[ Page 2913 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to introduce 28 students from North Delta Senior Secondary, accompanied by a longtime colleague of mine, Mr. Gary Bennett. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House three hard-working women, two from the Transportation Financing Authority and one from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, who are joining us in the House today. Would the House please welcome Barb Howard, Shannon Dimaulo and Ruth Samarin.

C. Clark: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today three individuals who spend much of their day in my riding at Simon Fraser University. As students each of them is concerned about the quality of education and about ensuring that there are jobs for them in the future, so each of them has joined the SFU Liberal club. I'd like to introduce you to, and I hope the House will make welcome, David Jang, Chris Seguin and Aaron Moore.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to welcome some local political leaders from north and south Cariboo: Mayor Steve Wallace; Al Richmond, from the Cariboo regional district, representing the 100 Mile House area; Mary Glassford, from the CRD in the Nazco area; and Brent Oxenbury, from the health council in the north Cariboo. They're down here to meet with the Minister of Health. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from the People's Republic of China. His Excellency Zha Pei Xin is the newly appointed Ambassador of China to Canada. He has recently taken up residence in Ottawa, and I'm sure he is already looking forward to the APEC economic leaders' meeting in Vancouver this November. The Premier and I are looking forward to meeting with the ambassador later this afternoon. I would ask all members to join me in extending a warm welcome to Zha Pei Xin.

J. Wilson: I would also like to extend a welcome from the House to the visitors from Cariboo North and Cariboo South. I also ask that we make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: In the gallery today are two constituents from Victoria-Hillside who have dropped in to see the proceedings of this House: Erin Miller and Joscelyne Addison. I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Calendino: I notice in the gallery that among those students from North Delta Senior Secondary are two former students of mine, and I'd like to add my welcome to that of the speaker from the other side of the floor. I see Sarah Hughes there and Jeff. . . . I forgot your last name, Jeff. Forgive me. Time really goes fast in this place. I would ask you to please welcome the students there.

Hon. C. Evans: Visiting today from the HEU are Margaret Caven and Judy Shirley; from the BCGEU, Suzanna Gesman and Daniela Demetlika; and from the Egg Marketing Board, Gerald Zalph and Gerry Brown. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, on June 1, 1995, a new Election Act was introduced to the Legislature. I think everyone would agree that the Election Act should be above politics. However, the B.C. Liberals have received an internal NDP memo from Keith Reynolds, former provincial secretary, to the NDP provincial secretary today, Brian Gardiner -- a transition memo, I suppose -- which was written a full year prior to the tabling of the Election Act in this Legislature. It is clear from this memo that the NDP's top political advisers were included in the review of the legislation a full year before it was tabled in this House. I quote: "Hans Brown and Gerry Scott have already seen it."

Can the Premier explain why Hans Brown and Gerry Scott, two top political advisers to the NDP, were involved in the Election Act a full year prior to its being tabled in this House?

Hon. G. Clark: I, of course, was not the Premier at the time, and know not of what the member refers to. Did we have wide consultation on the Election Act? Yes, and thank goodness we did, because now we know the Liberals got a million dollars in campaign donations from banks and big forest companies in this province. And we wouldn't have known that if we didn't have an Election Act which made them fess up. This party across the way got more money from corporations than any party in the history of Canada. We know who they're beholden to, because of that Election Act. It's a good act, hon. Speaker, and the member should support it.

G. Campbell: The Premier has actually identified one of the major problems with the act: whereas most people have got to disclose fully what has happened, the act was specifically drafted to hide the kinds of contributions that the NDP was getting, in spite of the fact that those laws were in place for municipalities.

The issue remains. It is clear from the memo, in 1994, that the Election Act was about to be tabled. However, after involving Hans Brown and Gerry Scott, after involving the NDP's table officers, the legislation was dragged back into the back rooms of the NDP, and it did not see the light of day for a full year. The NDP spent that year ensuring that the act met their political objectives as opposed to the public interest.

Can the Premier explain to British Columbians why they should ever trust either the NDP or him again, when that's how this government treats the Election Act?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the Election Act is not a secret document; it is an act tabled in this House and debated in this House clause by clause, subject to the scrutiny of everybody in B.C. If the government of the day consulted broadly and widely around the makeup of that act, including with political people on all sides of the House, for a matter of public debate. . . . When the Election Act was tabled in this chamber, it was the subject of public scrutiny. It's subject to public debate.

