[ Page 2711 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

G. Robertson: With us this afternoon in the House are Chief Bobby Joseph, Chief Bill Cranmer, Chief John Smith, Chief Ralph Dick and Chief John Henderson; Bill Wasden, a manager; Richard Dawson, a councillor; Molly Glendale, a councillor; Tony Roberts, a councillor; and Warren Lewis, a band member from Cape Mudge. Scott Harris and Shawn Morford are technicians with the tribal council.

Also with us this afternoon, we have the Campbell River Christian School and Mr. Wayne Demerse, the teacher. My understanding is that there are approximately 13 to 15 students and a number of adults accompanying them. I would like to ask that the House join me in welcoming all these North Islanders here this afternoon.

V. Anderson: Today we have in the House Gwynn and Norm Ellis from the Vancouver-Langara constituency -- very active volunteers in community activities, in the Cancer Society and in adult drug education service.

J. Sawicki: As you all know, it's Earth Day today. It's the day we remind ourselves that we share this planet with millions of other life forms. And to celebrate the progress we've made in the past five years in this province, I was pleased to have lunch with two young women who are here from Glenlyon-Norfolk School. Their names are Laura Knogler and Lauren Zolpys. Together with their fellow students, they completed an incredibly ambitious project called Ocean World. They turned their whole school into a stage to educate against polluting our oceans. So in welcoming them today, hon. Speaker, perhaps we can also welcome the hundreds of thousands of young people throughout every one of our communities who work, on Earth Day and every day, to save this planet.

L. Reid: Joining us in the galleries today is Mr. Digby Peers, a resident in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Coleman: I would like to have the House welcome two constituents of mine today. One of them is Tracy Theodore, who is a real estate professional with Lakeview Realty in my riding. Also in the gallery today there is an old friend of my family, who actually babysat my children and who has turned out to be a terrific, capable young person: Kerry Brown.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a friend of mine, Jeff Inman, whom I first met as a student in the 1980s. He subsequently went on to become a medical doctor. I understand there was an attempt to lure him to the United States, but because, I am sure, of his commitment to our health care system, as well as the inescapable lure of British Columbia, he is back with us today. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce Kathy Bedard from the Northern B.C. Winter Games Society in Prince Rupert. Would the House please make her welcome.

W. Hartley: Today visiting us we have Brenda Musclow and Dana McDonald. They are accompanied by my spouse Alice, our daughter Wallis and a niece, Nicole Muir, who is visiting from Paisley, Scotland. Please make them welcome.

A. Sanders: It's my pleasure to introduce a very important Vernon citizen. In the gallery today we have the mayor of Vernon, Mr. Wayne McGrath. Would everyone please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure to introduce my three delightful lunch companions for today: Mr. John Hellemond, who is a business person in British Columbia and who is involved in all sorts of interesting projects; Alistair MacLennan, who is the chair of Helijet Airways; and Chris Main, otherwise known as C. Main, who we hope will be the next Member of Parliament for the federal riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Will the House please help us make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Joining us here today are some long-serving women from the community of Langford. They are members of the Langford Women's Institute. We have Dawn Cropp, Ann Campbell, Barbara Sinclair, Kay Collard, Mollie McArthur, Ina McDowall, Isobel Byrnes, Rose Button and Julie Darby. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to introduce to the House today my new constituency assistant for Surrey-Green Timbers. Would the House please make welcome Harvinder Phandal.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today is a delegation from Discovery School in my constituency. A number of grade 6 and 7 students are here today with a particular emphasis, as they are touring the Legislature, around the history of this Legislature. They are accompanied by Ms. Mackey, their instructor. Earlier today they asked me if we really do bang our desks in this House, and I assured them that indeed we do. On that note, I'd ask that the House make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us today from the SPCA are the president, Dr. David Wooldridge; Mr. Al Hickey, the chief executive officer; and Mr. John van der Hoeven, director of field operations. These gentlemen are here for meetings later in the day.

Also, I'd like to have people make welcome Kathryn Chapman, who is a co-op student with the fish secretariat and comes from the lovely village of Argenta in my constituency.

G. Janssen: With us today is Shane Morrow, a tireless reporter for the Alberni Valley Times. Accompanying him are Merideth Morrow and Kerry MacDonald, students who have just finished their tests at the University of Victoria, and also Judith Collington, formerly with the Georgia basin initiative and now a contractor working to save the environment. I ask the House to make them welcome.

D. Symons presented a bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.

D. Symons: I think it appropriate that this is Earth Week and today is Earth Day as I introduce this particular bill.

[ Page 2712 ]

The Uranium Moratorium Act is, as its name suggests, an act to protect the environment and help the citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that's released into the environment when uranium is mined.

The Uranium Moratorium Act would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited. The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. It is not intended to, nor would it, inhibit normal mining operations for other minerals.

This act is not new, hon. Speaker. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations, brought in by the Social Credit government, that were in effect from 1980 through 1987. When those regulations expired in 1987, the then opposition, the NDP, strongly advocated the reinstatement of that moratorium. This act does precisely that.

Because of that past support for such an act, I hope that all party members will support this act. I would ask the government to allow the bill to come forward this week as an appropriate sign of support for Earth Week.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

L. Stephens: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Women's Equality about any studies or reviews her ministry had conducted on gambling expansion and domestic violence. The minister refused to answer my question.

I have obtained a copy of a 1994 report on problem gambling done for the B.C. Lottery Corporation by Angus Reid. It says: "Pathological gamblers provoke a reactive form of violence in their spouses, 37 percent of whom have physically abused their children."

Will the Minister of Women's Equality stand up for the women of British Columbia and oppose her government's gambling expansion policy, which will lead to more problem gamblers and more domestic violence?

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand up in the House and answer a question on women's issues. As the member knows, this government has shown its commitment to prevent violence against women. We currently fund and will be funding 84 transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing in British Columbia. We have initiated, for the first time ever, a specialized transition house dedicated to women with alcohol and drug abuse problems. We have, for the first time ever, instituted a program through the Children and Families ministry dedicated to people with a gambling problem -- the first time ever.

L. Stephens: Well, the minister doesn't understand that you have to stop the problem before it's started in the first place.

This is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This study clearly shows the link between problem gambling and domestic violence, yet the government is bent on imposing casinos in British Columbia. The study goes on to say: "The spouse of the male pathological gambler is three times more likely to attempt suicide than her counterpart in the general population."

Will the Minister of Women's Equality show her support for women in British Columbia during Prevention of Violence Against Women Week and demand that the Premier and his government halt these dangerous gambling expansions?

Hon. S. Hammell: The stats around domestic violence have shown that this government is at the forefront of combatting domestic violence. We have increased, from 56 percent to 74 percent, the number of domestic violence charges.

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, we have had gambling in this province since the early seventies. There is a modest increase proposed for gambling. We have, for the first time ever, a program to attack and deal with seriously addicted gamblers. This ministry and this government are at the forefront of the prevention of violence against women.

K. Whittred: This government's refusal to engage British Columbians in an honest public debate and address the issues surrounding gambling and women means that there are more questions than answers. The B.C. Lottery Corporation report states that the spouses of problem gamblers are eight times more likely to experience stress-related physical illnesses.

My question is for the Minister of Women's Equality. Does she accept the validity of these findings, and what is she doing to protect the health of B.C. women?

Hon. S. Hammell: The members opposite should know that we have been gambling in this province for over two decades, and there has been no direct research that I know of that shows a direct causal relationship

Interjections.

Hon. S. Hammell: No, we're talking about a poll, not research.

My ministry, in cooperation with community-based societies throughout this province, is constantly reviewing the research and information on violence against women. And if the members have anything beyond a poll that they're willing to share with us, we would be glad to receive it.

This government and this ministry are committed to working with women who suffer from abusive relationships. We fund 84 transition houses and second-stage houses, we support Children Who Witness Abuse, we counsel women and we counsel abusive men. Those people on the other side would eliminate the ministry and eliminate the issues around women.

K. Whittred: The B.C. Lottery Corporation report -- which we are sharing with you today -- is a chilling recitation of the risks from gambling expansion that lie ahead for B.C. families. The report also states: "The children of pathological gamblers do worse in school than their peers They attempt suicide twice as often as their classmates."

Again, my question is for the Minister of Women's Equality. When will she, as an advocate for women, stand and demand a halt to this reckless expansion of gambling?

[ Page 2713 ]

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I'm somewhat bemused by the questions from the party opposite, because, as their leader said in 1994, gaming is no big problem. They then moved to the position that there should be a referendum -- so they're not saying they're opposed to gaming -- and lately some of them have been saying they're going to oppose. Nor, prior to the expansion that we've announced, have they stood up in this House and dealt with the serious problem of violence against women. They think there's an issue to capitalize on.

The Angus Reid survey is an update of the benchmark 1993 survey, and the '96 survey ". . .fails to show any evidence of an appreciable surge in gaming participation and any subsequent growth in the prevalence of problem gaming." That's a quote from Angus Reid, the author of the report, hon. Speaker. Perhaps they should stop being so selective in their quotations.

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for gambling. Last Thursday I asked the minister about a document dated April 4, 1997, prepared by the chair of the Casino Management Council for members of the casino association. The minister told us he was unaware of that letter and told reporters that he deplored the secrecy of the document. The chair of the casino association told reporters: "We certainly didn't get any direction from government to do that or not to do that." Both of them wanted us to believe that from the outset they'd been putting their cards on the table. It now appears that they have been dealing from the bottom of the deck.

I have in my hand a handwritten fax memo, dated March 16, from the director of the Gaming Commission to the chair of the Casino Management Council, which says: "Please note the attached letter. BCGC wishes to introduce these enhancements quickly and without fanfare. Your assistance with a quiet implementation will be most appreciated."

The question to the minister is: will the minister now admit that he and his officials have always had a secret agenda designed to fast-track gaming in the province -- with respect to their policy, euphemistically called enhancement? Or is the minister equally as opposed to this secrecy question?

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly, I cannot be responsible for any letters written by people not under my ministry.

But on March 14 a letter went out from the chair of the Gaming Commission to the Casino Management Council, clearly outlining the issue of increased bet limits and the like. I can quote from the Province of March 19, in a story that I assume most British Columbians It would have appeared in other media as well. I'm quoted as saying that the bet limits were going up. There was no attempt at secrecy. This was clearly a matter of public record; it was published in the newspapers at the time. I don't know why we're trying to manufacture an issue. We're moving ahead. We said we'd do it, and we're doing it.

G. Wilson: Nobody's trying to manufacture an issue; we're simply trying to find out what this government's agenda is.

Will the minister, then, today commit to make public all of the minutes of the meetings that have taken place between the Casino Management Council and the B.C. Gaming Commission -- all of those meetings that took place this year? Will the minister commit to releasing those minutes for public review?

Hon. D. Miller: There really is no need to do anything other than reiterate a statement that appeared on March 19, when this government announced that we were going to increase the bet limits. The Gaming Commission's mandate is to move ahead and implement that with the charitable casinos. There's no secrecy. All British Columbians know we're doing it, and I don't know why at this point we're still trying to ascertain. . .or ask questions about it. We've been quite clear and open on the subject; it's been in the press. We've announced it publicly, and it's going ahead.

W. Hurd: My question is to the Minister of Women's Equality. Can the Minister of Women's Equality explain to this House why, as the minister responsible for protecting women in our province, she has not read a study on social gaming and problem gambling in British Columbia and their impact on the women of this province?

Hon. S. Hammell: This government's commitment to women is unparalleled. It is unparalleled in this province, and it's unparalleled in this country. There is no other Legislature that has a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality devoted to the issues around women.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I simply cannot hear the answer to the question, and I must have quiet.

Hon. S. Hammell: We support 84 transition houses, second-stage houses and safe homes that take women We widely distribute a poster to our communities so they know where the transition houses are. We fund community-based prevention programs for women suffering from violence. We have 81 counselling services. We have 50 counselling services for children who witness abuse. Our commitment to women is unparalleled, and our commitment to preventing violence against women is also unparalleled.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply estimates, and for the advice of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 2.

C. Hansen: You know, often the first thing I do when I'm looking at second reading debate of a bill is look at what the bill is all about, the general principles of the bill. This, of course, being an omnibus bill, is supposed to be about a variety of things -- everything under the sun lumped into one bill that allows the Finance minister to proceed with his budget. But there is one theme, I think, that sort of ties this whole bill together. Basically, what all the measures in this bill do is download the financial mess that this government has created 

[ Page 2714 ]

to anybody and everybody that they can find to pass it along to. This bill is all about forcing others to clean up their act. You know, we've had six years of deficits. We've had six years of financial incompetence. We've got $30 billion of debt. Now what they're doing with this act is trying to pass it on to everybody they can possibly find to pass it on to instead of taking responsibility and dealing with it at the provincial government level.

When this party came to power in 1971, there was about $15 billion of revenue coming in to the provincial treasury.

Hon. A. Petter: In 1971?

C. Hansen: In 1991. My apologies.

Today we've got about $20 billion coming into the provincial treasury. We've got about another $5 billion more. But what has this government done? They've used that $5 billion on a variety of their favourite projects. Are the people in this province better off because of the way that $5 billion has been spent? No. Did they spend that $5 billion wisely? I think not. What we have seen is that not only have they squandered that $5 billion of additional revenue -- a 30-some-odd percent increase in the revenues -- but they have spent more than that. That wasn't enough for them. As a result, we now have record deficits in this province and record debt.

You know, I remember, going back to the 1970s, when the very first billion-dollar budget was brought in under the Dave Barrett government. It was a milestone, and I remember it vividly. I was a political science student at the University of Victoria at the time. A billion dollars to run the provincial government. Today that billion only covers the payment on the debt.

So what did they do with these increased revenues? Did they go to patient care? They didn't go to patient care. Patients are worse off today than they were in 1991. Sure there's more money being spent on health care, but it's not getting to the patients. Where that money is going is into things like the health accord so you can pay back your union friends for their financial support during the election campaign.

Let's talk about the infrastructure program, which is often touted by this government as providing wonderful new services and facilities for the people of this province. But, in reality, are the taxpayers getting the full value that should be spent on these infrastructure programs? No. We're paying more than is necessary because we do not have open tendering in this province.

So did they put in policies that would allow the economy to grow? Isn't this the way you finance government: you build a healthy economy; you make sure that people are working and paying taxes; and that in turn is what allows you to pay for the health reforms, health care, education system and all the things that we need in this society? No. In fact, what we've seen is government policies to the exact contrary of that. We've seen government policies that have driven jobs out of this province. Do we have a job creation strategy in this province? No. What we have, basically, are communications people who are spinning out documents that they call job strategies. They worry more about how you create the illusion of a job strategy than actually create jobs.

Do we have a government that knows where revenues are going to come from in the future to pay for the infrastructure that's being built today, to pay for the debt that is being driven up? There is no strategy in place that's going to allow for a dynamic economy in the future. In fact, what we are seeing is policies that are going to set the clock back when it comes to the economic health of this province.

You know, today we've got 170,000 British Columbians who are unemployed -- 170,000 British Columbians who not only are unemployed but who wish they were working. If you count in all of the workers who are unemployed that aren't actively seeking jobs, because they're not out there, that number would be a lot higher. But do we have a government that has policies that are creating job opportunities for those 170,000? No. As a result, this Finance minister is not getting the tax revenues that he could out of income tax, because those individuals are not working today.

Revenues from corporate income tax are down. Why are they down? Because this government has made it impossible for corporations in this province to create profit. Do you know what? Do you know where corporate income tax comes from? It comes from taxing the profits of corporations. Ah, but this government has found a solution to that. Not only do they think that profit is a bad word and they're doing everything possible to make sure any corporation in this province doesn't make a profit, but they have found that instead of relying on profit, they're going to tax the corporations that are losing money. What better way to drive them out of the province even faster? "Let's bring in a corporation capital tax, so the companies that are actually innovating, the companies that are using technology Let's hammer them with another tax, even though they're already losing money."

In the election campaign, the NDP candidate in my riding was asked, at an all-candidates meeting, whether or not corporations that were losing money had to pay corporate capital tax. He said: "I don't know." I was appalled. No wonder people will seek to become candidates for the New Democratic Party, when they don't even know that corporation capital taxes are paid by all corporations, regardless of whether they're profitable or otherwise.

Hon. A. Petter: Not small ones.

C. Hansen: And small ones. The Minister of Finance says: "Not small ones." Small corporations in this province pay corporation capital tax, and they pay it dearly. If they're renting a building that is owned by somebody that has assets of more than $3.5 million, they're paying corporation capital tax. And they're paying it dearly. Everybody is paying it. There are very, very few corporations that are not paying for this.

You know what the NDP approach is to creating small business in this province? You start out with a big corporation, you bring in policies that force them to lay off 95 percent of their staff, and lo and behold, you've got a small corporation. That's what this government is doing to create small businesses.

So Bill 2 is all about what this government is going to do to clean up the mess they've created in their house. And they're doing two things. The first thing is that they're sweeping the mess under the carpet; that's part of what they're doing. The other thing in Bill 2 is that they are cleaning up their yard by scooping it up and throwing it over into the neighbour's yard.

Let's look under these carpets -- the sideways shift, I think the Minister of Forests calls this. What they're doing is taking the problems they've created in terms of the administration of government, and they're shoving it sideways. Let's 

[ Page 2715 ]

take the motor vehicle commission, for example -- and I'm glad that the minister responsible for the motor vehicle commission is here to hear this.

You take the motor vehicle commission, and you shove it sideways into ICBC where it's no longer directly accountable to this House. You take the responsibilities of the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, and you shuffle those sideways into FRBC. What we are seeing is the decreasing accountability of this government to this chamber. And that, I think, is one of the biggest problems we are facing in this Legislature: diminishing accountability. We're seeing a centralization of power in the Premier's Office. This province is not being well served by this government, which is eroding democratic principles and decreasing the accountability to this chamber.

That's what they've talked about in terms of shoving things under the carpet, but let's talk about what they've thrown over the fence. What they've thrown over the fence is about $113 million of downloading to municipalities. They're forcing the municipalities to deal with the problems that they have created when it comes to funding public enterprise, when it comes to funding government generally. There's not a federal taxpayer, a provincial taxpayer and a civic taxpayer; there's only one taxpayer. So when they take this kind of downloading and they say to the municipalities, "You pick up the pieces; you pay for this," that money still has to come out of that same taxpayer's pocket.

Let's talk for a minute about the lack of notice that took place. You know, I was at the UBCM convention last September, when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs stood up and bragged about the protocol of understanding that was there: this wonderful new revolution in the relationship between the provincial government and municipalities, a protocol that ensured that there was going to be consultation with municipalities, that nothing would be thrown on them without proper debate, proper consideration and proper opportunity for input from those municipalities.

I remember that minister smugly telling delegates: "Well, there are going to be some big cuts coming." This was the inference. It was obvious to everybody in that room that the minister at that time knew the magnitude of the cuts that were going to be forced on the municipalities, and not only was he not consulting municipalities, not only was he not discussing it with them openly, but he knew then what those cuts were going to be, and he did not tell the delegates. He did not tell the municipalities. He did not tell the people of British Columbia. Why? Because there was a civic election campaign coming up. He wanted to make sure that this was swept under the carpet until that civic election campaign was over so that it wouldn't hurt NDP members running in that campaign.

[2:45]

You know, we all know that you cannot necessarily believe what this Premier says. It's obvious that he talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. But his signature is on this document. His signature is on this protocol. It's one thing for a Premier to say one thing and do another thing, it's one thing for him to make promises that then get broken, it's one thing to say that action is going to happen and then find later that there is no action taking place. It's one thing not to walk the talk, but it's another thing when you have the signature of a Premier of this province on the bottom of a document, and before that ink is even dry, this government is ignoring what that document says. It's bad enough when they don't live up to what they're going to say, but when they sign documents where they say they're going to do something and then don't follow through, that erodes the office of the Premier, it erodes the reputation of this chamber, and it erodes the reputation of not just the government members but of government generally and all 75 members of this chamber.

Now I want to talk for a minute about Infrastructure Works. Last Friday we had the Premier again putting his signature on a document that profoundly affects municipalities, and yet there was no consultation that I've been aware of, no consultation that I've been able to determine with the municipalities. Yet the Premier expects that the municipalities are going to be a one-third partner in this new Infrastructure Works program.

I listened to the Premier's press conference on Friday. It was interesting. One of the things he talked about, which isn't included under this Infrastructure Works program, was the pent-up demand in this province for new sewers. It's something I want to discuss with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because quite frankly, if we have pent-up demand for sewers in this province, this could be a problem of major proportions when it comes to public policy. What we see is that there is no relief under this bill for any jurisdiction that is facing pent-up demand for sewers. What we are seeing is that because of this bill, municipalities are going to have less ability to deal with that pent-up demand for sewers.

I am not sure how much longer taxpayers are going to be able to hold on when they are getting gouged by a government that, every time they turn around, is taking more money out of their pockets. It's taking money out of their pockets not just through provincial government sources, but now it's reaching through the municipalities and taking money out of those taxpayers' pockets through the municipal governments, as well. You know, the Infrastructure Works program is going to have a profound impact on municipalities in this province. And now they are forcing municipalities to pay more than they would have to otherwise pay under that Infrastructure Works program, because they are imposing the fixed-wage policies of this provincial government. They are imposing those policies on federal government participation, and they are forcing those policies on municipal government participation. That's what I call extraterritoriality.

You know, I think all of us in this chamber are quite indignant when we see the American government trying to impose its legislation on the people of Canada -- or the people of any country, for that matter. And here we have, through the policies of this government When it comes to fixed wages, they're forcing those policies on municipal governments and on the federal government. In the end, the taxpayer is going to pay more for those needed infrastructure policies.

You know, the city of Vancouver got hit at the end of November. They got one month's notice that they were going to get hit with a $17 million cut in funding -- $17.2 million, to be exact. You know, I put that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has a budget about the same size as the city of Vancouver -- in fact, a little bit less. How would he like it if he had a $17.2 million cut to his ministry in addition to the cuts that had already been made, and he was given virtually no warning that it was going to happen? How would the Minister of Forests like it if, in his ministry, in addition to all of the other cuts that have been made and the sideways shuffles to FRBC, he was hit short-notice with $17 million in cuts? How would the Minister of Transportation and Highways like it, who has a budget almost the same as the city of Vancouver?

Interjection.

[ Page 2716 ]

C. Hansen: I see that the hon. member for Alberni is trying to help us with the pent-up demand for sewer systems.

Hon. Speaker, how would the Minister of Transportation and Highways like it if she had to take, on short notice, a $17.2 million cut in her ministry in addition to the other cuts that have been made? This is basically what this government is forcing on the city of Vancouver and all municipalities around this province.

You know, I got a report card sent to me, and I just wanted to read some of these quotes. This is a quote that was made by the Premier in 1993: "I am prepared to agree to enter into some certainty for municipal governments, which constrains my options down the road." Was that promise kept? No.

