'm not saying anything that ought not to be said -- was quoted in the PQ News of March 4. Mayor Korpan said during the rally that the minister had made a statement earlier that he would resign if cabinet moved to cut courthouses -- something to that effect. Could the minister. . .? No doubt he would like to comment on that -- if those statements are correct or if some of this wording was mentioned by him: "If cabinet moves to cut courthouses, I will resign." I'd just like to hear the response on the record to something he may have said to that effect.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, since we're dealing with the media, that's news to me.

P. Reitsma: I must again reiterate the delight I have in further communication and consultation. I must say that the community as a whole, including myself, has worked quite nicely together with staff and the minister. I thank him for that.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure to have -- indeed, I sincerely appreciate it -- the opportunity of addressing the Attorney General on a number of issues again related to the whole issue of courthouse closures. Just by way of review, I believe it was in the middle of February when 11 additional courthouse closures were announced by the Attorney General. That announcement followed three earlier announced closures, those closures being announced, I believe, in the fall of 1996. So altogether there were 14 courthouses that, at one time or another, were being discussed as being targeted for closure. Since that time, of course, the Attorney General has announced that a number of those facilities will be remaining open indefinitely. Others are being held in abeyance, and still others will close as announced.

Yesterday I heard the Attorney General say in response to the question from the member for Matsqui that no additional court closures are being contemplated at this time. Just to begin with, I'm wondering if the Attorney General could clarify, for my sake, if that comment includes those on the original list of 14 courthouses, some of which are now in abeyance. Does the Attorney General consider those courthouses now in abeyance to still be possibly targeted for closure in the future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As matters stand today, there are seven courthouses that are open, and seven will be closed out of the initial 11 plus three. Four of the seven that are open are in abeyance, as the hon. member indicates or defines them. Those four would remain open for the foreseeable future, and I am not considering at this time closing them on any particular date. Let me just add that if I were to decide that we would take another look at those four, we would go out to the communities and consult with them.

B. Penner: I thank the Attorney General for that.

I do have a copy of a list of courthouse closures. This document is dated April 10, 1997. It indicates, I believe, some of the anticipated savings if the courts listed on that page were to have been closed. Again, there's a category called "Classification," where it talks about whether a courthouse is to close, is to remain open or is to be held in abeyance. I just wonder if the Attorney General could explain for my benefit what the difference is, then, in practical terms between a courthouse being listed as in abeyance versus being listed as open.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These aren't the words of the Attorney General; these are the words of the analyst as he decided to categorize them on a piece of paper, which the hon. member received. I've simply adopted the use of that term as the hon. member mentioned it.

As I said, those four courthouses are open for the foreseeable future. There is no specific date on which they would be closed. If there were to be a date in my mind, I would share it with the hon. members and have discussions with the communities. If I can decide issues as I'm standing here, I don't anticipate that date would arrive within the next couple of years.

B. Penner: So just to clarify then, in practical terms there's no difference between something listed as being in abeyance versus being listed as open.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: True.

B. Penner: Thank you for that clarification, and I also thank your staff for providing us with this list. I think it is helpful for us as a starting point to see what the ministry was contemplating in terms of proposed savings; perhaps it helps explain the motivation, to a certain extent, for those announced closures initially. So I do think that was helpful.

I do have some additional questions, just about. . . . While we're on that form and before I leave that, there are, as I indicated, a number of columns on that page, some of which purport to show the anticipated savings from courthouse closures. Being the member for Chilliwack and representing Chilliwack, I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General on the anticipated savings for the Chilliwack courthouse closure should that have proceeded. I see the anticipated 1998-99 savings were $462,108. I take it that would have been for the first full year that the courthouse would have been closed, if it had proceeded to closure as announced in February of this year. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could explain to us where those savings would have come from. My suspicion is that it is the saving which the ministry would enjoy from not having to pay the B.C. Buildings Corporation for renting the facility any longer. I'm wondering if there is anything in addition to that rent they pay to BCBC that's included in the figure of $462,108.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the building occupancy charge is the bulk of those savings. There might be a very small amount related to maybe two or three staff or minor operating expenses. The proposal, if we had proceeded, was to essentially take the complement of the staff and the judges over to Abbotsford. There was to be no reduction in the total service available to the area, except that it would have been in a different location.