Frankly, this Election Act is the toughest of any election act in Canada. Everybody who's objective acknowledges that. It has the most exposure, and it highlights who gives money to what political party. If money could buy elections, they 

[ Page 2914 ]

would already have bought the last election -- but it can't. They got money from every major bank, every major company, every media outlet. It's all for everybody to see now, because of the Election Act. It's a good act. Because of that, people know you can't trust the Liberal Party, because they're beholden to banks and big corporations.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, if what the Premier said were true, we might have a better act. I can tell you that the campaign manager for the B.C. Liberal Party was not consulted, the campaign manager for B.C. Reform was not consulted, the campaign manager for the PDA was not consulted, the campaign manager for the Green Party was not consulted, and the Christian Heritage Party was not consulted. In fact, if they had been, we wouldn't have an Election Act that tries to wipe out half of those parties in the province. If they had been consulted, hon. Speaker, I can guarantee you that we would not have had an Election Act that stifles public participation and brings in a gag law that tries to close down public debate.

My question to the Premier is simply this: why would NDP insiders, operatives and patronage appointees be given a piece of draft legislation for their review before it is tabled in this House?

Hon. G. Clark: The Election Act governs how we conduct elections. The chief electoral officer in this province is now appointed by an all-party committee of this House, for the first time -- appointed by the members opposite. The legislation was debated. There's a committee of the House that oversees the Election Act. These are matters of public debate. I'll be very clear: if those members opposite think we're going to allow the pharmaceutical industry or other major. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: If they think that we're going to go the way of the United States and allow interest groups to purchase elections, while we control spending for political parties, they're wrong. They have been exposed. They have been exposed to be a party beholden to corporate interests, the likes of which we have not seen in Canada, and we're not going to let them try to change the law to allow even more corporate participation on their behalf.

G. Plant: The question, of course, is: how are laws made in British Columbia? And for one brief, shining moment, we see the truth: laws are made when this government goes and asks its friends and insiders what to do.

The memo from Reynolds to Gardiner refers to the Election Act, and states: "You were at the table officers' meeting that discussed this." Mr. Speaker, one of the table officers at that time was none other than the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the current Attorney General. Can the Attorney General, the minister responsible for the Election Act, tell us why it was necessary for him and the other table officers of the NDP to have access to the Election Act a full 14 months before it was introduced in this House?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a great piece of legislation. As I said yesterday in the estimates, when issues around the Election Act were raised, we will continue to monitor how this legislation functions, the chief electoral officer will make recommendations for change, and we will consult. If changes need to be made, they will be made. There was the broadest possible consultation on this issue before the Election. . . . Before the act came into this Legislature, it was debated. It's a great piece of legislation. If changes need to be made, let's debate those.

G. Plant: Well, we all know that the night the Election Act, as it was introduced in 1995. . . . It included a gag law intended to stifle public debate by individuals and organizations during election campaigns.

Can the Premier tell us. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I want to hear the question.

G. Plant: . . .exactly who of his party organizers, or organized-labour friends, instructed his government to include the gag law within the supposedly impartial Election Act? And why should British Columbians ever trust his government again?

Hon. G. Clark: Unlike the Liberals, we don't believe that freedom of speech extends to the right to purchase elections, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: This is a matter of serious public policy debate in this country. The national party, the former national government. . . . I think it was a Liberal government. But then again, there are no federal Liberals over there, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Although he left, hon. Speaker.

They passed one which limited third-party contributions to try to level the playing field, so people could not purchase elections in this country the way they do in the United States. It was struck down by one court in Alberta. It's a matter of great debate. The chief electoral officer of Canada has indicated that there should be some restrictions on third-party advertising. We've chosen in this province to do so. I not only stand by it; I say it's critical to democracy that we make sure that multinational corporations cannot buy elections. It's particularly critical in British Columbia when we have a party over there -- a craven party -- on their knees for contributions from corporations. We will not allow them to intervene in the democratic process in this province, and we'll let the people decide.

R. Neufeld: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. As I explained last week during the Attorney General's estimates, northerners are frustrated that the courts often sit in their communities only once a month. Can the minister explain why less than 2,000 Nisga'a people living in the Nass should have their own court system, when other British Columbians can't even access the courts that already exist?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's very clear in the agreement-in-principle that the scope of the court within the Nisga'a is 

[ Page 2915 ]

extremely limited and would not be dealing with the kinds of issues that the vast majority of court issues would be in the other courts that the member refers to. So it really is a comparison of apples and oranges.

R. Neufeld: At a time when this government claims it doesn't have enough money to run the courts we've got in smaller communities, it wants to fund an entirely new court system for native people only in the Nass. How can the minister possibly justify funding an ongoing court system for the Nisga'a when his government is closing existing courthouses and off-loading court operating costs onto municipalities? Where is the equity and balance in this approach?

Hon. J. Cashore: Implicit in this new arrangement -- witness the fact that B.C. insisted on phasing out the tax exemption -- will be the eventual reality that the Nisga'a will be paying their fair share for all the services they receive.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened with interest to the Premier's comment, because he said that the government consulted widely with all people on all sides of the House and all parties. It wasn't too long ago in this House that I asked the question of the former Attorney General. I asked whether the Attorney General could tell us which individuals or organizations in the labour movement he or members of the government had been consulting with in regard to this legislation. That Attorney General stated: "I have consulted with nobody in the labour movement."