We have a quote from the previous Minister of Finance, Elizabeth Cull. She says: "This legislation" -- being the Local Government Grants Act -- "is designed to deal with stability and predictability, and it does that." Was this promise kept, hon. Speaker? No.

The previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, Darlene Marzari, said, on the subject of grant reform: "This [government] has taken a stand with the municipalities to seek. . .some form of credible relationship between the provincial government and. . .municipalities." She was basically promising a credible relationship. We have an incredible relationship. Was this promise built on? Was it followed through on? No.

We've got the Premier in 1994, when he referred to the formula under the Local Government Grants Act. Do you know what his words were to describe that formula? He said that it was guaranteed. Was that promise lived up to? No. In fact, when we look at the Guarantee for Youth that this government has brought in, we realize that guarantees from this government are not worth the paper they're written on.

Again from the Premier: "Talks are to begin with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to determine how these savings are to be achieved." And this is in October of 1996. A month later, did talks begin? Were there consultations? No. Was the promise lived up to? No. And in September of 1996 he said to the municipalities: "We will work with you, we will involve you in our consultations." Was that promise kept? No.

The previous Minister of Municipal Affairs -- he's currently the Minister of Employment and Investment -- said: ". . .no decisions have been made yet, and none will be made until a review is complete and we have a complete analysis of the impact." Was that analysis of the accumulated impact of program reductions and eliminations made available to municipalities? No.

And finally, again from that previous minister: "To the extent possible, you will be involved in a dialogue around the significant changes from early in the process." Was that lived up to, hon. Speaker? No.

So what we have is a government that is poisoning relationships. It's a government that is pitting city against city. It's a government that is pitting school boards against school boards. It is a government that is pitting Indian bands against local governments. And it's wrong.

What we need is a spirit of cooperation, and not just when it comes to relationships with municipalities but generally with the relationship that this government has with all aspects of our society, with all groups. We should have certainty so these bodies and agencies know what they're dealing with, so they can plan responsibly on behalf of their public. I implore this government to change that direction, to bring in that spirit of cooperation, to start fresh and to make sure that there is that spirit of cooperation so that all levels of government work together, recognizing that there is only one taxpayer; so that those levels can make sure that tax dollars are spent wisely and for the best efforts of everybody involved; and so that we can build a good society in this province for our children.

G. Abbott: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: It's a delight for me to welcome in the gallery today three constituents from Shuswap. Debbie McCabe is here with her sons Tyrone and Keegan. I would like the House to make them welcome.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased today to participate in the second reading debate on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I am particularly pleased to respond from the perspective of agriculture, on which there are some significant impacts in the bill.

Like most people in British Columbia, I am disappointed when commitments made by the government are not kept. I think, furthermore, many people are angry and upset that promises made were not kept. In particular, local governments in B.C., with major responsibilities to their communities, are very upset and are faced with some very difficult decisions. Local governments have not only seen cuts in their grants, but they have seen downloading of highways. They have seen downloading of certain courthouse costs, both direct and operational costs, and ancillary costs such as police costs.

Ranchers in B.C. have seen grazing enhancement fund commitments cut to less than one half and spread out over ten years rather than five. Tree fruit growers have also seen clear political commitments broken. Virtual legal agreements were broken, changed and renegotiated. Propane users -- people who went through the trouble and cost of converting their vehicles to a more environmentally friendly fuel option at the encouragement of the government There is a whole range of user fees which have suddenly increased. A notable example is licence fees for recreational anglers -- a sudden increase with no consultation, no notice, no proper long-term planning together with the industry and with the anglers.

The budget for 1997-98 and this Budget Measures Implementation Act represent broken commitments, bad operational and financial planning, a lack of commitment to good management over a sensible time frame and a lack of real consultation and true partnership with other governments, businesses and individual taxpayers. One of the biggest problems for me is the lack of long-term planning and the lack of fair and businesslike consultation and notice of impending changes.

I want to address some specific aspects of the bill, starting with section 1, which deals with the agricultural land development fund special account. This represents the final elimination of a program that I think has served agriculture well and should have been retained. This was a low-interest program that was available for very limited, specific purposes, which were designated by cabinet. This program was, in my view, a good public policy tool, not just for agriculture but also for the public, and it was historically used to provide incentives and assistance for drainage, land clearing, fencing and other pro-

[ Page 2717 ]

grams. Some of the public concerns that could be addressed with this policy are environmental concerns or other issues revolving around rural-urban conflicts.

I want to now comment on the cuts in the grazing enhancement fund -- another broken promise. In late 1994 the former Premier made commitments to implement the grazing enhancement fund as part of the land use planning process to provide the ranching industry with a fund "to maintain or enhance cattle grazing opportunities and meet conservation needs." Over a period of several months, the commitments totalled $4.5 million, and those were broken up into three areas, including the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, Kamloops and Kootenay-Boundary. A total of $4.5 million per year for five years -- that was the commitment. When the 1996-97 budget was established, the commitment became $3.4 million every year for five years. Then last November 5, when the announcement was made by the current Minister of Agriculture, the grazing enhancement fund was capped at $1.5 million annually but will be extended from a five-year program to a ten-year program. The amendment in the bill actually extends the sunset clause by five years for that legislation. But again, if you look at the series of broken commitments, it's a major disappointment for ranchers and conservation needs in the province.

[3:00]

In the tree fruit industry, the government had made very clear commitments to orchardists in the Okanagan, including a commitment by the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in January of 1996, reaffirmed by a very significant pre-election press release in April of '96. These were very clear commitments that had been made to orchardists as part of a ten-year plan to create a transition in the industry, from an industry that was dependent on government handouts to one that was self-sustaining and could rely on the marketplace for its returns. In January of 1996 a five-year business plan by the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority was approved by Treasury Board. The industry was stabilized as a result of that plan in the sense that there would be a planned transition through a partnership between the agricultural industry, the tree fruit industry and government.

After the election, one partner pulled out. The provincial government suddenly decided that it had budget problems. People had agreements; orchardists had signed commitments. They had made plans; they had planned their crop rotation; they had removed trees. Both sides -- the government and growers -- sought legal opinions to assess their positions. In the end, I think the broken commitment by the government to the tree fruit industry was best summed up by one of the leaders in the industry, who said that the government saved $1 million, and it cost them $10 million.

There are a number of amendments in the bill with respect to the motor fuel tax. In this connection I want to address the propane tax, a new tax being implemented by the Minister of Finance. I found a tremendous reaction in my constituency to this decision and the threat of this decision, the establishment of a new tax on propane. Everyone, from the school board that had no way to pass on costs, to people like Fraser Valley Refrigeration, who had 43 vehicles on propane Fraser Valley Refrigeration repairs and maintains everything, from bulk milk tanks on farms, to refrigeration in restaurants, to air conditioning in offices, to refrigeration in food plants. These costs will simply be passed on. It is extremely disturbing to see governments constantly changing the rules. People who went through the trouble of going to options that help the environment and help air quality were again let down.

I'd now like to address the amendments to the Local Government Grants Act, sections 12 and 13 of the bill. The Local Government Grants Act of 1994 -- and the minister at the time -- promised stability, certainty and a long-term partnership with local governments. My reading of the Budget Measures Implementation Act suggests that this commitment to stability, certainty and partnership is gone. The impact of the amendments proposed in sections 12 and 13 is that anything can happen now. The minister can write any kind of funding formula that suits the whim of the government.

Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that many mayors and local governments are very angry, and this was certainly reflected in a recent newspaper report of an undisclosed survey by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. In this survey they had asked mayors to respond to the results of 11 commitments made by the provincial government to local governments, and the response was extremely, extremely negative. I want to quote two comments by two of these mayors: "The worst part is that the public's cynicism toward politicians is felt by us, who are actually accountable to our electorate. It is galling to be lumped together with a group that is so dishonest, shortsighted and ignorant." And another comment was: "The provincial government's unilateral actions are unbelievable, outrageous, immoral, dictatorial and contrary to their own legislation."

I think one of the biggest failures of the provincial government was the lack of notice given to municipalities. The announcement of major cuts and other downloading measures was done at the last minute to avoid discussion during local government elections. At that point, municipalities had one week to file their provisional budgets. I also want to echo the comments of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena with respect to the protocol agreement that was signed with municipalities at last year's UBCM meeting: "You can write anything you like on paper; if you don't keep your word, it doesn't mean very much."

I also want to question -- and point out -- the government's decision to come out with a small community protection grant program and equalization grants to small municipalities to mitigate the impact of budget cuts. When we met recently with the UBCM executive, there was a real concern expressed by those people that this was a conscious effort to divide and conquer all of the municipalities within British Columbia, and to pit large against small. I sincerely hope that this is not the case, and that the new minister will make additional effort to address and work together with UBCM as a group, large and small municipalities together.

I want to mention the impact on the city of Abbotsford of some of the cuts and transfers. Last year the transfers to the city of Abbotsford amounted to $4.5 million. The 1997 transfer will be $2.7 million. That's a reduction of 38 percent. If we look at that reduction of $1.7 million against the property tax roll, that represents 4.7 percent of property taxes in the city of Abbotsford. Our council has decided to increase property taxes by 3.5 percent for the coming year. In so doing, on the issue of grants alone, they are absorbing approximately 20 percent of the cuts in their provincial grant. In addition, as I said earlier, the city is absorbing the cost of highway downloading and a whole range of other subtle and more blatant shifts of responsibility and costs to local government.

I was particularly appalled to hear the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and other members of his caucus suggest that it was about time local governments start managing their finances more carefully. The suggestion was that the province was leading the way in cutting costs and reducing financial 

[ Page 2718 ]

waste, and that it was about time that local governments did the same thing. It's not hard to see why local governments are upset by this statement and this attitude. In my view, local governments have been doing a better job of managing costs and could teach this provincial government a lot about how to get the job done.

I want to mention one other example of provincial government downloading on local and regional government that impacts agriculture -- in this case, ranchers in the interior -- and that is a cut in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budget of weed control grants. The elimination of weed control grants in the '97-98 budget to regional districts, municipalities and cattlemen's groups has the potential to set the control of noxious weeds in the province back for many years. Regional districts and municipalities are already trying to come to grips with how they will adjust their budgets to address the reductions in and/or elimination of provincial grants. The elimination of weed control grants will lead to the elimination of what has been a well-structured weed control program. We're talking about weed control along road allowances and other public areas. Most certainly the ranching industry can ill afford to absorb more costs off-loaded in this manner. This is again an example of government downloading on local and regional governments, for which we have not seen the full impact and the consequences.

In closing, I will vote against this bill and all that it represents. For me, it represents doublespeak and deceit with respect to a number of successive budgets. For me, it represents a total lack of genuine consultation. It represents a repeated pattern of untimely announcements, with a lack of proper notice and professional courtesy -- especially with local governments, but also with business and taxpayers in general. What we are seeing is a lot of other people having to pick up and bail out the provincial government from the results of five years of not being concerned about the financial implications of their decisions. The reality is that better fiscal management is being forced on the government by a taxpayer who is fed up with paying, and I will vote in support of that taxpayer on this bill.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to rise and speak on the principle of Bill 2. We are in second reading, and second reading is traditionally a time to address the primary principle behind a bill. There are many principles contained in this bill, because it's an omnibus bill. There are some good things in this bill, but there are also some bad things.

First, the good news. I think the changes, particularly under section 3 of the act, make some sense. I'm happy to see that the government has accepted some of the recommendations coming from the Public Accounts Committee and the auditor general with regard to dealing with how full-time-equivalent employees are recorded in the public accounts and provided for in the estimates that the Minister of Finance includes in his annual budget. I think that the increased disclosure contemplated under sections 3 through 5 of the changes to the act is salutary, and I support that.

However, there are many things in Bill 2 which are not as positive. Accordingly, I have some serious concerns about them. What particularly gives me great concern are the clauses in Bill 2 -- I believe contained in sections 12 through 15 -- which basically gut, in my view, the Local Government Grants Act. As you know, the provision in Bill 2 removes the obligation for the provincial government to pay unconditional grants to municipalities. It leaves the municipalities open to further downloading by this government. Over the past number of years, we've certainly seen that this government has been less than forthright in its handling of the province's finances and in the way it accounts to the public for its handling of the finances.

We can start with the most recent budget of this government. Costs were again downloaded to municipalities, while this government pretends that it has decreased spending in an effort to get its financial house in order.

The fact is that on paper, much of that saving is only accomplished by shifting expenditures sideways to other agencies and to other forms of government. In fact, it was the Minister of Forests who talked about sideways-shifted funding to describe how the B.C. government has come up with a new way to raid Forest Renewal funds. Rather than going through the front door and emptying the vault, they've decided to go through the side door and take money away from the original purpose of Forest Renewal to fund existing Ministry of Forests projects and programs, particularly silviculture programs that have traditionally been funded by the Ministry of Forests. The original mandate for Forest Renewal B.C. was that it was only to fund programs in addition to those that were already existing. So instead of living up to that mandate, we now see a sideways shift in funding -- to use the Minister of Forest's term -- and they're doing through the side door what they chose not to do through the front door.

[3:15]

Other shifts are occurring, and they're consistent with what we see as the intent of Bill 2. In fact, there was a pretty clear and concise article in the weekend Times Colonist, on Sunday, April 20, written by Don Scott, who I understand was at one time an NDP MLA in a different province. He's gone through this year's budget presented by the Minister of Finance, and estimates that because of the downloading and the sideways-shifting in funds and accounting, the real deficit for this year is probably closer to $1 billion, and, looking ahead to next year, thinks it could be approaching $1.7 billion. He gets to those figures by looking at how this government is contriving new ways to download costs to municipalities, to Crown corporations or to government agencies such as the Transportation Financing Authority, which is being saddled with extra costs. At the end of the day, the taxpayer is still on the hook, and I don't think the taxpayer will be fooled into thinking that their tax bill is going down when, in fact, they know that their wallet is getting lighter. So that's one thing that gives me concern.

The second thing is that I was at the last convention held by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. That convention was held last September in Penticton. At that convention, much was made by the Municipal Affairs minister of a signing that he did in conjunction with the mayors from all across British Columbia. What they signed was a protocol agreement which purported to promise, on behalf of the provincial government, a new level of consultation with the provincial government prior to any decisions being made that would impact local governments. I was there for that promise, as were most of the mayors of British Columbia. Yet only two months later the Minister of Municipal Affairs, without any consultation and in complete abrogation of that protocol signed only two months earlier, announced cuts in municipal grants averaging 30 percent across the province. In fact, in some municipalities those cuts were the equivalent of 80 percent of the existing levels of grants. That move was in complete violation of the protocol agreement that was signed only two months earlier. Little wonder, then, that the mayors across British Columbia have a high level of distrust for this government.

Quite frankly, when I speak to some of the local mayors, they ask me what could possibly come next. Well, I think 

[ Page 2719 ]

we've seen what's coming next, and it's the changes in Bill 2, which take away the existing protection. Those levels of cuts that were announced in November of 1996 are not only in violation of the protocol agreement signed in September, but they also violate the Local Government Grants Act, which was supposed to prevent decreases in municipal grants in excess of 2 percent per year. The government has decided to go ahead with cuts that average 30 percent across the province -- 15 times the maximum allowed under the Local Government Grants Act -- and that is why I believe they have the provisions in Bill 2 -- to gut the Local Government Grants Act.

After hearing from some mayors, I contacted my local municipality, the district of Chilliwack, and wanted to find out from them firsthand what kind of impact this government's unilateral action and violation of the protocol would have upon the district of Chilliwack. I received a letter today, dated April 18, 1997, signed by the mayor of Chilliwack, indicating that the full dollar impact of grant cuts on Chilliwack will total $1,041,556. I had asked the mayor to provide me with a description of the impact that that kind of reduction in grants would have on programs and services in Chilliwack. I'm going to go through what some of those impacts are, because sometimes I get the feeling that this government simply doesn't understand the ramifications of their own decisions.

For example, because of the grant cuts announced last November, the district of Chilliwack had to work overtime to come up with a provisional budget. Those grant cuts were announced within days of the deadline for provisional budgets. The provincial government places the requirement on local governments to come up with a provisional budget by a certain deadline. So the provincial government was well aware of that deadline, because its the one that imposes it on local governments. Despite that, only a few days before that deadline they trot out an announcement about these drastic cuts to municipalities. I might point out that they did that shortly after municipal elections were completed, probably so as not to hurt supporters of their party in their bid for municipal office. So shortly after the municipal elections were over, the grant cuts were announced. The people all across British Columbia working in local government had to go back, sharpen their pencils and work overtime to try to come up with a provisional budget which, as you know, has to be balanced.

So what has the impact of these cuts been on Chilliwack? For example, it has delayed the budget decision-making process, and it has caused a great deal of uncertainty to those agencies and community organizations that rely on funding from the district of Chilliwack. I know that my local constituency office received many visits, phone calls and letters from groups in Chilliwack, wondering what was going to happen to their funding, because all they heard through the media was that everything was on the table and up for grabs.

All user fees and services in Chilliwack were put under review. Department heads were advised to delete all proposed or vacant positions from the budget. Re-examination of all unionized positions and benefits was undertaken. And this is something I think the government fails to understand: they'll make an announcement here in Victoria without really considering the impact on people in local areas, and I think they would be surprised, being so greatly dependent upon trade union donations to fund their election campaigns, to find out that this action by their government is directly hurting their trade union supporters.

There is an additional impact in Chilliwack, and that is that a fund that has been held in reserve to pay for any future landfill requirements in the district of Chilliwack had to be diverted to pay for urgent road repairs. That was to make up for the difference in the municipal grants. In addition, service levels to the public had to be reduced, in terms of counter service when people came into the financial office of the district of Chilliwack. Those staff positions had to be reduced. The safety coordination function of the district of Chilliwack was reduced.

There are other safety implications due to these municipal grant cuts. There has been a reduced firefighting inspection staff level in Chilliwack. There has also been a reduced contingent of staff working in security or custodial functions at civic buildings in the district of Chilliwack. Because of the hiring freeze that the district of Chilliwack has had to implement, it has meant that there are now fewer public works employees available to respond to public needs -- for example, urgent snow-clearing requirements when the weather brings us some heavy snowfalls. There are also fewer building inspectors. This means that there are longer waits for building permits to get approved. This will impact the provincial treasury, because the slower the construction process, the longer the government will have to wait for revenue generated from taxation on the sale of properties, as well as from the income earned by people working on those projects.

Finally, the district of Chilliwack had to reduce their grants-in-aid to community groups, as had been feared. As I previously stated, there are a great many community groups that rely mostly on volunteer labour but do need some funding to get by on a year-to-year basis, and they are now seeing that their grants are being reduced, after being frozen for many years.

There have been other implications, perhaps some not as serious as others, within the very offices that are staffed by district-of-Chilliwack employees. I am told that the number of faxes and photocopiers has been reduced and that they've had to go to outsourcing of several services. I believe that's another way of saying contracting-out. Again, I think this government might be surprised to learn that because of its actions, trade union members are losing out on employment opportunities as the district of Chilliwack is forced to consider expanding contracting-out in order to meet budgetary requirements.

This government, in its most recent budget, proclaimed that there were no tax increases for the people of British Columbia under this government. However, because of this off-loading onto municipalities, the district of Chilliwack has had to raise a whole number of fees in an attempt to make up the more than $1 million shortfall. For example, development fees have been increased, recreation fees have been increased, and fees to burn certain materials have also been increased. Any person requiring those types of permits or services are certainly going to feel as though their taxes have gone up, because at the end of the day they will have less money in their pocket. It once again shows that the government has been less than forthright in how it has presented the financial state of the province to the taxpayers.

At present, the district of Chilliwack is coping and, I would say, probably reeling with the extra burden imposed on it by the Attorney General. That burden is the extra $375,000 a year that the district of Chilliwack will have to "voluntarily" contribute in order to maintain the existing court services in our area. The district of Chilliwack has had a Supreme Court service since 1884, when Mr. Matthew Begbie, also known as the hanging judge, first sat in Chilliwack in the Supreme Court. Ten years later the first actual courthouse was built in 

[ Page 2720 ]

Chilliwack, and that opened in the fall of 1894. Yet in February of this year, this government unilaterally announced, without any consultation, that they were going to remove all court services from the upper Fraser Valley.

After a community protest was organized, the government then said to the district of Chilliwack: "You can continue to have court services available to the poor and the most vulnerable, but only if the taxpayers pay $375,000 a year extra for services they've already paid for through their provincial taxes." When you calculate all of that together -- the extra cost associated with the court services, as extracted by the Attorney General under threat of closure of the courthouse -- and when you add that figure to the grant reductions, the extra burden that this provincial government has placed on the district of Chilliwack is close to $1.5 million. That all came without any consultation and without any warning, again contrary to the protocol signed last September at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in Penticton. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the future, the various mayors decide that perhaps they had better not enter into any more protocols with this government for fear of what could happen to them next.

I'll turn my attention now to sections 18 through 22 of Bill 2, particularly those provisions that purport to authorize an increase in tax on propane.

My office has received numerous letters and phone calls from those people who converted their vehicles to this alternate fuel source in hope of (1) helping the environment and (2) reducing their fuel costs. It's difficult to expect people to do something strictly out of the goodness of their heart if it's going to cost them more, and that was the rationale years ago for not having this extra tax on propane. The people who have invested -- in some cases thousands of dollars -- in their vehicle fleets, in converting them to propane fuel, now feel that they have been led astray by this government. They will have little option but to pay this extra tax of 2.2 cents per litre of fuel. Under Bill 2, that tax is set to come into force on June 1 of this year.

I heard the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove speaking earlier, and I thought he made a very good point that the Fraser Valley has some of the worst air pollution in Canada. In fact, we rate right up there with the rest of North America in terms of being one of the top areas for air pollution. In fact, when it comes to respiratory illness, the Fraser Valley has one of the highest incidences of respiratory illness in all of North America.

It's astounding to me that this government would take an action that can only be seen to result in an increase in higher-polluting fuels rather than encouraging individuals to consider lower-polluting fuels for their vehicles. This is clearly a retrograde step. It is not supported by the people in my part of the province, and it is one of the major reasons why I will be forced to vote against Bill 2 when this bill comes to a vote in second reading.

That concludes my remarks. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to express myself on behalf of the constituents of Chilliwack. I believe that my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head would like to make a few remarks.

[3:30]

I. Chong: Contained within Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, are several amendments intended to provide language consistent with other various pieces of legislation, which I do not foresee as a problem.

However, there are some rather significant amendments which are noteworthy, and which I will not allow to proceed unchallenged. I realize that many members on this side of the House have already spoken to some of these changes, but they are so important that they demand our attention yet again. As one of only two members in opposition who represents a riding in the capital region, it is my duty to speak on behalf of all the constituents who are now being ignored by the members for Victoria-Hillside, Victoria-Beacon Hill, Esquimalt-Metchosin, Malahat-Juan de Fuca and, of course, Saanich South.