B. Penner: Actually, now, if my memory serves me correctly, I think there were two staff positions in total at the Chilliwack courthouse that were to be declared redundant. I think that was the deputy sheriff position, the most senior person at the deputy sheriff's office in the Chilliwack court-

[ Page 2707 ]

house, as well as the courthouse administrator. Her name is Sheilah Chequer. I think both of those persons had it indicated that their positions would be declared redundant, and I suppose those future wage savings were also included in the figure of $462,000. I just wonder if that could be confirmed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think it's appropriate for me to indicate the particular individuals involved, but we were dealing with two FTEs that we would have saved. . . . Obviously, that involves human beings. But I would hesitate to discuss individuals per se, because I don't think it's appropriate. Yes, the basic information is correct.

B. Penner: So, then, those two factors combined -- the rent for the building, or the building charge, and the two FTE savings -- is how you arrived at the figure of $462,000?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would have been some minor operating expenditure savings. I don't have the figure as to how much, but it would be a very, very minor portion of the total amount.

B. Penner: A final issue with regard to this one-page document. At the bottom under "Notes," there's the indication that they -- I believe it's the Ministry of Attorney General -- will be spending over the next five years about $200,000 in total, or roughly $40,000 per year, on amortized tenant improvements. I'm just wondering if the minister or his staff are able to advise us today what type of improvements are slated for the Chilliwack courthouse facility.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that's to upgrade the facility in terms of the electrical wiring and the like, and also some security enhancements for the courthouse.

B. Penner: I'll leave the issue of this whole document now, but with the following remarks. I know the Attorney General spent some time practising law at the Chilliwack courthouse in years gone by, and obviously so have I. In fact, I've probably spent more hours there than I care to think about. In the year preceding the provincial election, I was duty counsel. I often spent four or five days a week at the courthouse and got to know my way around there pretty well, including some areas that are usually off-limits.

I can reiterate to the Attorney General, for the benefit of the senior staff, that all of the people working at the facility in Chilliwack are doing the very best that they can under often difficult conditions. When the Attorney General states that we have 40 percent underutilization of court facilities in the province, I'm sure he's not referring to Chilliwack. The Chilliwack courthouse, as you know, is operating at pretty well full tilt, and in fact more cases are sent to New Westminster Supreme Court for resolution than are able to be dealt with at the Chilliwack Supreme Court facility. They're sending the equivalent of more than one year's worth of cases every year to New Westminster from the Supreme Court registry in Chilliwack, or something very close to that. So I don't think that the 40 percent underutilization figure applies appropriately to the Chilliwack courthouse.

Also, just to clarify my remarks -- I know I've heard the Attorney General say this on other occasions -- I don't believe I've ever called for the withdrawal of court services from Chilliwack. I did encourage this government to consider replacing the facility, and it's true that there are memos, I believe, from staff within his own ministry that have said that in their opinion it is somewhat dysfunctional as a facility, given its age and the electrical constraints and security problems that have arisen in the past. So just for the record, I would like to clarify those remarks and indicate that in no way would I, at this point in time, endorse a complete withdrawal of court services from the Chilliwack area.

Just to move on, then, I'm wondering if the minister is able to tell us: prior to the announcement that we heard in about the middle of February announcing these 11 additional courthouse closures, just how much planning went into that announcement? What factors were considered and over what period of time? It caught everyone in my part of the world completely off-guard, and we were just wondering if this was something that was decided overnight or if it was a long time in the planning.

[11:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue around the utilization of the courts has been considered for some time, and it continued to be considered in the fall of 1996. My memory doesn't serve me correctly in terms of the dates, so I won't get into the dates at all. Once decisions are made, then they are obviously taken to Treasury Board. You would go back and forth, and at the end of the day you would decide, through cabinet, what the ultimate decisions were. I don't have the dates on those issues, and I don't think the dates are important. But there is no question that there was no consultation, and I think that's the crux of the issue. I wish it had been different. Circumstances indicated that it couldn't be any different. I have said that if more court closures were ever to be considered, as long as I'm the Attorney General there would be consideration well in advance of ever going to Treasury Board.