One of the proposed amendments deals with the Assessment Authority Act. This change would allow a downloading of certain costs of appeals to the B.C. Assessment Authority, which are normally funded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If the B.C. Assessment Authority must now include these costs in its budget, then who are they going to target to recover these costs? Well, it shouldn't surprise anyone, of course. It will be the taxpayers, who will see an increase in their property taxes.

You have to wonder why the B.C. Assessment Authority is not complaining, is not outraged, and is not pointing out this government's fiscal mismanagement. I suppose they're not complaining, because the appointees to the board of the B.C. Assessment Authority are primarily friends of the NDP. Isn't that a surprise!

All changes should be subject to some form of accountability, and throughout this bill we see that there is very little accountability. In February of 1995 a confidential Treasury Board memo indicated that B.C.'s debt has been growing at an "unsustainable rate." The memo from Treasury Board also states that even with ten years of surplus, the overall provincial debt will not drop. Who is listening?

We know that the former Finance minister and the current Finance minister ignored this memo insofar as they did not recognize it publicly. Instead, the Finance minister is attempting to privately heed this warning by imposing their cost on municipalities. One painfully clear fact is that the NDP's solution to red ink is to pass their fiscal problems and fiscal ineptitude on to municipalities, so now we have Bill 2 with all these amendments.

Municipalities will be facing a cutback of 28 percent overall, so I would like to share with the members opposite what that means in real dollars for this region. For the city of Victoria there is going to be a shortage of $2.6 million, of which $1.1 million is the amount the province is no longer paying out as grant money in lieu of taxes for the Legislature and Government House on Rockland. How is it that this government can refuse to pay its fair share of property taxes? I guess it's because this government lives by the statement made by the Minister of Forests that this government can do whatever it wants.

I would like to look further at the other municipalities in this region. The district of Oak Bay, one of the municipalities that I represent, will be faced with a $461,000 cutback. But I'm sure they're going to manage that; there are fiscal managers on that council. And for Esquimalt, there is a $410,000 reduction that could amount to a 5 percent property tax increase. So why is the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin so silent on behalf of his constituents?

An Hon. Member: Who's going to speak for Esquimalt?

I. Chong: I don't know who's going to speak for Esquimalt, but I would like the hon. member to know that I know what the reduction is. Allow me to carry on.

[ Page 2721 ]

For the district of Saanich there is going to be a reduction of $2 million. I believe that to be the first hit. I expect that this government will change legislation once again to allow for the redesignation of roads as regional roads, and off-loading of costs will occur at the municipal level.

For the benefit of those following these proceedings and this debate, I think it's incumbent on me to continue with the statistics for this region.

An Hon. Member: The member from Esquimalt is listening.

I. Chong: Well, I'm glad he's finally listening, because he just missed his $410,000 reduction.

The town of Sidney is going to lose $214,000; Central Saanich, $232,000; North Saanich, $122,000; Colwood, $400,000 in provincial cuts plus another $66,000 from Royal Roads University; Langford, $150,000; View Royal, $38,000. These are all in the capital region, and who on the other side of the House is speaking up on behalf of these municipalities?

What will these cuts do? They will affect programs such as the young offender's program, the crime prevention liaison program, a community youth centre slated for Colwood, a safety watch program and, of course, community grants and arts grants.

Elected municipal officers just want to be treated with a little bit of fairness and respect, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs has failed to follow through on either policy or process. What is so extremely offensive is the lack of process. What do we mean by process? All we're talking about is the promise of consultation, a promise that isn't hard to keep, provided there is a willingness on the other side to do so. Don't continue to insult; start to consult.

Over the years, we have seen unilateral actions on behalf of this NDP government, and they have shown clearly that there is no willingness on the part of this government to act responsibly. How else would one define the breach of the Local Government Grants Act, except to say that it is a betrayal of trust? The Local Government Grants Act was an act -- and you've heard it all before -- that was to provide certainty, stability and predictability to municipalities. For this government, those are just words without meaning.

When the revenue-sharing grant was terminated in 1994 and there was $250 million owed to the local governments, it was scooped up by this government. Why didn't the municipalities complain vociferously? It was because the NDP introduced the Local Government Grants Act, which promised to provide stability, certainty and predictability. The intent of the act was to have changes in local government transfers limited to plus or minus 2 percent, depending on economic growth in any given year. With the proposed amendments to Bill 2, we're now looking at decreases of transfers of up to 28 percent, a far cry from 2 percent. Two percent, 28 percent -- move the decimal. I guess that's manipulative accounting on the part of the government. I don't think the people in this province, the people in my constituency or the people in the capital region are impressed by that kind of accounting.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The NDP must realize that part of these grants, these municipal transfers, are provided to local governments in exchange for their assuming responsibility for certain functions such as roads and solid waste management. It's too bad that local government can't off-load those responsibilities back to the province when it decides it no longer wants to deal with them.

It is shocking when local government cannot trust Big Brother. How can taxpayers believe Big Brother is telling them the truth when it cannot keep its promises? After all, we all know -- and you've heard this all before -- that 75 percent of all British Columbians believe that this government did not tell the truth when it got elected.

This government sadly believes it can do anything it wants. Is that truly the message that members opposite want to portray to their municipalities? I hope not. This government made certain promises to get elected, so why shouldn't taxpayers expect them to deliver? You made those promises. Instead, we have a Finance minister who proclaims on the front page of the Province: "I Don't Expect You to Believe Me." Well, I don't. So why do we believe that this is where the cuts will end? After all, with the budget speech Thirteen days later, I believe, there was a $500 million debt error. Last year it only took two days to determine that the surplus became a deficit.

The budget also refused to talk about building schools and hospitals. All it talked about was freezing. Raiding ICBC wasn't mentioned, but we know that's coming. And there's not so much as an apology to the people of this province, because if you apologize perhaps they will accept that you cannot keep a promise. Isn't that strange. What we have are excuses that are political election rhetoric. This government lacks integrity, and that is evident in the budget and throne speeches.

I think it's fair to state, though, that no one likes federal cutbacks. No one likes them, I agree. So what is it that you do? You, being government, are supposed to find solutions. You are supposed to look for other ways of reforming government. But what do you do instead? You decide to download onto municipalities.

In the 1996 throne speech the Premier said: "The need for change must be tempered by the need for stability." Well, I haven't seen any temperance, not on behalf of the. . .

An Hon. Member: Nor stability.

I. Chong: That's true. Nor stability.

But I want to go back even further. In the budget speech of April 28, 1996, the former member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head stated that there would be a surplus and that they would be reducing government debt, neither of which occurred. And they stated further in their budget speech that federal funding for British Columbia was being reduced by $435 million for the year 1996-97 and would further decline over the next three years. So in other words, this government knew that there was a current year cutback and a further three-year cutback that they were going to have to deal with. But our municipalities have not been given the benefit of that kind of advance warning.

Also in the budget speech of 1996 -- and I'll quote the Finance minister at the time: "Ottawa chose these cuts to people instead of choosing to eliminate corporate tax loopholes and business subsidies as we had urged them to do." And she said: "I repeat: our government will not pass on these cuts to British Columbians." Well, that was in April of 1996. In June of 1996 the current Finance minister said: "The Premier made a commitment that an NDP government would re-introduce the April budget and make it law." So we were 

[ Page 2722 ]

promised in April that you wouldn't pass on these cutbacks. Then you were elected, and subsequent to your election, the new Finance minister said: "We are going to keep that commitment." What are we talking about today? Why is the Local Government Grants Act being amended?

[3:45]

Everyone believes that in order to have democracy, we have to have dialogue. So where is the dialogue? Municipalities are calling. They're asking us to represent them because their members are not standing up and speaking on their behalf. There is neither confidence nor optimism for British Columbians today. And that's a shame, because they expected better of this government, because this government said it could do better.

Further to the budget speech in June of 1996, delivered by the current Finance minister: "At a time when so many provinces are slashing, at a time when Ottawa is dismantling so much of what we have built together, one province is showing all of Canada that there is another way: our province, British Columbia." Well, I don't believe it has shown any other way. It's shown the same way, or it's followed the same way. So I implore the Finance minister to reread his budget speech of last year to see that. If, in fact, he has made a mistake, then perhaps he will apologize to the people of this province.

The KPMG study of provincial-local transfers was recently released. It was commissioned by the UBCM, which I believe we all have a fair amount of respect for. That report stated that there should be a more detailed examination of local-provincial relations, and in that way, perhaps, we can find solutions that are not constantly downloading.

There is a need for a framework to develop fair and equitable financing of transfer policies. Specifically, we need to discuss tax concessions to the province and the inequity that exists in property taxes for hospitals, schools, universities, colleges, provincial prisons, provincial government buildings, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit and B.C. Pavilion Corporation. In some cases they are grants-in-lieu; in some, not. Some are relative to market values; others are not. Clearly, there is inconsistency, and the report highlights the fact that there is a need for consistency.

I am concerned that the members representing Victoria are not speaking out on behalf of the loss of their $1.1 million grant. I believe it's gone down to $100,000, and that's a far cry from the required costs that that municipality has in terms of maintenance. This government should be talking with local governments. It should be establishing, where it can, responsibilities between provincial and local governments.

I would like to speak a little further about the proposed changes in Bill 2 to the propane tax. I know a number of other members have spoken about that. I know that the members opposite have a commitment to the environment -- or they say they have a commitment; I shouldn't say that I know they have a commitment. So I have to ask why previous Ministers of Environment haven't asked that their ministry look at supporting a clean-air initiative by converting their provincial fleet. That would be the first step. Good-quality conversion is available. Therefore the propane tax It is cleaner and safer; reduces the greenhouse gases and emissions, which we're also concerned about; and will, in fact, be a benefit to all of us here in the province. What offends environmental values is the fact that we do not promote alternative fuels.

Interjection.

I. Chong: They don't. I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction, member. This government does not promote alternative fuels and that offends environmental values.

We have received a natural gas exemption for three years, ending December 31, 1999. That ordinarily would be enough, one would expect. But again, that's only three years. How does that provide stability?

Interjection.

I. Chong: Possibly, possibly. Propane should be exempt for the same three years, or as long as other alternative fuels are exempt. Again, people are looking for a bit of fairness, for consistency. They're not receiving it, and they're not hearing anything from the members opposite as to why. They deserve that explanation.

I hear the members opposite beginning to awaken -- just at the time I'm going to conclude, unfortunately. If this government would like us to work with them and the municipalities in the future, I do want to suggest that we engage in a consultative process, that they look for solutions and truly try to reform government, because the passing of the buck is going to have to stop somewhere -- and it's going to have to stop here.

K. Whittred: Three years ago local governments were promised stability, certainty and predictability in revenue sharing with the provincial government. Six months ago municipalities were informed of an average 30 percent cut -- a far cry from the maximum 2 percent cut in grants as prescribed by legislation. Some stability. Some certainty. Some predictability. This off-loading of responsibility is yet another example of this government off-loading its responsibility to someone else.

But today I would like to talk of another off-loading that this government is indulging in. I refer to the off-loading we have seen this past week: refusing, in its responsibility to govern the whole province and all the citizens of this province, to make a decision -- or non-decision -- around the Lions Gate Bridge. After four years of theoretical consultation, we are right back where we started: calling for proposals.

Let's start for a moment with consultation. In the press release, the minister said: "We have asked local governments, the Squamish nation, the regional district and the Vancouver parks board to join us in developing our proposal call." This, according to the mayors of the North Shore, is the first word they have heard in four years. The local municipalities of the North Shore have been completely disregarded in terms of any kind of consultation process -- if, in fact, there has been one. The municipalities of North Vancouver and the elected representatives have been in a position to constantly be responding to rumours. That, I suggest, is an abrogation of responsibility, and to call for it at this late date is nothing short of simply denying the government's responsibility to make a decision.

The second area I would like to focus on for a moment is what I will call "focus." For anyone who has been around this issue for any length of time -- which, for anyone who has anything to do with the North Shore, is all their life -- will know that this is about transportation. Yet the criteria that are outlined have very little to do with transportation.

In her press release, the minister spoke of this being a complex issue. It is undoubtedly a complex issue. It involves a number of things: transportation, environment, a major park 

[ Page 2723 ]

that is of utmost importance to this province, transit, and undoubtedly other things. However, when we look at the conditions that have been placed on this, we see that transportation takes a back seat to all these other issues. The decision surrounding this announcement, I suggest, has put transportation -- and has put the very fact that we are talking of an aging structure that must be replaced -- somewhere down the list behind reducing traffic in the West End. The agenda here has been commandeered.

If I review some of these conditions, I see that one condition is that it must reduce traffic in the West End. I see that another condition is that it must have no environmental impact on Stanley Park. I am further reading from the literature. It goes on to say that it must reduce traffic on the causeway yet have no detrimental effect on Stanley Park, provide benefits for public transit and include a plan to reduce traffic impacts in the West End. How do we do that and still cross the inlet?

An Hon. Member: The NDP think they can walk on top of the water.

K. Whittred: I was going to suggest that it makes it sound as though the people of the North Shore -- and I acknowledge that we are very, very smart people -- are going to have to walk across that inlet in order to meet all of these conditions. It is, quite frankly, an almost impossible task.

I further suggest that in examining the complexity of the issue, the look at the bridge as an aging structure has simply been forgotten. Very much a part of the announcement was that this bridge is going to have to be tolled. This, I suggest, is discriminatory against the residents of the North Shore and is again a way of downloading responsibility on other levels of government and on the taxpayers.

I would like to speak for just a moment on the impact of tolls on business. This is economy. First of all, we will talk about small business. Last year we had a major repair on the other bridge, and we saw -- because of the idiosyncracies, I suppose, of the traffic patterns in North Vancouver -- an almost impossible, idiotic situation where you could not move from east to west in North Vancouver. One of the outcomes of this was that many, many small businesses in fact went under. They could not continue to operate, they could not get supplies, they could not get deliveries; they simply had to close their doors.

What do you think is going to become of small businesses in North Vancouver, where the very lifeblood of the community is small business? If suppliers have to pay a toll of $4 to deliver a part to repair a car, for example, what is going to happen to that business? Someone has suggested they can use the Second Narrows. Yes, perhaps. But what is going to happen to traffic at the other end if only 10 percent of the cars that use the Lions Gate do that? That would be 7,000 cars a day.

[4:00]

The second area that is very much affected is, of course, big business. The North Shore is home to half of the area that we know of as the port of Vancouver. This is vital to not only the economy of the North Shore but to the economy of the entire province. Last week or the week before I had the pleasure to tour one of the major piers that ship lumber. I saw for the first time in my life what we call J-grade lumber being shipped. I was told that when the transportation systems were so botched up with the repair last year, it cost those companies hundreds of thousands of dollars for delays in their trucks moving in and out to get the lumber in and the product out. So those are some of the impacts that we see.

Interjection.

K. Whittred: The minister opposite is talking about the $70 million. Yes, $70 million is a lot of money. I must point out that the $70 million does nothing more than repair the bridge. Again, that is a government responsibility. It is a government responsibility to maintain the transportation routes of this province. The fact that that bridge is 50 years old and needs a new deck is the government's responsibility. Seventy million does not get any more than a resurface and a paint job.

Interjection.

K. Whittred: It's being pointed out to me that they think this does not have anything to do with Bill 2. I think there is a relationship, because we are talking about off-loading of responsibility, and in Bill 2 this is what we see. We see the government taking from the municipalities that which is expected from the government.

Municipalities have to scramble. In the municipalities that I represent, we see many, many programs -- most of these cultural programs: multicultural programs, art programs and so on -- which are being cut, or at least reduced, because municipal governments have to find savings.

The other off-loading that has greatly affected the North Shore, of course, is Bill 55, the railroad assessment tax. This has affected the district of North Vancouver to the tune of about $800,000, I believe, and the city to about $200,000, for a total of about $1 million. This is in addition to the expenditures which were taken out of the grants.

I will conclude my remarks by once again pointing out that this bill is a blatant example of a government not accepting the responsibilities that it was mandated to accept.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak to Bill 2, and I'd like to start by reading a letter from the corporation of the city of Vernon. The letter is written by Mr. Wayne McGrath, the mayor of Vernon.

"Dear Premier:

"Vernon city council supports the position taken by the UBCM urging the provincial government to take back the cuts imposed upon municipalities earlier this year. The reduction in revenue-sharing grants has dramatically affected the city budget, and has resulted in the layoff of 12 employees. The layoffs include CUPE Local 626 members, firefighters and a management employee. As you can imagine, the decision by council to lay off this number of employees was not reached without a great deal of deliberation and debate. The real impact of the cuts to the city's budget, however, can only be appreciated by hearing from the employees who no longer have a job with the city.

"While city council recognizes that the federal government's cutbacks have severely impacted on the provincial budget, the provincial budget should also recognize that municipalities have no options other than to cut services and jobs, or to increase taxes. As the provincial government is aware, taxpayers have made it very clear that increased taxation is not an option."

As the provincial budget is debated at this time, we would ask you to consider the position of municipalities such as the city of Vernon, and the impact the provincial government cutbacks are having on our employees and citizens."

When we look at the circumstance in Vernon specifically, we're looking at what is called downloading -- a computer term for many, but a nightmare for local governments. In its 

[ Page 2724 ]

effort to streamline costs and balance the provincial government, this Premier's government has downloaded fiscal responsibility to municipalities in the form of a cut of $113 million. This has been done under the provision of the 1994 Local Government Grants Act. Not only has this created hardship for municipalities who, unlike other levels of government, are forced by legislation to bring in balanced budgets -- something this government knows scarce about -- but it is also a breach of the legislation that this government has passed, and this legislation prohibits cuts or increases of greater than 2 percent.

Medium- and large-sized communities have been hit the hardest. For example, Vernon lost 41 percent of its funding; Salmon Arm lost 43 percent; Whistler, 79 percent; Kamloops, 55 percent; and the city of Vancouver, 74 percent. This, of course, is before the addition of the highways amount that was later included. This translates into a very real problem for places the size of Vernon. For instance, our council must balance its budget while taking in account a drop of over $500,000 in funding from provincial coffers.

As if this hardship were not enough, this controversy regarding our policing funding also came up at the same time, and will lead to even greater difficulties where we are trying to find the additional costs for four policemen to police the recently annexed area of Okanagan Landing. In 1993 the boundaries of Vernon expanded as a result of the amalgamation with the landing, and Robin Blencoe, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, outlined areas in which the province would assist the city in its effort to handle additional costs. In a letter to the city of Vernon, the minister stated that Okanagan Landing were annexed, the Ministry of Attorney General would provide a five-year holiday from additional police costs occasioned by the annexation.

Well, the holiday ran out. Although five years have not passed, the city has been forced to add an additional $480,000 loss from revenue to an already tight budget year. Such downloading has become a trend. For example, municipalities are now responsible for maintaining secondary highways which formerly fell under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Unfortunately, in areas where such roads experience heavy travel, such as those leading to provincial parks and those leading to major attractions like the Revelstoke dam, the maintenance of those roads must now be done by local government. Go figure.

There are a multitude of other areas where municipalities and regional districts are losing out on promised funding. Every summer it becomes painfully obvious that funding for the control of Eurasian milfoil has not been maintained -- a large problem in Vernon, in addition to the Shuswap, as our member here has many times said. Government promises have largely gone by the wayside, and milfoil remains a serious environmental hazard in our area.

The program to control knapweed on Crown rights-of-way -- the areas alongside roadsides -- has been cut, as has the economic development function of regional districts. Or how about the unfair cut to the downtown revitalization program? This is one of my favourite NDP cuts. This was a low-cost program funded by lotteries, not by taxes. Nevertheless, this government sacrificed this in the name of provincial restraint. It never owned it. It took the money away, and stopped downtown revitalization in important areas in the interior, and it's wrong.

I'm often asked if the B.C. Liberal Party has a better answer. Indeed there were alternatives to the cutbacks outlined above -- for example, a community charter. The proposal in the election policy manual, available in every library, has an example of maintaining current funding levels but allowing 75 percent of all traffic violations collected to remain in the community in a bid to offset policing costs. In the 1993-94 fiscal year this would have meant an additional $56 million in revenues for municipalities -- almost half of the amount cut by the NDP government.

Vernon must presently lobby the Attorney General's office in an effort to reinstate funding for the four policemen promised by Mr. Blencoe several years ago. Faced with population growth and now-finished amalgamation, Vernon needs to maintain its level of policing now more than ever before. The municipality should not have to bear the brunt of broken promises over and over again. Downloading responsibilities are a nightmare for local government, who are doing everything possible to balance their budgets, keep taxation down and maintain services -- an absolutely impossible task for anyone who is working in municipal government.

One of the real problems with the downloading that has occurred to municipalities is that there is no certainty for municipalities. There is no predictability for municipalities. I have not gone into one community where anyone was doing long-term planning. There is no such thing in British Columbia anymore, because municipalities have no guarantee, beyond this year's budget, that there will be any money left for them to do anything of significance on a two-, four-, five- or ten-year plan. That kind of thing has been thrown out the window by this government, and they should be ashamed of themselves for not allowing growing municipalities like Vernon to have that luxury.

I want to read some of the interesting quotes made by government in 1994 when looking at the original Bill 20. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs was quoted in Hansard:

"The review of local government transfers, which we completed in September 1993 with a joint provincial-UBCM working group, led to the development of a new act. Bill 20 is 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 are asking for in their relationship with the provincial government."

I think they found what they now accept as the truth, and the truth is that there is no predictability, reliability or ability to long-term plan at all with this government.

[4:15]

Another quote from the then minister:

"This year we revamped the revenue-sharing program to ensure stability and predictability."

There are those nasty words again.

"Bill 20 is still under debate, so I want to say a few words. . .that bear on the estimates here. The Finance minister introduced the new Local Government Grants Act in the budget speech. This legislation will replace a program that has become unrealistic and unworkable. It was ineffective because it didn't deliver certainty and predictability that local governments have requested for some years and desperately need.

"The new act, developed through consultation" -- there's another good NDP word -- "with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, creates a new funding framework for provincial support to local governments. It establishes a municipal general grant base with a formula-driven adjustment to respond to changes in the economy.

"A key feature" -- I like this one -- "of the new act is an innovative clause that commits the government" -- there are some of us who would commit the government, but that's in another life -- "to an annual consultation with the UBCM on grant administration and a thorough review of municipal general grant support every five years."

Well, we haven't got to five years by a long shot, and we've already broken what was the law in terms of the legisla-

[ Page 2725 ]

tion. "In this way," the minister goes on to say, "consultation with municipal governments will become law." We've seen how good that law was in terms of its elasticity, reliability and longevity. It's lasted from 1994 to now, and municipalities were consulted pretty well at the same time they were having their provisional budgets in, which in any person's language, in any terminology, is not defined as consultation. "The baseline for the municipal general grant preserves the funding level of the old unconditional grant to ensure that essential local services will still be provided and communities will be able to maintain their stability." Well, that's not what we see for the medium- and large-sized communities that I have mentioned: Vernon, a 41 percent loss of funding from the NDP government; Salmon Arm, a 43 percent loss of funding from the NDP government; Whistler, an 80 percent loss of funding; Kamloops, 55 percent; and the city of Vancouver, 74 percent. These are losses of provincial revenue to the municipalities by this wonderful law that this government introduced in order to give the UBCM a way that consultation with them, in each municipality, would be law before the amount given to them at that level could be changed.

Hon. Speaker, it's a very unfortunate circumstance to find this Minister of Municipal Affairs stand up -- or the now Premier, who previously stood up -- and call grants to municipalities a guaranteed increase. I think one of the hardest tasks for this government to overcome will be the loss of face of each MLA in a medium- or large-sized community who has to go back to their community and explain with lies, darn lies or statistics -- whatever the phrase can be -- what they're going to explain to their local municipalities in terms of what happened in Bill 20 and what happened in Bill 2, in order for that money to somehow disappear, evaporate, be nuked and totally gone to the municipalities from where it was procured. It's supposed to go back to them. They deserve it. It's money raised in those areas. And this government is taking that money because it can't balance the books, it can't balance the budget, it can't run a province.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This bill affects two municipalities in my riding of Okanagan East: the city of Kelowna, which I share with the riding of Okanagan West; and the newly formed municipality of the district of Lake Country.

This change in transfer payments stated in Bill 2 has affected both municipalities, even though their percentages are somewhat different. Kelowna, for example, has a 42 percent reduction, totalling $2.2 million, and the district of Lake Country has an 18 percent reduction, totalling around $75,000. Both have the task of determining whether to raise taxes by 3.5 percent or cut services. This is currently being decided at this time.

Lake Country has had a lesser percentage impact, but as a new community, just incorporated in May 1995, this current decision by the NDP has left them very concerned about whose side this government is really on.

The district of Lake Country is comprised of Winfield, Oyama, Okanagan Centre and Carr's Landing. Its current population is around 9,000 people. It's bounded on the north by the regional district of North Okanagan and the city of Vernon, on the east by large tracts of Crown land, on the south by a partially serviced city of Kelowna industrial park and the populated Indian reserve No. 7, and on the west by Okanagan Lake.

Rapid growth in this area has created huge demands for services on this new municipality. One of the major concerns identified by their official community plan is a new sewer system. They've limited the sewer system to an urban containment area, and it's currently under design.

In the past, municipalities relied on a certain level of provincial funding: an opportunity to get some of the taxes collected by municipalities back into the community, and an opportunity for municipalities outside the lower mainland to feel they are getting a share of the taxes collected. Because municipalities have only one source of taxation available to them under statute, grants in the past have provided a stable and predictable revenue source. Well, Bill 2 changes all that. It changes the grant structure, removing stability and the predictable revenue source. This is another form of downloading from the province to the local taxpayers, taking the heat off the provincial government and putting it onto local governments.

In a town hall meeting on March 25, the district of Lake Country discussed the options for making up this shortfall. They thought that by either reducing service levels, increasing taxes, increasing user-pay functions that are self-liquidating, increasing sales of services or becoming more innovative and creative they could resolve their problems.

At that meeting, as well, a report on the impact of the grant cuts was discussed, and I'd like to quote from that report:

"Further to this downloading, the province is cutting several grant programs which will further the tax burden to local taxpayers and/or eliminate local services. These programs include police transition assistance, secondary highway grants, independent police equalization, downtown revitalization and grants in lieu of taxes for some provincial institutions. As well, certain arterial highways will be declassified as local government highways. Thus, maintenance and bylaw enforcement will become a local responsibility.

"The provincial cuts have been applied without the promised consultation with municipalities and are a classic case of downloading. They were delivered unilaterally, and specific municipal circumstances were not considered. This cut compounds the impacts already identified from the provincial government action to give property tax breaks to major railways, to eliminate services that were available in many communities and to cancel valued programs, all on the backs of local taxpayers.

"Further, no consideration was given to the soft costs of the cuts -- i.e., job losses, increased crime, increased tax burden and loss of valued services. Core services such as fire and police, sewage and garbage disposal, road maintenance, drinking water, parks and recreation are jeopardized by these arbitrary provincial cuts. The provincial decisions were all delivered without sufficient notice to communities."

The district of Lake Country is a new municipality requiring help and special consideration. This is not a time to pull the rug out from under them. They're also realizing some of the indirect downloading costs such as wildlife suppression. Originally this was covered by Forestry. If a fire should occur in Lake Country, it could add up to $30,000 to $40,000 to their budgets.

There have been a number of references by this government to commitment. The throne speech refers to it: commitment to health, commitment to education. Well, commitment has become a very empty word, particularly to the citizens of Kelowna. In 1973 the NDP government of Premier Dave Barrett, without consultation, forced the city of Kelowna to amalgamate with several outlying communities, enlarging the city from eight square miles to 88 square miles. The NDP government at that time made the commitment to pay for the maintenance of 160 kilometres of rural roads. They are now withdrawing this commitment.

Kelowna, because of their excellent planning over the years and because they have positioned themselves with some 

[ Page 2726 ]

flexibility built into their budgeting process, will still have an increase of 3 to 31/2 percent in taxes this year, only because they've got the reserves in place and they have the ability to tighten up other areas in their budget. They will not be cutting services, but they will be increasing user fees and increasing revenues in other areas. They have cut staff. They didn't fill six vacant positions and they laid off one individual. But in actuality, because a user fee is really a tax, the actual tax increase will be 5 to 5-1/2 percent this year to account for this downloading -- the cost of inflation just to maintain these services. So the administration is very, very concerned for next year, when the true impact of the downloading will take place. This year there was enough flexibility to absorb these increases.

The province has walked away from an amalgamation agreement with the city of Kelowna. This commitment is further aggravated by the fact that rural roads are servicing ALR lands, an NDP policy which has had far-reaching impacts. Kelowna is looking for a level playing field. Kamloops was given the opportunity to negotiate their way out of their amalgamation agreement. Kelowna would like the same consideration. They would like the opportunity to discuss with the province the takeover in 1998 of rural roads. They would like this government to live up to their original commitment of 1973. The city of Kelowna should receive the same treatment as the city of Kamloops if the rural roads become their responsibility. There should be a lump sum payment for the maintenance of these roads. Or are we just going to continue the saga of one broken promise after another?

This government continues to hang their fiscal mismanagement on the federal government. I would like to quote the conclusion from the analysis of intergovernmental transfers, written for the Union of British Columbia Municipalities:

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

"There will be a significant reduction -- 30 percent -- in federal transfers to the province over the next two years -- 1996-97 and 1997-98. This will be matched by a similar reduction -- 30 percent -- in transfers from the province to municipalities, but over only a one-year period. The province was given at least two years notice of the changes, municipalities were given one month. With respect to future transfer payments, municipalities will be treated more harshly by the province than the province will be treated by the federal government."

This government continues to have a huge impact on the municipalities of British Columbia. The NDP have created a situation where there's no obligation to provide grants in the future, there's no predictability and there's no certainty. By downloading their responsibilities, they have created a breach of trust.

What sort of a message is this government sending to the district of Lake Country, which after less than two years after incorporation, is having their funds cut? This level of downloading is further indication of the level of mismanagement this government has created -- $113 million worth of mismanagement. The timing of the announcement further supports the claim that this is an uncaring government. They were more concerned about the announcement of this downloading not impacting their NDP candidates in the last municipal election than about giving municipalities the time to respond. One must ask: whose side are the NDP on?

[4:30]

An Hon. Member: In the next election, the losing side.

J. Weisbeck: You better believe it.

Property taxes affect everyone in this province. The very people the NDP claim to protect are the ones most affected.

Interjection.

J. Weisbeck: Well, I have a challenge to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to challenge him to stand up at the next UBCM convention and defend the actions of his government. It is no wonder the public is so cynical about this government.

The impact of Bill 2 on my riding, like every other riding in British Columbia, is profound. The city of Kelowna, the district of Lake Country will have to work and ask their citizens to dig even deeper into their pockets for the debts created by this government. These types of bullying tactics not only destroy the lines of communication between governments but also, more particularly, destroy the faith of the people we are elected by and must be committed to serve. We live in a world of uncertainty, but this government has certainly made British Columbians aware that we live in a very uncertain time.

B. Barisoff: I would like to take this opportunity to express my thoughts regarding Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, which is now before the House. At the risk of repeating important points that have already been made by my fellow colleagues, I feel it's my duty, on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Boundary, to add my voice to those in opposition. The citizens of British Columbia elected 75 representatives from around this great province to listen to their concerns and to act on their behalf, to conduct ourselves with dignity, to provide good government and to bring constructive criticism to these chambers so that together we can accomplish the best that is possible. I have no reason to doubt that the hon. members on the opposite side do not share this obligation of trust.

I have to honestly say that these are difficult financial times, and we are all being asked to do more with less. Any government in power has to face enormous challenges. There is the necessity of maintaining a balance between sound fiscal management and a social conscience. There are some hard choices to be made, and there is no doubt that there will be some short-term pain in order to accomplish long-term gain. I'm sure that my colleagues and the hon. members across the House would agree with me. So recognizing these factors, I commend the government for taking the time to do some necessary housekeeping on many of the items in Bill 2 as they accomplish that.

I support some sections in the new bill. It improves disclosure relating to staff utilization and identifies all full-time-equivalents, as they are paid directly from the consolidated revenue fund. There are a number of items in Bill 2 which demonstrate an effort to simply put our house in order: standardizing appeal periods, equalizing the tobacco tax, increasing minimum refunds payable, and so on.

Where I have a problem, and it remains a little bit of Mary Poppins If you remember the song, a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down. Well, I'm afraid that there are some parts of Bill 2 which I cannot support with good conscience, because not only is the medicine too strong, but I honestly believe it's bordering on arsenic.

I'm primarily concerned about three areas, and I cannot in good conscience support them. The first one deals with the 

[ Page 2727 ]

motor fuel tax; in particular, the removal of the tax-exempt status from propane used by motor vehicles. The fuel becomes subject to a social service tax of approximately 2.2 cents on June 1, 1997. I would ask that the government reconsider this for the following good reason: the government promised no new taxes. This, in itself, is reason enough. We tell our kids that a promise is a promise, and I'm sure that the hon. members would agree that keeping that kind of trust is critical to our character and integrity.

The government has broken another promise. They have not only lost credibility with the taxpayers and voters of this province, but they are also so arrogant and arbitrary with their actions that they don't seem to realize how much they have eroded that trust. The government likes to play a game with words, with allusion and with clever manipulation, thinking that the people won't realize what they are up to. Just to support what I have said, no new taxes sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? It wouldn't be hard to misinterpret the intent there. This government has painted itself into a corner financially, but it has promised no new taxes. I repeat: no new taxes. However, they are desperate for revenue, due to poor fiscal management. So what do they do? They

An Hon. Member: How do you explain the best track record in the country?

B. Barisoff: I think it's going down. If the hon. member would look, I think we're going down.

No new taxes. They've increased anglers' fees; they've increased ambulance fees; and they've raised estimate fees, just to name a few things that are taking place. "Oh, but that's not taxes," they cry. Tell that to a taxpayer who has to take it out of his pocket. Webster's Dictionary defines taxes as payments imposed by and collected from individuals or business by the government. Now, that's taxes.

What do we think the taxpayers call these increases? I think the taxpayers call these increases taxes. Just what are they? I think they're a backdoor tax grab. I strongly urge this government to re-examine its actions in regard to the propane tax -- I repeat, tax -- just on the principles of trust and integrity alone.

One constituent writes from Prince George, from a taxicab holding company. May I quote what he put in the letter, hon. Speaker? He says:

"Should this proposed tax be put in place, many current users would revert back to gasoline, not by choice, but for strictly economic reasons. At one time the investments made to convert to propane, $1,200, could be recouped within an eight- to ten-month period of operation. With the current pricing -- in excess of $3,000 -- it now requires over two years of operation before you receive any return from your investment. A further increase in the cost of fuel, tax or otherwise, will expand that period beyond the life of the vehicle, and makes it unfeasible.

"The cost of a car conversion, coupled with the uncertainty of fuel costs, has effectively reduced the number of alternative-fuel vehicles operating within our fleet. We currently have 46 propane cars, eight CNG cars and eight cars operating on gasoline. All of the vehicles placed into service over the past months have stayed on gasoline."

That's what's happening. We're finding that this government, which proposes to look at environmental problems, is turning a blind eye on these by increasing the tax.

That's just one of many letters which clearly show the real world and how it operates. People have reached the wall in accepting taxes and fee increases. As I said before, I think fee increases are nothing more than a backdoor way of getting taxes. It all comes from one pocket, and a tax by any other name is still a tax.

There are other reasons to reconsider. As propane has many more environmental benefits, like natural gas and ethanol, it would be appropriate that propane consumers be treated similarly to other alternative-fuel consumers. It would have been prudent But mind you, with this government it's hard to say when they're prudent -- to use that famous word; I think I used it before. It would have been prudent and much more credible to advise a future phase-in tax program for all alternative fuels commencing at the same time.

I believe consumers realize that the status quo cannot remain indefinitely. But again, this kind of quick grab does little to restore the credibility of government. I think there's little

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I think we've really got to start looking at credibility. I think if the hon. member from the other side would think about that, we'd start thinking about what we're doing.

I received dozens and dozens of letters from propane suppliers and users around the province, pleading with us to oppose the tax on propane at this time. Many citizens describe the expense they had in going into conversions. Suppliers argue that a tax now would seriously impact the industry, reduce incentives and have a negative impact on small business -- and as we know, members from that side of the House aren't that concerned with small business in the province. He also suggested that if and when the tax revenue is realized, a fund should be established for propane-conversion incentives. A research and development fund should also be established to encourage new designs and the development of tomorrow's propane vehicles.

The industry itself would be willing to assist the government with administration of conversions and a propane-vehicle decal program. The industry is obviously willing to cooperate to solve problems. Together, they would like to be consulted and included in the problem-solving. I think the word "consulted" is important here, hon. Speaker, because sometimes the government members on the opposite side of the House forget that they should consult with the people of British Columbia when they do something.

This government is in the habit of treating British Columbians with contempt by continuing to take arbitrary actions without proper consultation. Nowhere is their lack of consultation or contempt for the voters more apparent than in the portion of Bill 2 which deals with the Local Government Grants Act.

[4:45]

R. Neufeld: What's the definition of "consultation?"

B. Barisoff: I think, hon. Speaker, that they should look up what the word "consultation" means.

Despite a protocol agreement signed in September of 1996, the NDP government has seen fit to slip in a provision here which will remove the obligation to pay unconditional grants to municipalities. I would just like to repeat that whole thing again: despite a protocol agreement signed in September of 1996, the NDP government has seen fit to slip in a provision here which will remove the obligation to pay unconditional grants to municipalities.

I hope they listened to that. It's a serious statement. It allows for unconditional grants to be granted by the ministry 

[ Page 2728 ]

in accordance with specific criteria as detailed or prescribed by regulation. I hope they're listening to that: prescribed by regulation. It's signed by the NDP government. In other words, this government can do what it wants -- which it seems to be continually demonstrating -- when it wants, how it wants. I think the other day we heard a minister say they can do what they want, when they want.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

This is another broken promise in a long series of broken promises. This government has

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth.

B. Barisoff: Tell the truth? I'm telling the truth about broken promises. If the hon. member would pay attention, there are many broken promises. I'm just naming a few. This government has no credibility with the municipalities of this province -- and I mean none, hon. Speaker, no credibility whatsoever.

It's true that the federal government has downloaded and cut grants to the province. It's true that this government has to find ways to do more with less. It's true that they shouldn't be expected to bear the burden alone, despite the fact that they were given considerable warning of those cuts in advance by the federal government. But what warning did they give the municipal governments in this province? Can the hon. members from the other side tell us what warning they gave to municipalities, that were worried about stability? Certainly the fact of impending cuts That's the kind of warning they got.

Prior to the municipal elections, they established a protocol agreement in order to alleviate fears of uncertainty in the municipal governments. That's what they said. They wanted to bring stability to municipalities, so they would have some idea how to plan their budgets. That doesn't seem like a very good way to me, hon. Speaker. After all, by legislation, municipalities have to balance their budgets. I wonder: are we having a balanced budget this year in the province?

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I was just going to check.

Unfortunately, the province does not set the example in balanced budgets. They expect the municipalities, the school boards and everybody else in this province to set balanced budgets, but they don't plan to do it themselves. Hon. Speaker, this is a disgrace.

Again, it sounds good; it feels good -- especially prior to an election. But what happens just a few months after the agreement? Just one example. The province tries to download various highways maintenance costs to municipal governments. Hon. Speaker, when you look around the province, there are many municipalities, and it's going to cost them an awful lot of money.

January 17, 1997, the Vancouver Sun wrote that the provincial government would review its controversial plan to download hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs. Government forgot to include the cost of maintaining 91 bridges and overpasses, 151 signal-controlled intersections, line painting, repairs, road widening, etc. The province did not adhere to a protocol agreement signed last September in which the province promised to discuss any serious financial issues with the municipalities before taking action. Did they do that, hon. Speaker? Do you see why the people of British Columbia do not trust this government? These are just a few examples of the mistrust that takes place with government.

I'm sorry, but I cannot stand here and support Bill 2 with respect to the local governments act provision. It's probably one of the worst pieces of legislation that we've seen. It will further erode the relationship of trust between the provincial and municipal governments -- the trust that has taken years to build.

I am confident that this government is poking a sleeping giant. When the giant rises, I am also sure that it will speak with a very loud voice. I think the municipalities will speak throughout the province. When this government wakes up When will we realize the importance of consultation? When will we realize the importance of working together, the importance of putting the problems on the table and allowing all parties to become part of the solution? With what we see done to the municipalities in this part, that hasn't been done. I'm afraid that power and arrogance are blinding many of the hon. members.

I would plead with this government, on behalf of all my constituents and in fact on behalf of all British Columbians -- because I think it's very serious -- to remove this provision from Bill 2. By granting themselves further power to act arbitrarily, they only serve to breach a trust and further destroy the credibility and integrity of this government.

This is further proof that confirms what the people are saying: that this government does what it wants and then attempts to legalize its actions after the fact. This government promised not to vary municipal grants by more than 2 percent in a given year. It broke that promise by cutting closer to 40 percent, or $113 million. Now it is trying to legitimize those actions by passing Bill 2.

R. Neufeld: Those are the financial wizards for you.

B. Barisoff: Real financial wizardry.

Hon. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot, with good conscience, defend any part of those components in that part of the bill. I am confident that my constituents won't support it, either, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. It's another sign of a desperate government taking desperate actions. It would seem that the failure of this government to manage its finances is resulting in the implementation of a knee-jerk reaction and ill-thought-out plans that are seriously affecting the credibility of all of us in this House and seriously affecting the whole province.

The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has said, in his own words:

"Good government is about providing leadership and planning for the future. We recognize that local governments play a vital role in maintaining prosperous, livable communities. Ministry staff work closely with locally elected officials across the province to ensure that every community has the tools, financial support and advice it needs to build a solid foundation for their future growth and prosperity."

I trust that the minister was speaking on behalf of his government. I hope he will back up those words with the appropriate action by eliminating that section of Bill 2. If he took that quote and re-read it -- and I hope the minister does -- he would take that part of Bill 2 out of the bill; that is, to amend Bill 2 with regards to the Local Government Grants Act, which seriously affects the municipalities in the province.

Before I close my remarks today, I must also express some serious reservations in regards to the provisions in section 38, 

[ Page 2729 ]

which will allow the recovery from ICBC by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for any expenditures, including improvements to highway safety. I listened to the member for Peace River North, and I heard all kinds of things about what takes place. When he mentioned a few things, I think the other side of the House should have listened. Members of my caucus mentioned a number of things about what takes place when you start side-shifting. Again, based on the record of this government, I'm worried that we may have the door opening here to start side-shifting expenditures. It seems to happen with everything we do. It goes from one side to the other, just to make the government look better.

ICBC is a Crown corporation and could be in danger of picking up more costs in order that the accounting picture for this government will look a little healthier to the public with respect to its expenditures. That's side-shifting in the worst way. I hope not. I hope the fears will not be realized in this regard, but sad to say, I think they might be.

This government needs to come clean with the people of British Columbia. It needs to disclose things as they really are and then enlist all British Columbians to take an active role in the solutions. Hon. Speaker, I think that's very important. If we all got together, we could make things happen. But some of the things that are happening in this bill do not work together with the municipalities or with any part of government.

The hon. members on the opposite side are fond of declaring their seat of power, but in truth, the voters of this province elected 75 members to represent them, not just half the House. I would suggest that this government listen to the voice of the people as represented by every member in this House. When you listen to this many members on this side of the House speaking against a portion of the bill, I think it's important for hon. members on that side of the House to listen and listen carefully.

I would suggest that if this government does not listen, if it continues to act without consultation and with arrogance, it will fail all of us -- and I mean all of us, because I think it's an honourable position, and we should be thinking about that. We won't achieve the very best that British Columbia can be. It's really important to think that we could do the best for British Columbia, and when you look at sections of Bill 2, hon. Speaker, they should be changed.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand and speak against Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. I know I will be here repeating many of the things that my fellow members have already stated. I think they're very important, and we should keep on repeating them and repeating them so the members opposite may, hopefully. . .

An Hon. Member: Maybe.

B. McKinnon: . . .maybe, just maybe, hear something that they're doing that is so detrimental to this province, and that is this implementation act.

This government is once again showing us that they don't have any vision for this province. The amount of downloading that they are giving municipalities is disgraceful.

An Hon. Member: It's only one-fifth of what you were going to do.

B. McKinnon: We haven't been government. We haven't downloaded at all on anybody, so the hon. member should just make note of that.

Not only are they shamefully downloading; these cuts are far in excess of the maximum 2 percent allowed for cuts under section 2. And now, because they have made these disgraceful cuts, what do they do? What are we here for? We're here speaking against a bill that we have to change because they don't listen to anybody; they just do everything that they want to do. "We can't disobey our own grants, so we have to bring in another bill so that we can take everything away from the municipalities." It's just another broken promise added to this government's already growing list of saying one thing and doing another.

[5:00]

Hon. Speaker, this government conveniently ignores how many free services the municipalities provide to the province that are not part of the downloading -- or they don't look at it as part of the downloading. When we add all of these free services to the cost of downloading, the burden to the municipalities becomes overwhelming. Do they give any thought to the taxpayers of this province? No. They all have tunnel vision, with one idea and one idea alone. That idea is to get as much off the books as possible, so the next time the budget comes around, they can only hope to look good to the taxpayers of this province.