B. Penner: I believe the member for Matsqui canvassed this to a certain extent, but I'll try again, perhaps from a slightly different angle. Was there any specific cost-saving threshold that was considered in order to decide which courthouses would be put on the list of 11 in the middle of February? Was there any particular threshold?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Due to the fiscal constraints, all ministries were asked to come forth with possible plans to save some resources. We were looking at all parts of our ministry. As I indicated in one of my public comments, to really save the amount of money that we needed to save, we were going to have to close down New Westminster courthouse. No one in government was prepared to do that, so then we looked at other parts of the ministry and tried to see if we could save elsewhere. It would really have been fatal to our system of justice to have the New Westminster courthouse closed, and that wasn't acceptable to anyone in government. Therefore we moved to other areas while trying to do minimal savings in the court system -- $1.3 million or $1.4 million, even $2 million, is minimal savings at the end of the day. I'm just trying to share with you some of the pain and anguish that one goes through when one looks at all of these issues.

B. Penner: If I hear the Attorney General correctly, the logic that drove the individual courthouse closure decisions 

[ Page 2708 ]

started with the big picture: "We have to save roughly X amount of money, and we'll go around the province and see how we can reach that in a cumulative fashion, to total $1.6 million."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't want my remarks to be misunderstood. The whole issue was reconsidered in light of the eventual justice reform goals. While we do have savings in certain areas, it was important that they should fit in with some criteria of basic access. Upon announcement of these decisions, when I was told that Chilliwack didn't have a bus after six or seven in the morning, that's why I was obviously very happy to reconsider. It was a difficult decision to reconsider, because we had already booked those savings.

Courts can never be purely fiscal issues. If we had had all of the information at our disposal. . . . If we had believed that $2 million was not doable, in terms of savings from the court system, we probably would have looked elsewhere at that time. So it wasn't a particular amount that we needed from shutting down courthouses. I don't want to be misunderstood. We were trying to do as much as we could without impairing the integrity of the system of justice, and as concerns were raised we immediately set about to reconsider the decisions.

The Chair: Members, if I could just interject for a moment. The Chair is obligated to make sure that we stay within the rules of the House, and the questions and answers are now starting to enter into the area of repetition. Maybe I could just give that note of caution.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll try not to be unduly repetitious. I'm just attempting to clarify.

As the Attorney General knows, after the announcement in the middle of February there was a meeting that was organized on fairly short notice. I would like to take the opportunity, on the record, to again thank the Attorney General for agreeing to meet with the delegation from Chilliwack. I think he will agree with me that it was a fairly impressive delegation. The group consisted of a recently retired Provincial Court judge; a former inspector of the Chilliwack detachment of the RCMP, also recently retired; somebody from the victim assistance office in Chilliwack; as well as a woman who was a victim of crime. All of these people came to explain the impact it would have on them in the community.

I think it all demonstrates that courthouses themselves aren't simply symbolic things in particular communities. Courthouses are more than symbols. They're very real to the people that need to access the services available there -- particularly, as the minister knows, women who are victims of crime or single mothers who need access to the courts to pursue child maintenance. My office was inundated with letters and comments, as I'm sure his was, from many single mothers who explained that if they'd had to travel down the highway to chambers in New Westminster to pursue child maintenance, they probably wouldn't have bothered. They wouldn't have been able to get the transportation. Certainly the time constraints and getting babysitting for their kids, with all the extra time and expense involved, would have precluded them from having access to obtaining a maintenance order. So I appreciate that the Attorney General took all of those things into consideration after we met with him.

Yesterday he made the comment, I believe -- and he said this before -- that it wasn't just a matter of money, in terms of closing courthouses or in terms of reversing the decision to close courthouses. I'm wondering if he could just explain to us what the factors were in his mind that reversed the decision to close the Chilliwack courthouse -- in addition to the offer of some funding from the district of Chilliwack.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has very succinctly outlined the other factors that I was impressed with, and I made the decision taking all those factors into account. Those factors were listening to the victims, listening to people who have been involved in the justice system, listening to the hon. member and listening to colleagues from my side of the Legislature, as well. So it wasn't simply a fiscal issue; it was more than that. I was impressed with the need to retain that service in that location until circumstances changed. Hopefully, we will be reconsidering this issue in the next couple of years. And Chilliwack may be the recipient of the regional justice centre; Abbotsford may be. But for all of that to be in place, one would have to have reasonably good levels of transportation available in that region. Those factors were very adequately described by the hon. member himself. Those were the ones that I took into account.

B. Penner: Following the announcement by the Attorney General that the closure of the Chilliwack courthouse would be suspended or reversed, his ministry announced that there would be a committee struck to examine justice issues in the Fraser Valley. I just wonder if the minister could flesh out for us a little bit what he sees the goal of the committee being.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that was to do with diversion and other reforms, and there is a committee in place within the ministry that's considering that. It was an undertaking to involve the community of Chilliwack in those reforms, and there was a commitment from Chilliwack to be very actively involved in the reform proposals. That work is ongoing, and obviously Chilliwack would be part of that process.

B. Penner: Again, for the sake of clarification, is the committee being struck simply mandated to examine diversion issues, and not the eventual placement of a regional justice centre in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a group within the ministry that's looking at the regional justice centre issue, separate and apart from the general reform issues. They would, of course, be speaking to Abbotsford as well as Chilliwack, or any other municipality that might be interested.

B. Penner: It's been reported that Brian Morin, a senior analyst within the Ministry of Attorney General, I believe, is going to be chairing the committee examining justice issues in the Fraser Valley. I presume this is also the committee that's looking at the whole issue of a regional justice centre, and court facilities generally, in the Fraser Valley.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General has any idea how many members will eventually sit on this committee, because it's been reported again in the local newspapers in the Fraser Valley that at least three members of the committee would come from Chilliwack. I'm wondering how many members in total will be on the committee and when the committee will start its work.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Brian Morin would be one member of that committee. The total makeup of the committee hasn't been finalized. There would be police, Crown, municipal 

[ Page 2709 ]

representatives and the like from the ministry. But if you need to make any submissions, the individual you need is the Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for court services.

B. Penner: With respect to that committee -- whenever it gets started -- a couple of weeks ago I did send a letter to the attention of the Attorney General suggesting that the committee consist of members not only from Chilliwack and Abbotsford but from other outlying areas that rely on the facilities, specifically Agassiz or Harrison. I did that after being contacted by a number of people from the Harrison area who felt that they would be adversely affected by the removal of court services in Chilliwack.

Just as an aside, I understand that many years ago it was commonplace for almost every small community to have their own local courthouse. For example, Harrison had a courthouse many years ago. Since that time, however, they have become accustomed to getting access to the courts through either Chilliwack or Hope; some cases are sent to Hope for prosecution. However, I was speaking to the people there, and they feel that while they can deal with having to travel to Hope or Chilliwack to access the courts, asking them to travel further than that is more than they are able or willing to do, particularly in light of the often severe winter road conditions that we experience in the Fraser Valley.

[11:30]

That is why I made the suggestion that if this committee is to be comprised of members from the Fraser Valley, we not focus just on the main urban centres of Abbotsford and Chilliwack but consider people in Agassiz or Harrison or perhaps even Hope, Boston Bar or Yale. They too rely on the Chilliwack courthouse now for Supreme Court services. As the Attorney General will know very well, those types of matters that end up in Supreme Court are often very important in individuals' lives, as they deal with bodily injury matters, matters of divorce, enforcing divorce orders, maintenance orders, custody orders. They are very real to people's everyday lives.

That's one remark I would like to make. I will let the Attorney General comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we would certainly consider that. I understand my officials have received your letter.

B. Penner: I wonder if there's any time frame in mind at present as to when the committee would get started and what the Attorney General hopes for in terms of when the committee would report back and give the ministry some guidance.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member wasn't here yesterday when we talked about time lines with the hon. member for Matsqui. I'm hoping that within the next two years the planning would be complete. The committee will have to start work rather soon. I'm sure the hon. member will be hearing from the committee in terms of information.

B. Penner: So just to clarify: you're hoping the committee will report back within the next two years. I take it that means, then, that the ministry is hoping to make a decision about a regional justice centre about two years from now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, with the proviso that currently there is no capital. But it might come our way.

B. Penner: Hope springs eternal.

I'll just finish with one comment. I think that yesterday the Attorney General made the remark -- I'd written it down as a question to ask, but he answered the question before I asked him -- that population itself is not the sole determinant for where a court facility is to be located. It's not as though there is a specific size of population that's required before you're entitled to a court facility in your community. Obviously it makes some sense to have flexibility with regard to a population threshold. We do it with electoral districts in British Columbia. The people in the northwest part of the province have a much larger electoral area, geographically speaking, and a smaller population base than a riding in Coquitlam-Maillardville, for instance. With that, I'll let the Attorney General comment on what he might see as an appropriate threshold for a population to support a courthouse.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said yesterday, I don't believe that one could specify a threshold. The location of the justice centre would have to take into account the surrounding areas, transportation access, Crown, police, remand facilities -- all of those kinds of issues. I don't think that population alone would ever be the determinant of where the justice centre goes.