Let's take a look at some of the services that municipalities provide to the province at little or no cost. Crown corporations, such as B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, pay only partial grants in lieu of taxes. We have our schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, fire and police protection, water and sewer services, road maintenance. These are all the services that the province receives from the municipalities.

Many provincial agencies also have services provided by the municipalities at a reduced cost or no cost at all, such as the election of school boards -- something I'm sure that this government is anxiously waiting to get rid of. Court overtime for the police is going to cost far more money for municipalities that have just had their courts taken away -- just another thing that this government has put very little thought into. We have the first-responder program provided by our fire departments, which helps the provincial government's ambulance services. That cost to municipalities is a huge amount of money. These subsidies total millions of dollars annually, and these are costs that municipalities provide to the province without a thank you.

Here are some examples of downloading to the city of Surrey, which is part of my riding. In 1997 -- that's this year -- a reduction of $5.3 million in provincial grants to the city was And that's an over 50 percent reduction in one year. Other downloading costs to the city have been through payroll deduction costs and GVRD allowances for the RCMP.

We can look at the downloading of provincial highways that will be dumped on Surrey in 1998. Surrey's share is about 130 kilometres of provincial highways. This will represent a download of $9 million a year and an additional $1.3 million in annual maintenance costs. These are provincial highways that this government and governments before have ignored and left in a disreputable condition, and now they want to download all this onto the city. That's what's going to happen next year. That will drive Surrey's deficit to nearly $11 million. Cessation of revenue-sharing grants for roadworks since 1995 is $1.5 million a year. There is a lack of provincial involvement in providing affordable social housing. That leaves the burden to Surrey to provide this needed accommodation. Surrey does not have the broad taxation authority or other vehicles for revenue generation that the province enjoys.

[ Page 2730 ]

These amendments strip away all of the stability, predictability and certainty that was promised in 1994. This government did not have the decency to work with local governments in making cuts that will affect them so deeply. This government has done the people of this province a disservice. As we have tried to tell you, we only have one taxpayer: the people who are being hurt by this government.

What will the city do? They're cutting grants to non-profit community groups, the small ones. User fees are going up, and when user fees go up, it is usually the children who get hurt or the single moms with little kids -- people who can least afford these user fees.

Did they consult anyone after signing the protocol for consultation? No, they didn't have the good manners to do so. Did the Attorney General consult with the communities before taking away the courthouses? No, but he's trying to tell us that he will next time. Well, I think that's a bit late. I doubt it; this government has their own agenda, and it certainly doesn't include consulting anyone in this province, as they have shown us over and over again.

Do you remember that in 1994 your government promised stability, certainty and predictability in return for the write-off of $250 million under the Revenue Sharing Act? How soon we forget. In September 1996 the Premier and the then Municipal Affairs minister signed a protocol on consultation with the UBCM. Do you remember that? Two months later the UBCM learned of the extent of the cuts in municipal transfers from the media on the same day the minister announced them. How shameful! On November 26, 1996, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs announced cuts averaging 30 percent across the province and up to 80 percent in given municipalities.

The amendments to the Local Government Grants Act strip away all of the stability, predictability and certainty that was promised. The remaining provisions determining grants provide the government with an entirely free hand in the matter. The grant, for example, could be set at zero and the municipalities would have no recourse. It's shameful! Communities of under 5,000 have been offered a temporary reprieve from the effect of these cuts as part of the NDP's divide-and-conquer strategy. Experience demonstrates that NDP promises, like the small communities protection grant, are worthless. Under Bill 2, the NDP will have a free hand to punish all municipalities, large and small. Large and small communities have suffered losses under the provision of the NDP's Bill 55, which provides breaks to railways at the expense of the municipalities.

We could look at it another way. We could put the provincial cuts in their proper perspective. Let's take their spin. The provincial government wants you to believe that it subsidizes local government $800 million a year. Well, the facts are that this $800 million is misleading. It includes programs that do not belong to local government. UBCM has reformatted the table produced by the province -- and I'm sure that they have sent it to all of you or let you read it, but I wonder if you have even bothered -- to clearly distinguish between actual cash transfers to local governments and other provincial programs.

For example, the $800 million figure includes emergency help, which is the provincial Ambulance Service controlled by the Ministry of Health. That's $116.3 million. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks contribution to the Fraser basin management program is $300,000. Programs that are not grants to local governments include the Police Academy, $1.6 million; policing in small and rural areas, $47.7 million; the Canada Assistance Plan, which is federal money that flows through the province to the municipalities, $2.8 million; the Fire Academy, $800,000; and most glaring, the capital and operating funds of B.C. Transit, $287.5 million.

Let's look at the spin the provincial government wants you to believe: the $113 million in cuts is only a small part of the money over $800 million. Well, the facts are that the estimates of the transfers to local government were under $300 million a year in 1995. The $113 million reductions are 30 percent of the total of what was received.

In the 1996-97 fiscal year local government will receive cash transfers of about $300 million. It is against this amount that the reductions could be measured. The impact of cutbacks can't be accommodated in the $500-plus million of other purported transfers, since this money never touches a municipal budget. The spin is the same as the previous one: the provincial government wants you to believe that $113 million in cuts is only a small part of the money, the over $800 million. The facts are that a 30 percent reduction is the overall one for all municipalities. The cuts to some reach 80 percent. And so the things that this government is doing go on and on, downloading to the municipalities.

I cannot support this bill, because it is disgraceful. I think they should take a look at it and be a government that is a government for the people, not for themselves. I think they should listen to some of the things that we have said on this side of the House, because some of them are really important and are affecting the real lives of people. But maybe they don't care. That's what I get from it all. This is a government that doesn't care about this province, and they're showing it by putting forth this bill.

M. Coell: I rise in the House today to speak on Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997. Much of this bill is housekeeping, I realize, but hidden way down inside is a knife in the back of municipal government. I had the pleasure of being a municipal politician for 12 years, prior to being elected to this House. I can tell you that municipal, provincial and federal governments function well when they respect and trust one another, and when they work together for the benefit of the citizens of Canada, British Columbia and our individual municipalities.

This bill breaks that trust. It breaks the trust that had been built up for many, many years between provincial and municipal governments. The trust that was signed a year or so ago in a protocol, which would have guaranteed municipal government security of access to provincial funds, is being broken by this bill. I think that municipal government will lose trust in the provincial government.

I think there's a necessity to explain how the federal and provincial governments dealt with their downloading, off-loading The federal government worked with the provinces of Canada over a three-year period to show where and what they wished to cut. But they gave the provinces years of advance warning. What this bill does is give a matter of hours and weeks before some municipal budgets have to be completed. I don't think that was fair. I don't think it built the trust that helped build this province. I think it broke the trust between two levels of government. The provincial government cried foul when they were downloaded on, and municipalities shared in that with them.

Municipalities have always balanced their books. They've always had a very small level of debt, and they've always had money in the bank to pay for infrastructure and for programs that are deemed necessary by the citizens in each municipality. Bill 2 says a whole range of things 

[ Page 2731 ]

to municipalities, but the first is: don't trust the provincial government. Because with this bill, it has made some initial cuts this year and spared small municipalities. But what about next year? What can municipal government expect from the NDP government next year? Well, I can tell you what they're telling me. They are saying: "We don't trust what will be coming next year; we don't trust this government to be fair with us."

I'll give you some examples. My riding, Saanich North and the Islands, is a small rural riding that had its grants cut by 25 percent. I don't think the provincial government ever saw a cut of 25 percent from the federal government. So what does that say to local government? Well, they're the government that's closest to the people. They hold public hearings and public meetings to discuss their budget, something this government could learn a lot from. They'll have to cut their budgets to make them fit the people's needs. In my riding of Saanich North and the Islands, North Saanich, Central Saanich and Sidney are all going through an exhaustive process to try to meet the needs of their citizens by balancing their budgets. It certainly doesn't help when you're given a couple of weeks' or a few hours' notice that your budget's being cut by 25 percent. What does that affect? That affects policing, fire, roads, parks -- all the things that are closest to the people.

[5:15]

I have no doubt that municipal governments will rise to the challenge and that they will accomplish their balanced budgets with minor tax increases deliberately given to them by the provincial government. But what's worse is what comes next year. What can the municipalities in this province expect from this NDP government? They can't expect anything, because promises that were made were quickly broken after the election.

The municipalities in this province, through the Municipal Finance Authority, pool and invest their money and borrow what they need as a group. Years ago, they were borrowing at a slight disadvantage to the provincial government. It cost them a little bit more to borrow money, because they weren't seen to be as good a risk as the provincial government. I can tell you that little by little, the municipalities of this province have proven that they're a better risk than this provincial government, and they're now borrowing right on a level They have a better credit rating than this provincial government, because they're more careful with their money. They make sure that they have money in the bank; they balance their budgets; and they keep their promises to the people they serve, not like this provincial government.

The shelf life of a promise of the NDP government was months or weeks in this instance. This downloading will cost the municipalities in this province $113 million. And what is that going to cost the taxpayers? Well, I can tell you what it will do. They'll have reductions in policing, in fire, in parks and in roads. The municipal taxpayer is now getting a tax increase from the provincial government, when they ran an election saying: "No tax increases, no new taxes." Well, why didn't they tell the people that the first thing they were going to do was download over $100 million onto the residential taxpayer? Why didn't they say that?

You know, the commitment of municipal politicians to the community is great. And you're always going to see people run and rise to the challenges of municipal government. But it sure makes it difficult when the respect that needs to be there isn't there.

Now, the government will say: "We had the federal government download onto us; we had to download onto the municipal government." Well, municipal government outlines and develops programs for the provincial government as well. So they're acting for the provincial government in many cases and doing the job the provincial government should do. So they're downloaded onto. I believe they'll rise to the challenge, but I share their fear about next year and the year after and about how they'll be treated by this government.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's the priorities of the government that have caused this downloading, not the federal government downloading onto the provincial government. It's the provincial government's priorities that aren't necessarily the priorities of British Columbians. British Columbians want and deserve services. They don't necessarily want to see payoffs to friends; they don't necessarily want to see huge contracts; they don't necessarily want to see CEOs from corporations that are owned by them having huge pay-outs and golden parachutes to land in some other corporation. All that British Columbians are asking for is good, honest government that respects their wishes and their desires.

This bill does away with that. This bill, as I said, is a knife in the back of municipal government, and municipal government is the closest government to the people. I can tell you that when the citizens get their tax bills this year, they'll know why, in the case of North Saanich, their grants were cut 25 percent. They'll know who did it, because they will have helped to try and prepare damage control with their local representatives.

I'm disappointed in this act because I know that many members of the government were local politicians. I know that a number of the people sitting on the back benches over here were good local politicians who got elected for the right reasons. And I know it must hurt them to see their government do this to the level of government that they worked so hard for. I might add that there are members of cabinet who were also members of local government and who tried over the years, through the UBCM and the various associations around the province, to build up that trust and respect so that we're all working for the common good, and we're all working for a better British Columbia and a better neighbourhood and a better home to live in.

I fear that this trust is broken, possibly permanently. This government will have to do a lot for local government and for citizens to start trusting them again. It's not good enough for government to say one thing during an election and then do the opposite after the election. I think people are starting to get past annoyed; they're starting to write off the government. When I talk to people, they're not complaining anymore, because they've already made up their minds that they're not going to get good government. They're not going to get what they want: good, honest government that works in the best interest of all British Columbians, not in the best interest of a few.

The members on this side of the House, the opposition, want to work with the government to create a better province. We want to work with municipalities, the provincial government and the federal government on infrastructure programs that will make this a better province to live in.

This bill, Bill 2, has drawn a line in the sand for municipal government. This government crossed that line, and the damage done to the relationships, I believe, will be permanent for the life of this government. This government will have to look in the faces of taxpayers, whether they be renters, owners, small businesses or corporations, and rationalize why, just before an election "Everything's going great. We're 

[ Page 2732 ]

signing agreements; we're guaranteeing services; we're guaranteeing levels of funding." Shortly after the election: "Oops, we didn't realize we didn't have any money. We have to cut your budgets."

That simply isn't good enough. It simply isn't good enough, because that's what people despise about governments. They want honesty. They want honesty from this government, and I can tell you that we on this side of the House are going to work to make sure that this government is honest with the people and that it sticks to its election promises. When they say they're going to do something during an election, we are going to make sure they keep those promises.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support Bill 2. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it has a lot of housekeeping in it, but hidden down in the centre of this bill is a betrayal, a betrayal of municipal government. In the months that come, the government will have to answer to individual municipalities and individual taxpayers for this bill. For that reason, I cannot support it, and I thank you for this opportunity to address Bill 2.

J. Wilson: It's with pleasure that I rise and address Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. It would almost appear to be a misnomer. I think they could rename this bill in a couple of ways. They could call it the downloading bill or the broken-promise bill. Either one would suit the bill much better than the name that it's been given.

I would like to go through it. There are some housekeeping measures in here, some of which I don't totally disagree with and some that I do disagree with. However, there are a number of issues that I take exception to, and I would like to start with the Agricultural Credit Act.

This act did a lot of good in this province. It was in existence for many years. By removing it, this government is taking away something from an industry that depended on it. It was there in time of need, and it provided some degree of security for them so that they could carry on with their line of business. It didn't cost this government an arm and a leg to leave this in place. It didn't cost this government millions of dollars to leave this bill on the books, to allow the people out there to access these funds. It's not a grant; it's a loan -- a loan that is paid back by the hard work of people in the industry. We have today really nothing in existence that fills the void this bill is going to create. It's a sad day, but when government bites the hand that feeds it, we can expect many things down the road that If we don't produce our food in this country, where are we going to get it? One of the things that we should be looking after is the industry that feeds us. It's important.

Another example here of downloading -- and it's not a large one -- is the Assessment Authority Act. It's not a lot of money, but in the end, what does it do? It increases the tax burden on the people in this province. "We will create no new taxes." Well, I don't know how I explain it or how you'd explain it to me, but the way I read it, it will be a new tax.

An Hon. Member: Two point six million.

J. Wilson: Two point six million dollars.

Moving on, I come to the grazing enhancement fund. A number of years back, from '92 through '95, there were several regions that worked hard. They developed what we call land use plans, where people could go out and really count on having the ability to work on the land base without the threat of their livelihood being taken away. And one of the reasons that the agricultural industry, or, to be more specific, the ranching industry, bought into these land use plans was because there was put in place a fund, which was a grazing enhancement fund. Now, reading this act over, what I see here is something worded What it is is a new version of an old fund that was in place, and it was called the range improvement fund.

[5:30]

The range improvement fund was put in place by the Minister of Forests, and it allowed the industry to make better use of the resource out there. It allowed them to enhance the resource. This government saw to it that that fund became defunct, I believe, three or four years ago now, and then there was nothing there. That fund was paid for mainly by the fees that were charged on the AUMs. Then we had the grazing enhancement fund put in place. Premier Harcourt promised the people $4.25 million per year for five years. The thinking behind this was that he knew that with some of the things that were coming down, such as the Forest Practices Code which was going to be implemented in this province, there would be some serious impacts on the industry. So that was the rationale for setting up this fund.

Now, unfortunately, this government has seen fit to walk away from an agreement. At the time that these three major land use programs were developed -- there was one in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, one in the Kootenays and one on the Island Since then, there have been others. There are some LRMPs in the north that have been concluded, and there are some that are reaching the conclusion stage.

This fund of $4.25 million was to cover all of the land use planning in the province. Of that, $3.4 million was committed with the completion of the three major land use plans in this province, and out of that $3.4 million, $2.5 million was earmarked for the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. This was a land use plan where the people who developed it and signed off on it included all of the sectors that were involved and the provincial government. They tried for over a year to get this plan legislated -- to come to this House and get approval. That didn't happen. The fear was: "If we don't legislate this plan We don't trust this government. Something tells us that we cannot trust this government." People said: "We would like to have this plan legislated."

That never happened. What did happen, however, was that a ministerial order was signed, implementing the plan. It was signed by three ministers -- the next best thing to being legislated. Some people felt confident: "Now we have something. They can't take that away from us. It's got to go back to government to be changed." Well, that's right, but it doesn't have to come to this House, and it doesn't have to be addressed. It can be done overnight behind closed doors, and we don't know what the end result will be.

Well, we now find out what the result is: $1.4 million for the entire province. That includes the land use plans that are now being developed and coming on stream. This government does not have the decency to say: "Yes, we will distribute this to the people in the various regions." They threw it out there and said to the industry: "You fight over it. You decide how you're going to spend it." Not good.

Another issue -- and we've heard a great deal about it here today -- is the Local Government Grants Act. What does that do? Well, it translates into more taxes, which we know isn't going to happen. This government has promised us that there will be no tax increases. But take our city of Quesnel, for instance. The way it calculates out, we are going to get a 

[ Page 2733 ]

reduction of something like 71 percent. The change in this legislation now gives the provincial government the ability to download at will, whenever they see fit, on the municipal governments in this province. It will make their budgeting process a nightmare. Each municipality is required by law to balance its budget -- as the provincial government should be. But no, we don't expect that to happen.

If this provincial government had said, "We're going to reduce the municipal grants, and at the same time we are going to reduce provincial government spending by an equal amount or more," that would be admitting that they have a bit of responsibility. Perhaps they could be considered to be slightly accountable. But no, that hasn't happened.

We have a deficit budget. Oh, it's not big; it's only $185 million. Well, I don't know of anyone who actually believes that, and by the Minister of Finance's own admission he doesn't expect us to believe that, either. We don't know where the actual deficit will end up. It could be a billion, a billion and a half, two billion. That's what we call accountable and responsible financial management in this government.

It's a sad situation here. This government has basically walked away from They began with industry -- pretty well all the industries in this province. They walked away from them. After dealing with the government for a year or two, it became apparent that you couldn't really depend on them for anything except to look forward to tax increases, fee increases and more government interference each day.

Fortunately, the municipal governments in this province, which really do represent the people, were lucky. They didn't have to hit the municipal side of this immediately, but now they've got to the point where their spending is totally out of control. They have to somehow get money to keep on spending so they can tax and spend and tax and spend.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Well, I'll just put it this way: if anybody who was financially responsible and accountable was to spend the way this government spends, by increasing taxes, by reducing services Every time you look around, in every ministry, there have been cuts, cuts, cuts. Side-loading, downloading -- yet they spend more and more each year. There's no limit to the deficit; it keeps going up. But we're not spending it where we should. "We are spending wherever we feel like spending it, and we will do what we feel like doing." That's one truthful statement that was made.

Motor Fuel Tax Act. This is asking too much. We have a fuel that is a non-pollutant. It's clean. Every vehicle in this province should be burning propane or natural gas. It would do wonders for our air quality. But that would be common sense, wouldn't it? And common sense doesn't exist in this government. So now we're going to tax vehicles through the use of propane and we're going to make it non-efficient. And what's going to happen?

C. Clark: Is the money going to improve roads?

J. Wilson: No.

And here we have another small lateral transfer.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Oh, it's a shift. Okay.

P. Reitsma: It's a new NDP dance: the sideways shift.

J. Wilson: It's not the line dance; it's the side dance.

That's with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They seem to think that ICBC should be the power that speaks for everyone and everything in this province, so they're going to transfer a little more over there. They must have some money somewhere.

I guess what it all boils down to is things like You hear one thing; you see another thing. It's called accountability. The people of British Columbia expect accountability. When this government stands up and says, "There will be no new taxes," that means there will be no new taxes.

P. Reitsma: Or fee increases.

J. Wilson: Or fee increases. Tax increases, fee increases -- they're all one and the same, just different names with the same results. Any agreement that this government signs -- and they've proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt -- or any statement they make in print is not worth the paper it's written on.

We all know what we have here; we have a tax-and-spend government. Tax and spend, tax and spend -- no reduction in government spending, huge reductions in municipal spending. Unless, of course, they want to encourage the municipal governments to tax the people out there with enormous tax increases to make up for the fiscal mismanagement of the provincial government, which has no accountability -- doesn't have any rules to go by. They just make them up each day as they get up in the morning.

[5:45]

An Hon. Member: Ouija board stuff.

J. Wilson: Right -- ouija board.

There is no daylight at the end of this tunnel we're in today. I guess, to put it bluntly, what we have is hypocrisy at its best. Hypocrisy: I say one thing; I do another. "This is what I'm going to do. You can count on it. You can trust me; you can believe me." Well

An Hon. Member: You're paraphrasing.

J. Wilson: I'm paraphrasing.

I have one question: what do the people of this province teach their children? What can they teach their children today? They have an example before them now. Is that what they're going to teach their children? "Don't tell us what you believe; tell us anything that will make us happy. Lie to us; it's not correct to tell the truth; it's not correct to be responsible; it's not correct to do what is right, to keep your word to anyone -- that includes your parents." Is that what we're going to teach our children? It sounds like it. If this government cannot do any better than they're doing, we are in a sad situation in British Columbia.

Now, there's another word that kind of sticks with me -- I've spent my life believing in it -- and that's "democracy." It has been eroded so badly that it's hard to recognize it in this province any longer, and that is a very sad thing. We've lost our rights in almost every field. The only right we haven't lost is the right to pay more taxes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this: if any would ask me to support Bill 2

An Hon. Member: What would you tell them?

[ Page 2734 ]

J. Wilson: I would probably die laughing. How could anyone support a bill that says one thing, does another and is exemplary of what this government does and stands for? It's ludicrous to even think that one could support something like this. With that, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. J. Pullinger moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

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

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

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

G. Plant: It's gratifying to see the interest which this debate has excited among the members this afternoon.

The corrections institutions are the subject of my interest at the moment. Before our adjournment earlier today, I had asked a question or two about programs offered by outside agencies or by the private sector. One of the other recommendations made in the final report of the capital spending review was "to develop and review existing standards for facilities." I don't understand what that means. I know the Attorney General is not the author of the document, but does the Attorney General have any idea what was meant by that recommendation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That recommendation is obviously directed at Corrections, looking at the size of the cells and the facilities and the extent to which we double-bunk, which is a simpler term for multiple occupancy.

G. Plant: Well, there is a separate recommendation around multiple occupancy, and I'm sure that separate recommendation was intended all by itself to deal with multiple occupancy. That's why I asked the question about what the other one meant. I wonder if it means something in addition to the size of cells. Perhaps I could just give the Attorney General another opportunity to help me understand what his ministry took from that recommendation -- what it's about.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that this recommendation is probably directed at Corrections, looking at the design of the facilities as they are and for future reference, to see if we could do it better and provide more space at lesser cost.

G. Plant: Would this involve redesigning existing structures to increase the occupancy -- that is, increase the number of cells and so on -- or is it something other than that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that's directed at future construction.