B. Penner: This is not a question; it's just a comment. I was reviewing Statistics Canada information which was, I believe, released publicly last week that showed that the population of Abbotsford has increased by 21.4 percent since 1991 and that the population of Chilliwack has increased by 21.6 percent since 1991. The two areas are growing at an almost identical rate. But one thing is sure, and that is that the upper Fraser Valley is growing quickly. It is one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. All forecasts project continued rapid growth in terms of population in the upper Fraser Valley.

G. Plant: I want to move to a different subject: the issues around corrections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Are we done with the court services? Then and I can send Malcolm away. It's kind of inconvenient for everybody to be hanging around.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Okay, fine. You can leave. It's concluded -- otherwise we'll never finish any sections.

G. Plant: The intention was to give it in two bursts, and I think we've finished the second burst.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think they have all asked all the questions -- all of them.

G. Plant: I think so.

In general terms, when I consider the corrections branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General, the issues that strike me are issues around the adequacy of capital facilities, overcrowding and changing trends in terms of the characteristics of inmates in provincial institutions. A couple of other issues that I suppose are also under the same heading. . . . We now have several reports with respect to the Vancouver pretrial incident last summer, and I want to canvass that a little bit; then there are the decisions around the B.C. Parole Board.

[ Page 2710 ]

The place I want to start with is the capital spending review that the government undertook over the course of the last half of 1996 that resulted in a final report in January of 1997. When speaking of the Ministry of Attorney General, the authors of the report talked about the pressures for new spending in the area of corrections as well as in court services. Pressures for new spending included a backlog of maintenance requirements, population growth and a need for more capacity to house hardened offenders, as well as new facilities for young offenders. Apparently, B.C. has one of the lowest incarceration rates in Canada. However, capacity is squeezed, and about 49 percent of all adult inmates are currently accommodated through multiple occupancy. Given current trends, the ministry forecasts an increasing shortfall in both adult and youth custodial beds over the next four years. In that context, the review made a number of recommendations. I want to ask the Attorney General if he could comment on what his ministry is doing with respect to those recommendations.

The first recommendation was that the government and the ministry optimize the use of alternatives to custody, including the use of programs offered by outside agencies or the private sector. In particular, I am interested in asking the Attorney General what progress, if any, has been made in his ministry in terms of optimizing the use of programs offered by outside agencies or the private sector as a way of dealing with the pressure on existing facilities.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The major alternative, of course, is the use of electronic monitoring. Some of the inmates do not have any permanent residential facilities, and we have been contracting that out with the John Howard Society as well as the Salvation Army, so that we can house them and have them on electronic monitoring. That's essentially what has taken place so far.

G. Plant: Does the minister expect that the use of these kinds of arrangements and facilities will expand over the course of the next year or so? Or are we already up and running to the level that the minister expects will be sufficient to support the demand?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would hope that we could do that while assuring public safety issues. The current emphasis is on the lower mainland, as in terms of the volume, electronic monitoring is difficult to engage in in the outlying areas. The largest volume, of course, is on the lower mainland. Hope-fully, over time we can increase it in the other areas, as well and see if we can find partners -- such as the John Howard Society or the Salvation Army or someone else -- who can then provide placement for those offenders who need a permanent place to stay to be able to be on this program. At the end of the day, it is cheaper to do that than house someone in a facility and pay for that directly.

G. Plant: The recommendation spoke about including the use of programs offered by outside agencies or the private sector, but it sounds to me like the principal program is a ministry program -- that is, the EMP -- and the outside agencies are providing facilities in the nature of accommodation and residences and that kind of thing, rather than providing program initiatives.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We may be able to proceed in that direction. Currently there are no inmates who are out in other programs other than the EMP, with the assistance of the John Howard Society and Salvation Army. There are people who are on probation who are in drug and alcohol treatment or counselling programs, but there aren't any who are on release into those programs without the EMP.

G. Plant: On Friday we had a debate -- I was going to call it an interesting debate; maybe it wasn't that interesting, but I thought it was -- about the risks associated with enhanced use of diversion and EMP programs. The point was made rather eloquently and forcefully by the Attorney General that he would be interested in knowing about specific cases -- how much easier it would be to respond to specific instances of abuse as opposed to the generality of the observations that I was making. I was struck by the fact that the evening news that very night provided all British Columbians with an unfortunate specific example of someone on an EMP program who turned out to be someone who ought not to be at large in society. I want to thank the province of British Columbia for having generated that example.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

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