G. Plant: Another of the recommendations was that the Ministry of Attorney General and the government "develop a multiple-occupancy policy for corrections facilities." Someone reading that would draw the inference that a multiple-occupancy policy didn't exist as of January 1997 either in the government or in the Ministry of Attorney General in particular. Would that conclusion be correct, or is the author of this document using words loosely?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a policy on double occupancy. The policy is that we would not do it unless we have to meet the needs for space. Obviously we have to keep the safety of the inmates in mind. There is no percentage in terms of the extent to which we should have double occupancy. I think this particular recommendation was directed at exploring the possibility of either increasing double occupancy or at least setting a limit within which it can be safely accomplished. There is always a safety assessment done for inmates when they're placed together. As we are already doing double occupancy to the tune of about 40 percent, we have reached our limit in the mind of the ministry at least. If we go beyond this, under the current circumstances, we may be jeopardizing the safety of the inmates. This recommendation was directed at us reviewing all of that to see if there was any room to move.

[2:45]

G. Plant: So there was in fact a double-bunking policy prior to January 1997 -- it may be better to call it a multiple-occupancy policy -- and the policy was, as I heard the Attorney General say it: "We won't do it unless we have to for space reasons." Is that a complete and full statement of the policy, or is it something that is a bit more subtle and sophisticated than that? I'm sure that the ministry wouldn't approach the very difficult question of doubling up inmate occupancy of cells on the basis of a seven- or eight-word policy statement.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, my colleague forgot the other part of my statement, which is that the safety of the inmates is very important. The safety of the inmates, the need for space -- those kinds of factors come together to determine the extent to which we can do it. We're currently doing it at about 40 percent, and it is my belief that there is very little room for us to move further without any major changes.

G. Plant: Well, that's helpful. Let me add to the discussion an extract from the 1995-96 annual report of the Attorney General ministry. It's on page 13, for everybody who's following along:

"To accommodate the increasing number of offenders and remanded adults, new beds were installed within existing facilities through double-bunking. This is a secure and cost-effective alternative while new facilities are designed and built. About 25 percent of all secure custody cells are double-bunked."

[ Page 2735 ]

This passage leaves the impression that double-bunking is a kind of stopgap measure being used as an alternative only while new facilities are being designed and built. My sense is that, generally speaking, there aren't any new facilities for adults in British Columbia being designed and built right now. I may be wrong, and that may be something that the Attorney General can correct me on; I didn't review the details of the facts at the moment. It looks to me like double-bunking was being explained in this annual report as a kind of a stopgap measure. But really, as we sit here now, in April 1997, double-bunking is going to be with us for quite a while.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is the statement that about 25 percent of all secure custody cells are double-bunked out of date? Does it get replaced by the 40 percent figure that the Attorney General used a few minutes ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, the information I have given is correct: 40 percent of the inmates are double-bunked. If we look at the cells, the figure might be different. I was looking at the inmates.

G. Plant: Well, my interest is in tracking the increase in the use of multiple occupancy over time. It sounds from the minster's answer as though it would not be correct to conclude that the incidence of double-bunking has risen from 25 percent to 40 percent over a year. I guess I want to know how to compare apples to apples. The figure that was 25 percent a year ago is all of the secure custody cells. What is that figure this year? Alternatively, what was the 40 percent figure a year ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me collect from this maze of information the figures I've been given now. I'm told that 42 percent of the cells are currently being double-bunked and that 87 more beds were added this year -- meaning '96-97, I assume. Obviously the 25 percent figure you have is on the cells. There has been an increase of 17 percent in cells being multiply occupied.

G. Plant: Well, the figure I'm reading is from the annual report of 1995-96, so the Attorney General's answer is helpful in terms of understanding the increase in the incidence of double-bunking. I'll come back to one implication of that in a minute. At the risk of oversimplifying something that the Attorney General said a minute ago, did I hear him correctly that essentially the corrections facilities are now at capacity?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is essentially correct. However, there is some more capacity available with some renovations and capital expenditures at 222 Main, Fort Mountain near Chilliwack and the old Prince George facility, if we need to upgrade it and reuse it.

G. Plant: My understanding is that the old Prince George facility has already been essentially reopened and that there are 40 or so inmates already housed there, although the number may be wrong. So I was sort of going down the path and saying that if I was more or less right in the earlier answer that was taking into account the fact that the old Prince George jail -- which was supposed to be shut down -- has been either kept open or at least has been reopened. Is the minister saying that there could be some capital improvement money spent to enlarge or increase capacity at Fort Mountain and the old Prince George facility? Is that what he meant?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With significant capital expenditures, we could house 72 more people at Fort Mountain and about 87 more at 222 Main, and the Prince George facility would have a capacity of about 80 more, if redone appropriately.

G. Plant: Is the ministry planning to spend that money this year? Is allowance made for those capital expenditures in the corrections branch allocation for the fiscal year that we're in now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we would have the resources to deal with Fort Mountain. I understand that Prince George has been renovated and that there the question is finding money for operational expenditures for more inmates. And Main Street is being done.

G. Plant: I understand that one of the issues that arises in the context of attempting to increase the occupancy in corrections facilities is the question of the ratio between corrections staff and inmates. This may be what the Attorney General was alluding to when he spoke earlier about the importance of public safety and inmate safety. When the Attorney General says that the system is more or less at capacity, subject to these questions of additional spending at the three places that he's mentioned, is that a figure that's dependent on the existing state of the collective agreement between the government and corrections staff? That is, could capacity be increased if changes were made to the collective agreement? Is it a figure that could be increased by hiring more security guards in institutions? Is it something that depends on staff, or is it just a case that, generally speaking, these buildings are pretty well at the maximum stage of capacity for inmates?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The three sites that I mentioned are the only capacity left to be utilized in the correctional facilities, with or without staff. Obviously, to utilize that we would require more staff. Yes, the hon. member is correct that, of course, the ratio of the corrections staff to the inmates can be looked after in a safe fashion, both for the corrections staff as well as for the inmates. And those are the kinds of issues we have to deal with.

G. Plant: Dealing with the existing level of overcrowding or crowding at institutions, it seems to me that every time you fill the capacity of a particular point in the system and then bodies continue to enter the system, you have to start putting them somewhere. I think it's the case, generally speaking, that the remand institutions are also at capacity. I'm not sure if that's true across the province or if it's only true in particular places, so perhaps I could get the Attorney General's assistance on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Much of the pressure is on the remand facilities, and we are actually operating beyond design capacity in most of those.

G. Plant: I've even been told that from time to time there are 30 to 40 people who are sleeping on mattresses on the floor in hallways at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. Is that an accurate statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, unfortunately, that's true. The numbers might be lower than the numbers quoted by the hon. member, but the sad fact is that that's true.

G. Plant: So what is the ministry going to do over the next year to address that fact? Obviously I put that question in 

[ Page 2736 ]

the context of a growing population and the likelihood that there will be increasing demands on existing facilities rather than decreasing ones -- in the short term, anyway.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, given the capital constraints, we would be looking at more double-bunking, if it's safe to do under the circumstances. The general approach, of course, is that you use the existing facilities to the maximum, increase capacity through double-bunking and then build new facilities if capital is available. Of course, in terms of the sentencing options that are available to the courts, the conditional sentencing provisions may ease the burden a little bit. But these are the realities of the corrections world -- it's not very pleasant.

[3:00]

G. Plant: No, I don't suppose anyone would think that this is a terribly pleasant situation. I guess I'm still confused about the proposition: "We will double-bunk, if double-bunking is safe to do." I'm trying to understand that statement in the context of the statement that the existing institutions are already at capacity. I know that there is always a little bit of give-and-take, but I thought that we had reached the point in the analysis where I more or less understood that the existing institutions had already been double-bunked to the maximum. So is the minister suggesting that if demand increases, the standards for what constitutes safe double-bunking will change?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, we are essentially -- if I can use a simple term -- maxed out in terms of double-bunking. I was talking about the expansion of facilities, or more beds, more cells, being available in Fort Mountain and in Prince George, as well as 87 of them being added to 222 Main. When one looks at the circumstances where you are double-bunked to capacity, it's creatively possible to do more, keeping safety in mind, by making minor structural alterations and the like. Obviously that would be considered, but there are currently no plans to double-bunk any more than we have done in the institutions that are in fact double-bunking to the max.

G. Plant: One thing that happens, then, to back up the system We backed it up from prisons with those who have been sentenced to two years less a day or some lesser sentence. We've backed it up to include those who are on remand, people who are awaiting trial. The next place you'd back it up is in the city municipal lockups. I guess one way that the system can accommodate additional bodies is to just leave them sitting in city jails for longer than would ordinarily be the case. Is that something that the minister expects is going to have to happen over the next year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Keeping all of the comments of the hon. member in mind, I would say that those are some of the reasons why we are thinking of approaching Treasury Board to allow us to proceed with 300 new beds in the proposed Port Coquitlam centre. That has been in planning for some time, and we are hopeful that our request may be approved.

G. Plant: If the Attorney General were to pick a number, in terms of stating the extent of overcrowding in correctional facilities as it exists today and is projected to increase over the next two years, allowing for growth that is reasonably anticipated to occur, what would that number be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The actual count for '96-97 is 2,587, and the actual forecast for '97-98 is about 87 more: 2,674.

G. Plant: Is there a number to compare that to? I mean, if that number incorporates something that could be called overcrowding, what is the number that the ministry would use? I mean, if the ministry were to say: "Well, we were overcrowded by a hundred beds" When the minister is making his business case to Treasury Board, I assume he uses a number and says: "We're overcrowded by X number of inmates." What's that number?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As of April 17, 1997, we have capacity for 2,332 and we are forecasting 2,674, so that's approximately 350.

G. Plant: Thank you. There's another place that the system looks to when it's experiencing overcrowding, and that is by dealing with people who have been convicted of criminal offences by sentencing them in a way that doesn't involve sending them off to correctional facilities. Is the minister able to say what the current participation is in the electronic monitoring program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The current EMP is about 340, and that's included in the count.

G. Plant: Is there a comparison for that number? I mean, is that 340 in relation to a capacity count -- if that question makes sense? When the minister says the 340 is included in the capacity, I take it that what the minister means is that 2,674 people are in the corrections system either as inmates or as people who are at large on the electronic monitoring program. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: And the number of people who can be on electronic monitoring is presumably a function of things like, first of all, the suitability of the inmate for that kind of arrangement. But there must be other physical service needs and capacity issues. Where is the government at in terms of capacity for electronic monitoring? Do the services and resources and facilities exist to allow for expansion in that program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The primary issue with our inability to place more people on electronic monitoring is the risk assessment of the inmates. I think that with the 340 or so, we are almost there, and we have to proceed very cautiously from there on in. If more inmates became available based on risk assessment, the equipment can be leased. If they have no permanent place of residence, we can get into contracts with organizations, which I mentioned this morning, to accommodate them. That is not a difficulty. We may have to hire more staff, but that's all part of these kinds of issues.

G. Plant: The 1995-96 annual report states that on any given day there were 303 offenders on the EMP -- the electronic monitoring program. It looks like that number has risen by approximately 10 percent or so over the course of the year. Does the ministry have a projection for enrolment in the program over the course of the next year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the anticipated number is approximately 389 for '97-98.

G. Plant: So we're going to experience. . .it looks like roughly a 15 percent or so increase in EMP participation over the course of the next year. The question that does need to be 

[ Page 2737 ]

asked, given what the Attorney General has said about the importance of risk assessment, is: is it in fact going to be safe for the program to expand in this way? Or alternatively, are we seeing here simply a reaction to the fact that there's no other place to put these individuals, because the prisons themselves are maxed out?

[3:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I understand the hon. member's question correctly, it is: what's the limit on this? The major limiting factor would be public safety, as I indicated. There is the risk assessment issue, and that's the most dominant issue in electronic monitoring. By that I mean issues around public safety. If a particular offender poses a serious risk, obviously we wouldn't go beyond that. So that's the only limit.

Otherwise, if we could bring a larger number of inmates into electronic monitoring, as we have attempted to do If we could continue to do that, we would actually have 90 percent of them at work, as they may be employed and supporting their families and not costing us huge amounts of money. There is that added risk of at least 5 percent of them committing technical violations, and others may be reoffending, but I think those are risks worth taking if they're not risks to public safety -- the safety of individuals, in particular.

G. Plant: I agree with that last statement by the Attorney General. Part of the purpose of the line of questioning that I've been following is to at least have a sense of the context in which that risk exists. Part of the context of that risk is a system that no longer has room for convicted inmates in prisons, at least for the time being. I'm certainly not in a position to state definitively that there are, on a regular basis, people who ought not to be put on the program, to get that opportunity. But I guess I want to make clear the concern I have that the risk be kept in mind.

In that context I want to explore another aspect of the corrections system, which I am starting to learn a little bit about, anyway. I will just begin by telling a short story. I've now had the I was going to say pleasure, but that might not be quite the right word. I have now toured two secure custody facilities, thanks to the assistance of members of the minister's staff. One of the many thoughts that I came out of both tours with, apart from my general sense of relief on both occasions that I was allowed to leave, was the sense that provincial prisons are increasingly filled with people that I would say, at the risk of using a kind of a clich�d term, are hardened criminals. That's really just an anecdotal impression.

I understand that the corrections branch does keep an eye on things like the profile of inmates and the general kinds of things that are causing people to come into the system. What I hear from folks on the minister's staff is that the average age of inmates is increasing, the number of admissions for violent offences against persons is increasing and the proportion of admissions into the system with a history of violence has also increased. So we have offenders who are not just petty thieves and break-and-enter artists but who have a long history of fairly serious criminal behaviour. Demographically speaking, this is a trend that's expected to continue.

If I've got it wrong, I'm sure the people who are here assisting the minister know this area much better than I, and they will correct my general impression. I invite the minister to do so.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct.

G. Plant: The minister will then identify the fact that opportunities for programs like diversion before the fact and conditional sentencing or electronic monitoring are, in some respects, limited if these are the characteristics of inmates. I may be wrong in that.

When we talk about the risk to public safety in the context of the electronic monitoring program, what is it that constitutes a risk? What is it that the corrections branch looks for in the risk assessment that helps them decide whether or not someone is an appropriate candidate for EMP?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Corrections currently look at the past history of the inmate, the present conviction as a result of which the inmate is incarcerated, any employment prospects, any community support, family support and, of course, any history of or any current proclivities towards substance abuse. Those are some of the factors that Corrections look at, but there might be other factors and unique situations that I can't think of at this time.

G. Plant: What about the nature of the offence? I may have missed that as the first thing. Does it matter if the offence was an offence against property or an offence against persons -- that kind of thing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I did mention the current conviction as a result of which the individual may be incarcerated. Obviously there is less of a chance of an individual being released if the individual was incarcerated as a result of a personal injury offence -- particularly domestic violence and the like -- than if the individual was incarcerated as a result of public mischief, property damage or something of the like. Not that one is less serious than the other in the eyes of the victims, but those are the kinds of things we look at.

G. Plant: I'm interested in hearing that distinction. I want to know if -- in the mind of the minister when he says that he and the government are committed to an aggressive approach to violent crime -- that embraces not simply the prevention and the detection of that crime, not simply the prosecution of people committing that crime Does it also embrace, from the Attorney General's perspective, the approach taken towards things like conditional sentencing and electronic monitoring?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Obviously, detection, investigation and prosecution, all put together, are part of prevention, which is a much larger concept, of course. It is important that we keep the violent nature of the offence in mind.

Let me give you an example. To go directly on EMP, I'm told that an offender must have no pattern of violence or sex offences; not pose a threat of personal harm to the community; be gainfully employed, attending school, actively seeking employment or volunteering in community services; be serving a sentence of less than six months; and agree to all of the conditions of the program. So when we say that prevention of violence and detection and prosecution are very, very important, that message carries through to Corrections and the possible release of individuals.

The Parole Board is obviously independent, but the corrections part of the ministry is going to be working very closely with the Parole Board so that we can, from now on, try and deal with these issues much more aggressively than even before.

G. Plant: Given the increase in demand for facilities that are already technically overcrowded, given the profile of 

[ Page 2738 ]

offenders and inmates and the fact that they are tending to be older and are tending to have committed more serious crimes, and given the rigorous conditions that the minister has described as being the kind of checklist that needs to be satisfied before someone can be enrolled in an EMP, I'm curious as to the basis on which the minister thinks he can safely get from 340 people on EMP to 389 people.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I'm advised that of those who are currently in prison, 44 percent are in prison for crimes against property. So there is still room for us to have more electronic monitoring and also enhanced electronic monitoring, which is when you have those without permanent residences or roots in the communities linked up with organizations such as the Salvation Army or the John Howard Society. So there is room to move, and we are attempting to do that.

G. Plant: I suppose another area in which demand creates stress and which leads to a system that isn't working very well is when there are problems inside particular institutions with respect to the way staff are working or other issues. In that regard, I want to talk for a minute or two about the report that Vince Cain did in his review of the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre. The report is called "Review of Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre: An Independent Assessment of the Mandate, Management and Operations," and it seems to be dated December 2 to January 31.

I think the review arises out of the incident that occurred in the Pretrial Services Centre last summer -- the practice riot that went horribly wrong. I don't want to read at length from what is a long report -- 59 pages or so. There are some disturbing passages, and I hope the Attorney has in fact read the report. I think I would be remiss in not reading a few of them.

On page 7 Mr. Cain says:

"The original design of the centre is apparently acceptable to the majority of staff. The concern is now with the overcrowding. The inmate population burgeoned from the original 168 to 244 on one of the days I attended. A 220-to-240 count is not unusual. Double-bunking has become common. It appears to be here to stay."

Later in that passage he talks about conflicting personalities, demands, the stress of overcrowding, the change in inmate profiles, and he says: "This has added considerable stress to staff and inmates alike." He talks about the fact that while the centre is a remand centre, there are people who can stay there for an awfully long time, including one recent immigration case, apparently, who stayed five years, which is an awfully long time to be somewhere on remand.

[3:30]

Later on in the report Obviously these are some of the more disturbing passages. On page 23, in the context of a discussion of staff-inmate relations, Mr. Cain writes: "On more than one occasion officers suggested to me that 'this place is gonna blow.' One cause for such an event is the inconsistent application of the rules by officers." And then he goes on to talk about examples. Later, on page 25, he says that he is left with the distinct impression that this is an unhealthy workplace environment, and that the issues must be listed and addressed with appropriate remedies. The unfortunate fact is that I could go on.

I wonder if the Attorney General could report on the reception of this review within his ministry, whether the ministry essentially accepts the findings of Mr. Cain and what the ministry or the corrections branch intend to do about this.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When I ordered this report, I was very concerned by the report from Allan Anderson with respect to this matter. As a result, I considered it important for Mr. Cain to look at this issue. He did look at it and we have accepted all his recommendations -- with some caution, however, because Mr. Cain himself indicates that some of the allegations he heard may not be factual or may be untrue. But we have accepted all of his recommendations, and as I indicated in the earlier press release back in March, we have undertaken to make some changes. I can go through them if the hon. member is interested.

What we want to do, having made those changes or having attempted to make these changes at VPSC Once we've monitored those changes, we want to work with the union-management committee -- on which the ADM, I believe, and the provincial director of adult custody sit -- to see if some of these changes could then be stretched across to other correctional facilities on a cross-Corrections basis. I think Corrections right across the province need to be looked at, and we're attempting to do that, as well, with the union-management committee.

G. Plant: The question that arises in the context of reviews like this is, in part -- and I'm now talking about the committee that the Attorney General has just referred to -- whether these changes are being implemented behind closed doors, as it were, or as part of a public process. I know there are limits on the number of public processes that the public can tolerate at any one time. Is there, for example, a working document that sets out the action plan here? Does this plan to implement the recommendations of Vince Cain exist in writing? Does it have time lines? Does it have action plans? Does it have criteria for evaluation? Will there be a way of assessing the success of the implementation of his recommendations? Those sorts of questions are sometimes difficult to get answers for.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some changes were obviously made very quickly. Other changes are awaiting this committee being put together. It will then have representation on it or will meet with the community supervisory boards of various correctional facilities as well. So there is some community input as well: union, management and the community. I believe it's a long-term process. There are no time lines in place, but they will be in place once we get out of here.

Just like the hon. member, I also visited Vancouver pretrial facility. I intend to visit the Surrey facility and maybe others in the province as well, because I'm extremely concerned at the state of corrections in this province. Money would be wonderful if we had the capital budget to ease the pressure; however, we don't have that.

So we want to make sure that there is a good working relationship between the union, management and corrections staff -- whose services quite often go unacknowledged; many times, actually -- so they also feel appreciated, as well as the inmates feeling well served. That's one of the things I'm intending to do in the next few months after we get out of here.

G. Plant: Just based on the very few individuals I've met in the branch, it seemed to me that there is a significant level of commitment to the process and to the desire to do good work. I think that's something that employers all too often take for granted across both the private and public sectors. To the extent that it can be something that is worked on and improved in the corrections branch, I'm sure that not only inmates but the public at large would be better served.

[ Page 2739 ]

A question that I'd probably have an answer to if I looked at a press release -- but I suppose I'm increasingly of the view that that's not a reliable place to seek answers -- is: what is the timetable for construction of the renovations to the 222 Main facility? Is that a project that is already underway? Does it have a timetable for completion?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The planning is underway. The architectural work is being done. We are hoping that the construction would be completed by late summer of 1998.

G. Plant: Is that a project that has emerged from the freeze -- we're sort of post-freeze for that project?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Another somewhat technical question, I suppose, that deals with the transfer of youth custody responsibilities from the Ministry of Attorney General to the Ministry for Children and Families I may have more questions about this. But there were, I think, three youth custody facilities at various stages of planning when the review came into effect last June. I take it that those projects get transferred in their frozen condition or something like that; as they leave the Ministry of Attorney, they leave frozen.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A great deal of confusion surrounds this issue, as technically these matters are still with the Attorney General. I'm told that if the legislation does not fall in place, we will then be looking at Victoria Youth Custody Centre expansion; Burnaby Youth Secure Custody Centre, an additional 20-bed trailer; and Centre Creek Youth Custody Centre schoolhouse replacement. Those are three facilities that were under planning at the time when this whole process froze. But I am assuming that that legislation will fall into place, and we will have nothing to do with these.

G. Plant: As I was sitting waiting for the answer, it occurred to me that I may have got the status of those projects wrong. I was trying to recall what the Attorney General said during the interim supply debate, which was far too late at night for me. I suggested that the projects were frozen.

But, of course, one of the reasons why it became necessary to obtain special warrants was that some money had to kind of be brought into the records of the Ministry of Attorney General in order for certain project expenses to be written off, which I suppose is something that would only happen if the projects were cancelled, there being a difference between on the one hand cancelling a project -- saying it will not go ahead -- and on the other hand saying it remains in limbo. So I guess the question is: do these projects. . .? From the perspective of the Ministry of Attorney General, are they simply in limbo? Or were they in fact cancelled?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These projects were not the ones that we discussed as part of interim supply; these are other projects. It's only about These three projects are worth about half a million dollars in total. These are expansions and renovations.

G. Plant: So, for example, if my limited memory warrants, Willingdon There was a project around Willingdon, and that in fact has been essentially cancelled. But it wasn't on the list of the three that the minister read out earlier as being projects that might come up for further consideration if the Correction Amendment Act doesn't come into force.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: It seems to me that the transfer that is anticipated to take place must involve a fairly significant demand on resources of both the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry for Children and Families. We will, of course, have occasion to consider whether or not to engage in a debate on the bill if, as and when the bill is called for second reading debate in the House. But in terms of the expectation which I'm sure exists on the part of the government that this transfer will take place, has there been a calculation of what the transition transfer costs will be -- of the movement of youth custody or youth corrections from the Ministry of Attorney General to the Ministry for Children and Families?

[3:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is asking for the actual time and energy spent on concluding the transfer and what that cost might be, I don't believe that cost would be available or quantifiable. But let me say to the hon. member that the specific program transfers include youth custody, $28.65 million and 479 FTEs; youth probation and community services, $25.18 million and 159 FTEs; corrections branch program support, $1.5 million and 20 FTEs; and ministry corporate support, $0.85 million and 13 FTEs. That's essentially what's being transferred.

G. Plant: In many cases across British Columbia, there are people who are probation officers who during the course of the day do adult probation, youth probation and also reports for family custody cases. I assume that the ministry is not proposing to divide each of these individuals into three pieces. What is, generally speaking, the process that is being undertaken to achieve the most effective redeployment of resources?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Where there was a high degree of specialization in terms of the workers, they would move to the respective ministry wherever the programs are. Where there is a need to share staff, agreements have been reached between the two ministries to share probation officers -- I'm told, at least in two communities such as Lytton and Clearwater -- on a pilot basis and have a transfer policy to permit probation officers to move between the two ministries to fill vacancies within the next two years.

G. Plant: So that would allow an individual to move from ministry to ministry on a pilot project basis. But presumably the individual probation officer, when she or he moves to the Ministry for Children and Families, then only does youth-related work. Or is it contemplated that there would be a sort of sharing arrangement, such that an individual probation officer might find herself or himself working for the Ministry of Attorney General, in a sense, doing adult probation stuff in the morning, and in the afternoon doing stuff for the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The agreements have been reached to share staff, which means staff would work both on the Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry for Children and Families, at least in two places. That's on a pilot basis.

G. Plant: The minister may have heard, as I have heard, concerns expressed by probation officers about whether or not they're going to be able, at least in rural British Columbia, to continue to deliver the same level of service that they have 

[ Page 2740 ]

delivered over the years. It strikes me that an attempt to organize the two ministries in a way that takes advantage of the economies of skill, if I can call it that, would be a much more effective way of achieving or effecting this transition than attempting to force longtime probation officers essentially to decide whether they're going to become adult probation officers or youth probation officers, when they've had ten or 20 years of doing both.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree that wherever there is the opportunity to be able to share staff and have the skills utilized, we should do that. We've done that at least in two places. Other than that, in probation work there has been high specialization. Some people have been working with youth, others have been working on adults, and they would move to the respective ministries.

G. Plant: The 1995-96 report deals with the family justice centres under the heading "Family Justice Services" in the context of the corrections branch. Will the four family justice centres that have been discussed -- they're the pilot projects that have been spoken of in the past in these estimates and elsewhere -- remain under the responsibility of the corrections branch? Or are they still there? That's another question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They are currently within the corrections part of the ministry, and they may continue there. They are developing into family justice centres; these are evolving. If we are to change at some point, we would do that, but there are no current plans to do that.

G. Plant: There may be other members who have questions about family justice centres. As much as anything, I'm sort of trying to think of the call on the resources of his staff people over the next day or so in the course of these estimates.

Maybe I'll just ask two or three questions. Do the four pilot project sites continue in operation, or were they simply temporary projects?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that at least three of the four are continuing. One may not be, and that's being looked at.

G. Plant: Does the ministry intend to enlarge on this project to establish more family justice centres in the course of the fiscal year that we're now in? If so, is there money available for that purpose?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. We are intending to establish parent education programs, which are sort of the core part of the family justice centres. They would be established in 20 communities in the province, and they would then gradually evolve into doing other things as well.

G. Plant: Does the ministry expect to have those 20 sites up and running during the fiscal year that we're now in?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

If it might be appropriate, could I ask that we have a recess for ten minutes at 4 p.m.?

The Chair: Is that acceptable to the committee members?

G. Plant: Do you want it now, or do you want to wait?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Now if we can, unless you want to finish Corrections in the next couple of minutes.

G. Plant: We have about 15 or 20 minutes more on Corrections, so I'm in your hands, as they say. It's just about 4 o'clock.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Okay, fine. Let's finish Corrections, then.

G. Plant: If this were an examination for discovery, someone would say something like "back on the record."

So these 20 sites that get up and running this year Could I impose on the minister and his staff to provide me with a list of the locations of those sites at a convenient moment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Thank you. I want to deal with one other issue around Corrections, and that is the status of the B.C. Parole Board. In the February 12, 1997, press release it was announced that the B.C. Parole Board would be phased out and its hearings conducted by the National Parole Board. The press release making this announcement went on to say:

"By having the federal government take responsibility for parole for all sentences of over six months, B.C. will be joining seven other provinces that already have a single parole system. Duplication will be eliminated and uniform standards applied to all parole decisions. The initiative will save $800,000 every year."

I understand that as matters stand at present, the B.C. Parole Board is not being phased out of existence and that hearings will not be conducted by the National Parole Board in the manner contemplated by the announcement in February. I would be interested in the Attorney General either correcting my understanding or, if I am correct, explaining to me why the change of plans.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct; I understand that my officials have advised the hon. member of the situation.

When someone from the ministry spoke to the National Parole Board, we weren't satisfied with the response. One of the ongoing concerns in the back of my mind at that time was the inability -- or at least the unwillingness -- of the National Parole Board to allow victims to present their evidence in person at the parole hearings.

As we wrestled with some of these issues, the Parole Board made some suggestions, and it's really Irene Heese, the chair of the Parole Board, and others have done a tremendous amount of work and they ought to be congratulated. They came back with a plan that would see us make some savings. The plan essentially is that we are now doing a pilot project which is developed jointly by the Board of Parole and corrections branch. We will integrate the administration services of the B.C. Board of Parole within the corrections branch and close the board office, saving approximately $200,000 in '97-98, and we'll expand the role of Parole Board members to include decision-making on other forms of conditional release such as the electronic monitoring program, which I mentioned earlier.

We are now trying to work in a way that that body, which has been assigned the role of releasing or not releasing individuals -- making decisions like that -- would be part of making decisions on such things as EMP as well, so that decisions are made better and upon due consideration. Not that they weren't before, but this would simply ensure that there is that independent, deliberate look at those issues.

[ Page 2741 ]

G. Plant: Did the government of B.C. undertake any consultation with the National Parole Board before the announcement of February 12, 1997?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there was some contact between my ministry and the Parole Board, but obviously those discussions didn't go very far, as we weren't satisfied with the outcome. We then looked back at our own situation to see if we could both save the unique feature of the Parole Board of British Columbia, which was the ability of the victims to be present at the hearings and make submissions directly, and make some savings. We decided at the end of the day that that uniqueness for the B.C. Board of Parole was more important than anything else. Money is important, but other things were more important.

Therefore the chair of the board and others in the corrections branch started working together to see if we could develop a project. Obviously the project has been developed, and we're going to monitor it and see where it goes. We continue our discussions with the National Parole Board to see if it might be fruitful to do what we set out to do. If it doesn't work at the end of the day, I wouldn't be unhappy.

[4:00]

G. Plant: The evolving process and structure that the minister has spoken of Would that be what is meant by what I have heard described as the "single supervising authority"? Is that a phrase that the government uses to describe this business of getting the B.C. Parole Board to do an increasing range of things?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I'm going to resist the urge -- although it is nearly impossible to do it -- to beat up the Attorney General for half an hour or so on this issue of why the people of British Columbia were subjected to such a definitive, clear, unequivocal, unreserved announcement on February 12 that the Parole Board was being shut down and that the National Parole Board was going to take on this work. It sounds like the press release was really just part of an ongoing process inside the ministry, including occasional contacts with the National Parole Board and -- who knows? -- maybe even consultation with the B.C. Parole Board, which probably wasn't even talked to before the announcement was made in February.

And yet the result of all of this is probably better than it would have been had the announcement been followed through as originally intended, which will lead me to ask only one question. From the Attorney General's perspective, in what way does this kind of cockamamy process enhance the public respect for the administration of justice?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If one carefully looks at that release, it talks about phasing out the Parole Board. It was never intended; there was no deadline. It was understood.

Not splitting hairs here, I accept the criticism that the hon. member makes. I wish the process could have been better; it wasn't. However, the result at the end of the day is better, and we're fortunate that we have the chair of the board and the members of the board who are working hard to serve the needs of British Columbians in the unique way that they have been, in addition to making the savings.

J. Weisbeck: This is somewhat of a continuation of last year's discussion on the jail site in Winfield. I guess now, having had the site selected and all that process being completed Looking back at it, we still have a lot of very, very unhappy people in that area, but they've sort of accepted it now. I guess there's still a great deal of uncertainty over this site, and I'd like to know the cost of it, now that the property has been acquired. Has it been acquired, first of all? I'll start with those two questions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The property has been acquired, and I can get the information as to the cost for the hon. member from the ministry and pass it on to him.

J. Weisbeck: And the date of acquisition as well -- the date that the property was acquired?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

The Chair: Hon. committee members, I'd encourage the members to address their remarks through the Chair.

J. Weisbeck: I'd like, as well, the time it was acquired.

There was some concern by One of my constituents had called up and mentioned that this property had only been acquired recently and that there was quite a large carrying cost over this last period of time. I'd like to have some more information on that, please, if I could.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information. If it was acquired recently, I don't know how the carrying costs would be large, unless the hon. member means per-month carrying charges of this land. I can get all that information to the hon. member from the ministry as soon as he wants it -- but not today.

J. Weisbeck: That would be fine. The rumour mill is working very, very hard, obviously. You know, we hear of facilities being built in the valley that apparently are now on hold, and we're hearing up in our area that the Winfield facility is the next in line to be built. I wonder if you could answer that question for me, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I can provide some certainty -- which is not very much, at this point For the next four years, I have said, there is no capital budget for Corrections. There's a possibility we may be able to obtain some capital budget on the Port Coquitlam facility. If we do that, then of course we will not be building in the near future in Winfield. However, if we fail with respect to the Port Coquitlam facility, we would then turn our sights on Winfield and go back to Treasury Board to see if they would give us money for that.

That is the degree of certainty that I can provide the hon. member with at this point, which is somewhat unsatisfactory. But that's the state of things right now.

J. Weisbeck: Is there any time line for all these decisions? Or is this something that we're to expect over the next four years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that my deputy will be seeing the secretary of the Treasury Board sometime next week on the issue around Port Coquitlam. Decisions may then proceed through Treasury Board. Once they get there, I can't talk about them.

Hon. Chair, could we have a recess for ten minutes?

[ Page 2742 ]

The committee recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:26 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Plant: During the recess, I had a conversation off the record with the minister about a matter that arose before the recess. I understand that the minister wanted to indicate that there was something to be said about that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I understand that I provided some information -- of which I was advised earlier -- to the hon. member for Okanagan East. With respect to the Winfield property, which is in the process of being acquired by BCBC for a correctional facility, I understand that BCBC has put a substantial down payment on the property and the cost of upgrading services in the subdivision -- road, power, etc. Transfer will not occur until the owner of the property completes upgrade of the subdivision, as the cost of upgrade is part of the total price. The details will be provided to the hon. member by my staff.

G. Plant: I want to return to the subject of criminal justice, and bridge the discussion of Corrections with continued discussion of the criminal branch, by asking whether there are any changes or developments underway in sentence planning with respect to the extent to which corrections branch people are involved in with the Crown counsel and the court -- including decisions around conditional sentencing, electronic monitoring and that sort of thing. In more general terms, does the ministry now include corrections branch officials -- or is it planning to include them -- in the operation of the criminal justice system in terms of decisions about recommendations for sentence and things like that?

[4:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, the criminal justice branch does not work with the corrections staff on any individual cases with respect to any disposition that the Crown might be seeking. However, in general terms, there is contact -- more specifically with respect to conditional sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code -- to make sure that very long probations are not sought or ordered. At the end of the day it's up to the judges, because it's difficult to manage long-term probations. Those discussions have taken place and will continue to take place.

G. Plant: There is a range of subjects that could be asked at some length. Let me ask something about conditional sentencing. I think it's fair to say that there has been a bit of public controversy around the use of the new provisions in the Criminal Code. Am I correct that currently there are some cases on their way to the Court of Appeal in which the Crown hopes to seek assistance from the appellate court on the principles which ought to be applied in exercising the discretion available to courts in relation to conditional sentences?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and I understand those cases have already been argued before the Court of Appeal.

G. Plant: Is this a case where the province of British Columbia expects there to be a locally developed jurisprudence? Or are we going to have a national set of guidelines? Sooner or later, presumably, one of these cases will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Is that a logical outcome of this process, from the Attorney General's perspective?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are obviously seeking guidance from the highest court in our province. If it does end up in Ottawa, we would obviously be further enlightened.

G. Plant: That's undoubtedly so. I hear complaints from people who have sought me out as someone who apparently holds the key to fixing all the evils of the criminal justice system -- short though the list of those evils may be.

From time to time, letters come to my attention -- I'm sure I'm only getting them after the Attorney General's got them -- which make the point that the criminal justice system can become expensive, really expensive, in particular cases. I was recently told of an unfortunate case involving someone charged with an offence in relation to sexual assault on children. I think that was the offence. In this case I think we're now at the third trial -- new trials having been ordered by the Court of Appeal on at least two occasions. We also have the Gustafsen Lake criminal litigation which was extraordinarily expensive.

I don't know that there is much choice that the criminal justice system has around these things. But I'd be interested in knowing how -- well, if -- the ministry has a way of attempting to manage costs in cases like these and how it goes about it. Since I stand here without the key to the kingdom, I don't have an answer to this. I'm wondering if the Attorney General does.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a case management project underway, in the Provincial Court as well as in the Supreme Court. In the Provincial Court it's under the guidance of Associate Chief Judge Schmidt, and in the Supreme Court, Associate Chief Justice Dohm. Both of them are looking at ways of shortening matters, resolving issues, trying to clear the decks as fast as we can, while dealing with the fundamental issues around justice in those issues. They haven't concluded; they are currently working on those issues, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General would be happy to provide a briefing in detail on this issue to the hon. member.

G. Plant: There are, I suppose, some avenues for improving processes that involve the assistance of the federal government in terms of amendments to the Criminal Code. I understand that the Attorney General participates on an ongoing basis in a dialogue with the other provincial Attorneys General and the federal Minister of Justice around criminal law reform. Most recently, I recall the Attorney General making a point of indicating that he'd gone to New Brunswick and pressed the federal government for so-called Son of Sam legislation, for heavier penalties for stalking and related matters. Being outside the process, it's difficult to know how well it's working, other than by seeing whether or not legislation actually emerges. It seems that the pace of legislation emerging is slow. It does come, but it is slow.

I may read the Attorney General's press releases more carefully than some people do, and I think someone in the room has already been accused of potentially splitting hairs in reading too much into some of the press releases. But on the occasion of the Attorney's presentation in New Brunswick, what other issues did the Attorney General raise as being matters that are of concern to him for reform of the criminal justice system at the federal level?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member realizes, this is a two-day meeting dominated by ten or 12 politicians from across the country. If we are able to place two or three issues on the agenda clearly and squarely, that's a victory. We were 

[ Page 2743 ]

able to do that. There are issues, however, that my ministry has been working on silently -- issues such as reform to the criminal procedure around return of fugitives and execution of warrants. Those are fairly detailed proposals that the justice officials had been working on.

I raised our concerns around Bill C-55, the long-term- offender legislation, and the Son of Sam legislation was another one. We've been urging DNA legislation in the past, which has come. The issue around the anti-gang legislation was raised. It didn't receive much prominence, but the issues from a conference on this particular matter were raised at the conference.

In the past, but not at this particular meeting, we have raised the issue around foreign lottery tickets resale, which is now being taken up at the international level by both the President and the Prime Minister in their discussions. I was really happy to read that, because we in British Columbia have been the leaders on that issue, writing to everyone across the country, as well as writing to the Attorneys General of various states in the U.S.

So we've had some successes. We've been working on the issue around reducing preliminary hearings. That was an initiative that was being discussed by Ottawa as well. But I understand that due to the politics of the Ontario bar, it kind of fell off the rails. I can tell you that I'm back on that issue because I want to make sure that we don't have unnecessary preliminary hearings. I have asked the Assistant Deputy Attorney General to look at the issue of direct indictments to get around the issue of too many preliminaries, which are a waste of court's time. I know that many members of the defence bar would not like that issue being raised, but I think we need to work with them and raise this issue with them. I used to practise a bit of criminal law, and I know that many preliminary hearings -- not all, but many -- are fishing expeditions. I think we need to deal with those issues and be frank and honest with each other -- the bar and us and others who are dealing with these issues. I am concerned about the waste of court's time -- expensive resources -- and the waste of the accused's resources as well. Sometimes there is very little gain in those preliminary hearings. So those are just some of the issues.

There may be others that I have forgotten, but we've actually been very active. I'm sure that the ministry was very active before I got here, but ever since I've been around, I think -- if I can use simple layperson's language -- I've kept them hopping. They're not complaining, but I've kept them hopping on issues. Whenever the opportunity arises, we don't hesitate to write to Ottawa to deal with these issues. As the hon. member realizes, the Criminal Code is obviously their jurisdiction.

G. Plant: The issue around return of fugitives is one where I suppose the challenge is more interjurisdictional cooperation than getting the assistance or direction of the federal government. But I may be wrong, and perhaps I understand that there would have to be changes to federal legislation in order to make the return of fugitives on non-returnable warrants more expeditious.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, and I'm happy to report, that we now have two agreements in place, with Alberta and Manitoba, for the return of fugitives. We have an informal agreement with the province of Ontario. The Deputy Attorney General can pick up the phone and talk to the Deputy Attorney General there, and vice versa, to arrange the return of particularly violent offenders that may be found on non-returnable warrants, or serious offenders that may be found. It would be a lot easier to prove a warrant as well as to execute the warrant if certain changes to the Criminal Code were made. Those changes have been discussed by Justice officials. I understand that in our ministry, the person who has been dealing with this issue is David Winkler, and he could brief you on all the changes that he has been proposing. We have circulated proposals for changes to the Criminal Code to facilitate this return of fugitives. It would be a lot easier if those changes were made.

G. Plant: As I understand it, one of the challenges with the return of fugitives is the simple question of costs. There's the cost that has to be borne to transport the fugitive back. It's one thing to speak about improving the legislative or regulatory framework that would facilitate return, and certainly making agreements with provinces that would speed the way is another step in the right direction. But does the government of British Columbia or this minister have the political will to spend the money necessary to expand the return of fugitives over the course of time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Vancouver police have indicated to me that there are several hundred fugitives. I have said to them and others, "Round them up, particularly the serious offenders, and we will ship them back at our cost," and we would stand by that particular promise. However, it would be much easier to deal with the issue if we had bilateral arrangements with all the provinces. We are continuing to do that, as well as pressing Ottawa to make some procedural changes to the Criminal Code. I haven't looked recently at all the changes that we're proposing. I did look at them at one time; I don't recall whether this is included. But from a simple person's point of view, I would be happy if the Criminal Code said: "For these offences, you can't issue a non-returnable warrant." So then courts wouldn't have the discretion and the Crown wouldn't have the discretion that there is a certain bar above which all of the warrants are returnable. That would solve many of the problems. In addition to that, criminal procedure needs to be changed, as well.

[4:45]

G. Plant: It strikes me that if you went to the Vancouver city police, as the minister has indicated he's done, and asked them to round up those who are known to be at large on non-returnable warrants, there would be a gathering of those fugitives and the roundup would take place in fairly short order. I'm curious to know why that hasn't happened, because it occurs to me that there are some ways that they could be found. I'm struck by the fact that on the one hand, it's made to look fairly easy, but on the other hand, it's not happening. Why is that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the criminal justice branch has been working with the police on this issue. One of the difficulties is that everyone recognizes that the fugitives are around; however, it's difficult to round them up. Then you have to get the agreement of the receiving province to actually receive the criminal at the other end of the country, if it's a place far away. Those are the current practices and procedures. Those are some of the changes that we're seeking. That kind of discretion is then taken away, if you have a particular kind of warrant issued and certain procedural changes are made. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to pick up three or four or five fugitives at any given time. Obviously they aren't sitting around waiting for us. There is 

[ Page 2744 ]

no doubt that they are around, but it is difficult to round them up at any given time and to make it feasible for a significant number of criminals to be returned at any given time.

G. Plant: If I were to suggest that there is one problem that is bigger than another problem The bigger problem is being able to return them once you find them, as opposed to finding them. So in that respect I suspect that if the Vancouver city police were given the resources and the time to do it, they could probably effect the roundup in fairly short order. The really insuperable obstacle at this point consists more of the issue of how to get them back to the jurisdiction of origin and how to make the jurisdiction of origin take them back. It's sufficient for my purposes if the Attorney General simply stands up and agrees with everything I've just said.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sorry, I missed part of the hon. member's comments, so I wouldn't be able to say that.

G. Plant: I think one of the reasons why I lost the Attorney General's attention during the course of what I said a minute ago is that he was agreeing with me along the way and then got distracted. The real problem here is not finding the people who are fugitives. The real problem -- the insuperable obstacle at the moment -- exists in the fact that there aren't arrangements in place to compel receiving jurisdictions to take these folks home, and the expense involved in transporting them home -- home being the term I use to describe the receiving jurisdiction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the almost two years that I've been around, we have indicated that we are prepared to undertake that expenditure. I think the obstacle that's harder to overcome is the obstacle of the receiving jurisdiction being prepared to receive the criminals at the other end, with the resources that they need to bring it into being at that juncture.

One shouldn't really underestimate the work the police may have to do to round up these individuals, either. It is not that easy. We have attempted to work with the police. They may be able to round some people up, but as soon as they know there is a crackdown, criminals don't sit around and wait for the police to pick them up.

G. Plant: I'm sure that's so.

This is one of a number of issues that I've encountered over the last year in trying to understand how the justice system works in British Columbia. It is a real challenge to find, among the people who know something about it, a uniformity about what the real problem is, because there tends to be an awful lot of "Well, the real problem is them, not us." If you go down the road and ask the "them," surprisingly they won't admit that it's their problem. In fact, they'll pass the responsibility around to somebody else. That's why, in a way, I was trying to test to see what the Attorney General would say about where, from his perspective, the next biggest obstacle -- or the current biggest obstacle -- is.

It's good to know that the Attorney General has committed to the expenditure if we can get to the position where there are receiving jurisdictions willing to take them. It's good to know that the Vancouver city police are sort of able to step in at some point and assist. That means that from that perspective, then, the problem does become the problem of the receiving jurisdiction.

In that context, it seems to me that the thing that's interesting is that if you're going to make a deal, it's a reciprocal deal. We give, we have to take, and I don't know where we would put them, having just heard the Attorney General speak most eloquently about the fact that the corrections system, including remand centres, is overcrowded.

I know this is a problem which the minister is capable of solving, but I'm not sure that I can actually see the way forward. It strikes me that if someone were to ask British Columbia, "Are we prepared to take in all of those who are at large elsewhere in Canada currently on non-returnable warrants?" there might be a capacity problem here. I don't know if that's the Attorney General's perspective or not, and I'd be interested in hearing it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think at some point one has to decide the terms of cost-effectiveness -- not just in fiscal terms, but in other terms as well -- of having someone transported back to British Columbia for having done some shoplifting. Not that it's not a serious offence, but on the scale of things, I think we should reserve this kind of repatriation of fugitives for serious offences. I don't have a sense of how many British Columbia fugitives there would be in other provinces. B.C. is such a great place to live; I'm sure they're all here.

G. Plant: Unless, having been charged with a string of 14 or 15 minor property offences, they suddenly realized that their lives would be a lot easier if they were living in Calgary, if there was no prospect of being returned to British Columbia to face trial on the charges that exist here, because the criminal justice system here, exercising the priorities of cost and all those other things, decided it wasn't really worth spending the money to bring them back That would seem to me to be a perfectly good reason to leave British Columbia, beautiful as it might be.

I think I've now realized that there are a host of complicating factors around this issue and that it would be as difficult to get a really clear vision from the minister on this one as It would be the same level of difficulty that I've experienced in talking to everybody else about this problem, so we'll watch it unfold for a year or so and see what happens.

There is another issue that I wanted to raise, which is a fairly brief but kind of difficult one. I want to ask a little bit about the role of special prosecutors. I suppose the context is that the observation that the people who are doing the work of special prosector in relation to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society issue are taking a long time. I say that without in any way passing judgment on whether they should or should not be taking a long time, but I think most people would agree that they have been taking a long time.

It seems to me that part of the ongoing evolution of the development of the independence of the prosecutorial function in politically sensitive cases is that we have to face this issue of how long special prosecutors can or cannot take. At what point does the intervention of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General into the work of a particular special prosecution that may be taking too long start to threaten to become a form of interference, which the whole system is intended to avoid?

If the question is not already on the table because of the specific facts of the case that I have referred to, it will at some point be on the table. I would be interested in knowing what the Attorney General's response is to that general question of timeliness.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've just spoken to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and he advises me that he is 

[ Page 2745 ]

satisfied that any delay which may have occurred in this matter is not due to any lack of diligence of the special prosecutors. That's all he's prepared to tell me at this point. He has been in contact with them.

G. Plant: I am grateful for the information that the minister has provided in relation to that particular prosecution.

If we could take a step back from that particular prosecution, what is the process, if one exists, by which the Assistant Deputy Attorney General maintains some kind of monitoring role or supervisory role over the time lines for the work of special prosecutors?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The mandate of a special prosecutor is crafted in consultation with the special prosecutor. Once that is done, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General does not retain day-to-day contact with the special prosecutor. If there are problems, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General gets back to the special prosecutor and finds out why there may be delay and will deal with those issues as they arise. There is no formal relationship other than simply that relationship.

G. Plant: On a case-by-case basis, has it been the experience of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General that there are time lines that are a part of an investigation? They would presumably be mutually agreed upon, but I don't know whether there is any discussion of time lines or if it's simply something that's left open at the beginning of a project and only dealt with if, as and when it becomes a problem.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In most cases there are no time lines other than those dictated by the investigations that may be continuing. For instance, if the police seek the appointment of a special prosecutor to assist them, there would be no time line from the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, because the police investigation is independent and has a time frame of its own.

[5:00]

If I can just say something myself For instance, in matters where there might be a deadline or expiry of time limit for possible charges -- if the special prosecutor ever decides to recommend charges -- those are time-limited deadlines that are imposed by the Criminal Code. They are not something imposed by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General.

D. Symons: A few questions I guess I'm going to be looking first for a jurisdictional. . .to make sure that I'm asking the right person. They deal with drinking -- impaired driving -- and I gather that's a criminal offence and therefore would come under your jurisdiction. But the regulations that often affect this come through the motor vehicle branch, which is another jurisdiction, so that's why my first question is: would this be appropriate at this time? Thank you; I'm seeing the nodding.

I have some concerns. We've made some changes to the penalties attached to drinking and driving over the past years, and I applaud the government for it, but I think there are still some problems within that field and that there seems to be repeat offenders.

One of the concerns I have -- I expressed it when we were making some changes to the Motor Vehicle Act a little while ago -- deals with the 24-hour roadside suspension. It seems, I gather, that somebody can be suspended repeatedly. Obviously, to get a suspension they've probably exceeded .08, which is the point for impaired driving. But because of the backlog or the difficulty of getting convictions, often they're simply given a roadside suspension.

The other one is the 30-day suspensions now in effect and an escalation of that for repeat offenders. I'm wondering if we can't somehow go a step further for these repeat offenders. It's not the first-time offenders as much as the repeat offenders that I'm after here. Can we have introduced -- or is the government considering introducing -- some sort of compulsory treatment program or education program for repeat offenders before they have a reinstatement of their driver's licence?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me first deal with the question around whether or not the court can order mandatory treatment for alcohol. Our court of appeal has indicated that that is not possible at all. However, the motor vehicle branch could make it compulsory for someone who has a history of this kind of problem to get some treatment and show some improvement before a licence could be issued. That particular matter could be considered, and obviously, after this discussion today, they may look at this and deal with it.

In terms of the other issues around 24-hour suspension, as the hon. member knows, Bill 25 is anticipated to be proclaimed on May 5; that's public knowledge. That would provide for administrative prohibition from driving; allowing a police officer to prohibit from driving for a 90-day period any driver who fails or refuses a breathalyser test; vehicle impoundment for 30 days on first offence and 60 days on subsequent offences for driving while prohibited; and, of course, graduated licensing, which provides for zero alcohol tolerance for new drivers and that new drivers with a blood alcohol level of over zero will have their licences suspended for 30 days. So we are attempting to deal with these issues. We may increase or bring into effect more of these kinds of provisions as time goes on.

D. Symons: Thank you for that answer. I'm pleased to see that it's going to be proclaimed very shortly.

I'm wondering if government has considered endorsing a licence when somebody has a 24-hour roadside suspension -- or indeed if that's extended to the 30-, 60- or 90-day suspension, depending upon how the driver reacts, I suppose, to being pulled over. If the licence could be endorsed in some sort of way, the second time that person is pulled over the officer would immediately know that and could make sure at that time, then, that there is a charge laid. If they have suspicion or the breathalyser indicates that he's over the legal limit, then rather than giving another 24-hour or 30-day or 60-day suspension, a charge is actually laid.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That information is available to the police officers today, and they're able to act on it.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might tell me, then, whether there's any policy in place where repeat offenders are charged rather than continuing the 24-hour suspensions or extended licence suspensions or driving prohibition -- something beyond just simply giving a suspension.

[ Page 2746 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's completely within the discretion of the police officer to decide to recommend charges or not. They look at your past history. They look at the level of alcohol that may be Obviously, they do a breathalyser and determine whether or not you're over the limit. Those are the kinds of decisions that the individual police officer makes.

There is no policy on that other than the fact, as the hon. member knows, that there has been a history of the CounterAttack program. In fact, the criminal justice branch has been very tough in the recent past on impaired drivers who cause injury or fatalities. I'm aware of cases that were appealed. Whether we had any success or not, we've sent a message to impaired drivers that we would seek the toughest possible penalties under the law for them.

I'm always open to any suggestions that the hon. member might have as to how we can better do this or how we can maybe add to our arsenal of various offences that we currently have, to do a better job.

D. Symons: I do know the effects that the CounterAttack program has had. We've had, I think, over the last 15 or 20 years or so, quite a decline in the number of drinking drivers. I am concerned, though, about something the minister said, indicating that if somebody is involved in a fatal accident or injuries and so forth, the law comes down hard on them. I would like to be proactive and get them before somebody's injured, in that sense.

I'm wondering if the minister would consider a suggestion to possibly have a vehicle confiscation program, where we don't just simply impound it for a period of time but confiscate it if somebody has had a second offence for driving while their licence is suspended or driving without a licence -- that we make that offence a very serious one, because often the licence is suspended because they've had a poor driving habit, either of drinking and driving or, indeed, dangerous driving.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The administrative prohibition from driving that I've indicated and the vehicle impoundment for 30 days or 60 days, depending on whether it's a first offence or a subsequent offence, I think are a good beginning. We'll monitor that to see what impact that has. If we have to toughen that up or bring something more in, I'd certainly be open to considering that.

D. Symons: I was suggesting that if it's a repeat offender and somebody likely to be a danger to all of us on the highways, simply putting them off the wheels for 30, 60 or 90 days may not be sufficient. But if they're repeat offenders, then maybe the fear of losing their wheels, period, might be a deterrent and also be, I guess, a caution to anybody who may loan them their car that they'd better check his licence to see whether there's any endorsement on it or if the person has a licence. That doesn't seem to be done that much nowadays. But I know the branch has the ability to hold the person who owns the car responsible for anybody that's driving it. This would be just another one to make the owner be a little more responsible for who they allow to use their car.

Something I did suggest a couple of years ago -- and maybe I'll bring it up again at this point, because it seemed to create a bit of interest in the public then -- was the idea of issuing to drivers who have been identified as dangerous drivers on the road for various reasons and are continuing to have that pattern Rather than continue to build up demerit points, we should give them shocking-pink licence plates -- as I said then -- so that they're identifiable, with two objectives in mind for that. One is that we as fellow drivers on the road can see that licence plate and know that we'd better be careful because they might do something crazy, and so avoid them -- a little bit of defensive driving there.

The second one is, I guess, a bit of shame on the part of that person, who will try to amend their driving habits so that they can get rid of the shocking plate after a year's time or whatever period of grace we would have in there that they'd have to have this licence plate for. But it might also be a way of making drivers become a little more cognizant of their driving habits and improve them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure the motor vehicle branch would take note of this discussion. They are the ones who develop policy on these issues. I'd certainly be interested in what they have to say on this issue. I understand it's been tried in other jurisdictions; I don't know how successful it has been. But I'd certainly be interested in looking at that, as well.

G. Plant: The implementation of the administrative driving prohibition brings with it a sense of apprehension -- perhaps it's the word -- that the availability of 30-, 60- or 90-day suspensions and suspensions on a relatively low threshold, in terms of procedural due process requirements, will cause an overwhelming loss of interest on the part of police officers and Crown counsel in pursuing the much more difficult challenge of obtaining convictions for impaired driving and the actual Criminal Code offences.

I suppose it may actually be better than nothing to have drivers suspended from driving for 30, 60 or 90 days as a result of a roadside suspension under the new administrative driving prohibition. That may be better than what we sometimes have now, which is very little in the way of suspension, a long delay pending an impaired driving trial and then an acquittal because something goes wrong in the course of the trial. But I think I would be interested in the Attorney General's assurance, if he's able to give it to me, that the implementation of the administrative driving prohibition will be regarded as an additional weapon in the armoury of the state, as it were, rather than a substitution for the existing regime under the law.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely, it is an additional weapon and not a substitution for the existing tools that we have. I understand that in Manitoba a similar provision resulted in an increase in guilty pleas, fewer trials and speedier justice.

G. Plant: Guilty pleas for impaired driving charges and breathalyser offences, is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: That's good to know. I will follow the developments here with interest.

There is another subject that, I suppose, falls under the umbrella of the criminal justice branch as well as perhaps the court services. That is the issue of delays in getting to trial in criminal cases. In criminal cases, of course, the risk of a protracted delay is the risk that the case will be stayed.

I wonder if the Attorney General's ministry or the criminal justice branch keeps track of Askov decisions on an ongoing basis and if there are any statistics available. If they're not available now, but they could be made available later, I'd be 

[ Page 2747 ]

interested in knowing what the experience of the government is in B.C., on an ongoing basis, with respect to cases being stayed on the grounds of delay.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, there are no statistics. I believe there aren't that many Askov decisions in British Columbia. But the Assistant Deputy Attorney General advises me, and I know, that there are many procedures and various mechanisms that we are putting in place to make sure that the trials happen expeditiously, without much delay. If the hon. member is interested, he can be briefed at length by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General on those. There are no stats on Askov decisions; I'm directly not aware of any. I know that there is an occasional reference to these issues in the newspapers. Fortunately, many have not come my way. Obviously, it seems to me that we may be avoiding that issue, despite the fact that there are backlogs in the courts, which we are going to deal with as we move towards justice reform.

[5:15]

G. Plant: That's interesting to know -- that there isn't a record kept. I suppose it would be a difficult record to keep.

But I did have brought to my attention one case in Penticton. My information comes from an organization which calls itself Penticton Court Watch. The information comes in the way of a letter, which concerns a couple of individuals charged at the Osoyoos border crossing with possession of tens of thousands of dollars' worth of tobacco products. I assume that the charge was that the tobacco products were unlicensed or something like that.

Apparently, one of these individuals had his proceedings stayed 664 days later because of the length of time in the system. There was a co-accused who, at least as of the date of this letter, had been in the court system for over two years, with something like 18 separate court appearances. Obviously, the people in Penticton are concerned that this individual would also end up being shot out of the system for delay. I don't know if the Attorney General has a particular explanation for the particular circumstances of this case. I certainly don't intend to bring others before But here's one that I think does call out for some explanation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That may be a federal case if it's to do with importing something into the country. I'd be happy to have my officials look into it and provide all the details to the hon. member.

G. Plant: Thank you; I'll take the Attorney General up on that offer. Even if it were a federal case, I suppose what would happen is that it would no longer be Mr. Quantz's problem. But it might still be a court availability problem.

I want to ask about another matter for which a special prosecutor has been retained, and that is the issue of the third-party spending restrictions in the Election Act. The Attorney General will recall that a question was raised about this in the House a few weeks ago. At the time, I raised the question about whether it was really a profitable expenditure of the tax dollars of the people of British Columbia that we pursue an extensive and expensive proceeding against people who are at risk of being charged or who have been charged with offences under a statute that is unconstitutional in my view, anyway. At the time, I think I was given a lecture by the Attorney General on how I really ought to know more about special prosecutors and all of that. In effect, I think the message I was supposed to take was that once issues like this get handed off to special prosecutors, they should stay there until the special prosecutor decides what to do with them.

I think that is probably wrong, but I was prepared to live with that for a while until yesterday morning, after I turned the radio on during an interesting discussion between Rafe Mair and the Attorney General on the hate crime scene, which I may continue here. The Attorney was asked some questions on this issue. I get the sense from the remarks made by the Attorney General on the gag law issue that the Attorney General, to quote him, is anxious to have this issue resolved by our courts in British Columbia, then perhaps the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm not really sure if the Attorney General can have it both ways. Sure, question period is an entertaining place for all of us who participate in it. But what is it? Is it that the Attorney General has devolved this problem in its entirety to a special prosecutor? Or does the Attorney General still have a particular political perspective on these provisions in the Election Act and on what ought to be done about them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When I was discussing that issue, I was referring specifically to the Pacific Press case, or a reference to the Supreme Court on those provisions in a civil court, of course -- not the criminal issue. At the end of the day, there is a residual power of the Attorney General to direct a special prosecutor to proceed with a prosecution or not. I don't believe it's appropriate for me to make any comments on that at this time. A special prosecutor is working on the issue and will provide a report for the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Then I'm certain that I will be briefed.

I can tell you that it's one of the more difficult issues I've had to face, and I will certainly look at that. I know my responsibilities, and I will try to discharge them in the best possible way, knowing full well that there is the whole question of these issues out before the Supreme Court currently in the form of the Pacific Press action, as well as the penalties that the chief electoral officer has imposed, which I've indicated will not be collected until this issue is resolved. So it is a complex matter.

No, I don't have a view on the criminal issue. I have a view on the civil aspect of it. But then one may influence the other in what I end up doing at the end of the day. And I don't believe that it's appropriate for me, in a premature fashion, to even express an inclination.

G. Plant: Without in any way wanting to interfere with the independence of a particular special prosecutor in this case, I want to know the answer -- whether it be specific or general -- to the question of whether it is open to a special prosecutor to consider, for example, the question of the constitutional validity of a particular provision under which a charge would be laid, and if it's therefore appropriate to make a recommendation that no charge under this provision would stand, because the provision would not withstand a constitutional challenge.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I may advise the hon. member and other members of the Legislature, I'm just advised by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General that it is an express part of this particular special prosecutor's mandate to determine that issue as well.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that information.

[ Page 2748 ]

The next question, I guess, is: why can't the Attorney General get an answer to the constitutional question from one of the many confident and qualified lawyers in the legal services branch and then deal with it on that basis? Why is it necessary to go through this procedure of essentially hiring outside counsel at an expense to deal with the problem?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the special prosecutor was not appointed for the specific purpose of determining the constitutionality of these provisions. The specific purpose of the special prosecutor is to determine the substantial likelihood of a conviction. As part of that determination in this case, it's quite obvious that the special prosecutor would have to think about and decide upon the issue of constitutionality of these provisions in determining whether or not there is a substantial likelihood of conviction.

G. Plant: I understand that. I'm not sure it answers the question. Obviously the special prosecutor would also be looking at whatever the ordinary requirements for proof of the offence or contravention are in determining whether, in a particular case or cases that he has before him, there is sufficient evidence to support the laying of the charge, and all of that stuff. But all of that is quite unnecessary if the charge that is being proposed is in contravention of a section of a statute that may not survive a constitutional challenge. So to put my previous question in more colloquial terms, I'm still not sure why the Attorney General doesn't just walk down the hall and knock on the door of a lawyer in the legal services branch and say: "Hey, tell me, is this going to survive a constitutional challenge or not?" Why can't the process be dealt with in that way, at least in the first instance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The whole rationale for the Crown Counsel Act was that when you have individuals in the political life of the province who are involved in terms of any potential prosecutions, you have an independent individual look at that issue. Here there is a political party involved, and I don't believe it's appropriate for me as the Attorney General to make decisions myself, unless I get the advice of a special prosecutor who is both independent and seen to be independent of me.

[5:30]

G. Plant: I suppose my view of the subject is irretrievably coloured by the fact that I have an opinion on the merits of the case, as it were. Therefore I think that when the answer to the question is known ahead of time, and when the answer to the question as known is one that would not expose the Attorney General to any criticism or censure from the perspective that he's just argued, then I'm less concerned about the politics. But I understand the purpose of the Crown Counsel Act, and I'm sure that it's a good thing that we follow its principles as often as we can.

I take it, then, that the decision not to permit the collection of penalties pending the report of the special prosecutor is a sort of informal stay, if you will. It's not intended by the Attorney General to be an expression of opinion one way or the other on whether or not penalty collection might proceed at some point in the future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the collection of the penalties, I'm more focused. In fact, I'm exclusively focused on the Pacific Press case or any other civil case going through the civil courts or a reference. I may be better informed after the special prosecutor's report in this matter as well. But we are looking to receive an opinion through a decision from the Supreme Court of B.C. or from the Court of Appeal of British Columbia to deal with those issues.

G. Plant: There was an individual hired as a special investigator last September to examine the alleged violations of the gag law provisions of the Election Act. His name is Leonard Giles. Is that someone who would have been hired by the chief electoral officer?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I'll leave that subject for a moment.

In terms of my pursuit of the issues that are of interest to me in the context of the criminal justice branch, I've pretty much done the stuff I want to do, and I note the hour. There are one or two things that are more or less technical in nature, in terms of some basic things I'd like to have recorded in Hansard.

One that does touch on the criminal justice branch to some extent, I suppose, is I think we will return to the subject of photo radar. For present purposes, I was informed in the very helpful briefing I had from ministerial staff that the amount of money which the Ministry of Attorney General expects to spend over the course of the current fiscal year on activities dedicated to photo radar is $12.8 million. I wonder if the Attorney could confirm if that number is correct.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that is for the enforcement, including the police officers.

G. Plant: That includes police officers, and, as I understand it, it includes dedicated Crown counsel and other people within the system. But that's the overall number, and I'm told that it is premised on a calculation with respect to the expected number of violations or tickets and that the figure is 3,000 violations a month. That is, the ministry expects to spend something like $12.8 million this year on the enforcement part of photo radar, but that figure assumes that there will be a certain number of cases going through the system, and the number of cases is 3,000 a month. I can't remember if that's the right number or not. Perhaps the Attorney could simply confirm or correct that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's essentially correct. The number of disputes would be about 3,000 a month.

G. Plant: What is the current experience of the ministry in terms of the number of disputes a month?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Last year there were only about 2,400 disputes, but the number is going up. We believe that this will go up substantially.

G. Plant: The figure of 2,400 is for the totality of last year. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I understand that this matter came into effect around August and that this is the figure for those five months.

G. Plant: Does the minister have the figures for January, February and March of this year, to see the actual increase?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There have been about 6,000 disputes to date this year, and approximately 2,500 have been dealt with already.

[ Page 2749 ]

G. Plant: When the minister says "6,000 to date this year," what is the date that he has in mind? I just want to know if it was to the end of February or March -- whatever the day is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been misinformed, and, in turn, I've misinformed you. The 6,000 disputes to date start from August of last year through to last week. We don't have the figures broken down Oh yes, we do. In 1996 there were 2,382 disputes. So if you take that away, it's about 3,600 to date this year.

G. Plant: I expect we'll be returning to the subject of photo radar.

Another matter where there are some expenditures in vote 18 is statutory services. These include the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, the Crown Proceeding Act, the Emergency Program Act, the Inquiry Act and the valuation allowance. On the surface, there has been a fairly large, if not enormous, increase in the amounts allocated to these services in the estimates for 1997-98. My understanding of the reason for this increase is that for each of these statutory services, the corporate services people within the ministry have attempted to budget, going forward on a basis which more accurately reflects the experience of these various accounts over the last four or five years than has been the case in the past. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is correct, and liquor control and licensing is also included in that.

G. Plant: The reason I left it off my recitation was that it doesn't really have an increase associated with it, so I take it that liquor control and licensing would not really be something to which that analysis applied. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: With that, I would be moving to deal with public safety issues and the community justice branch. But noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:40 p.m.

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