This memo goes on to say: "Angie Schira has to see it, because it's going to change the financial arrangements between us and the labour movement." Will the Premier tell us who's telling the truth? Is it the Premier, or was it the former Attorney General -- or none of the above?

Hon. G. Clark: I was not in a position three years ago, when the memo refers to, to answer this out-of-order question, hon. Speaker. Having said that. . . .

Look, there's nothing nefarious about consulting broadly on anything. We'll be bringing in legislation on fisheries renewal very shortly. I want the members to know that I have told everybody with anything to do with the fishing industry, including New Democrats who are involved in the fishing industry. . . . I have shared with them broadly what we're thinking of bringing into this chamber.

It matters not who we consult with on any piece of legislation. What matters is what's brought into the House and what's debated. When it's in the House. . . . I defy the members opposite not to at least admit that they consult with their political staff about the legislation that's in the House, to help prepare criticisms of the legislation. It's debated in this House. This act was debated in this House. It's good legislation. It has exposed the Liberals, hon. Speaker, and we stand by it.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the honour to present the '94-95 annual report of the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, and the '94-95 annual report of the Medical Services Commission.

J. Weisbeck: Mr. Speaker, this petition is presented on behalf of 829 students from the Prince Rupert campus of Northwest Community College. This petition protests a 33 percent cut in university credit courses. These cuts will perpetually limit the access of Prince Rupert residents to post-secondary education.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to advise members that the House will be sitting tomorrow. I now call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 2.

The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 1.

[2:30]

F. Gingell: The first section of Bill 2 deals with the repeal of the Agricultural Credit Act. The Agricultural Credit Act was intended to enhance. . . . I think I'd like to explore some issues relative to section 1 to discover whether the role and the job that the Agricultural Credit Act was intended to perform have truly come to an end. If one goes back and checks the numbers, there have not been any new loans made under the Agricultural Credit Act for two years now, as I understand it. There were none made in the '95-96 financial year, and none made in the '96-97 financial year. I wonder if we could start this with the minister confirming that.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I can confirm that. The program was terminated in the 1995-96 fiscal year due to decreasing participation. Therefore the account is no longer required.

F. Gingell: Can the minister advise the committee if any applications for loans were made at all during that period?

Hon. A. Petter: What I can say is that applications for loans were no longer receivable after March 31, 1995. Therefore I don't know if some people ignored the deadline and tried to put in applications. If they did, they would not have been applications in the sense that they had any chance of succeeding, because applications terminated as of that date.

F. Gingell: The Agricultural Credit Act provided, as I understand it, for loans rather than grants. I was wondering if the minister could advise us of the current balance of loans that are outstanding.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the payments in outstanding loans are currently valued in the range of $15 million.

F. Gingell: I take it, then, that the responsibility for administering these loans and collecting them will rest within the Ministry of Finance rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

[ Page 2916 ]

Hon. A. Petter: That would be a correct assumption.

F. Gingell: Can the minister give the committee any feel for the quality of those loans? I notice that you use the word "valued" rather than "are," so I presume that the amount of the loans is somewhat in excess of $15 million. I wondered if you have any feel. . . . We know that all of them are more than three years old. What is the gross amount if it isn't $15 million? I presume the minister, in giving me the $15 million number, is suggesting that that is a reasonable estimate of future collection possibilities.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that is the most recent estimate that I have that staff provided me in writing. If the member is interested in what the outstanding debts are and what the current valuation is in more precise detail, I'd be happy to arrange for that information to be provided to him.

F. Gingell: I'm just really concerned that when a program like this ends, they sometimes tend to get lost. Accounts receivable collection action that should take place sometimes doesn't happen with the vigour that it should. I want to make that point -- and use this opportunity for the minister to join me in getting a little more background on it -- that it's important, that these are taxpayer funds and that collection practices do, in fact, carry on.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just say that I share the member's concern. Any amount of money that's outstanding and owed to the Crown is money that we should collect and is money that does not necessitate us to find additional funds for needed programs. Let me just endorse the member's concern. I know staff have noted it. Having said that, staff at the Ministry of Finance are very professional and have a very strong ethic in favour of full collection of outstanding debts. I'm sure they will show that ethic at work in this case, as in others.

J. Wilson: The minister has inferred that this program was discontinued because there were insufficient applications. I am not sure if the minister is aware of the fact, but it was advertised a full year or more before the program was to be discontinued that it was about to end. In the last few months it did discourage some applications. He has not provided us with the number of applicants. The question that I believe was asked was, "What was the number of applications during the last year?" and not: "What came in after the deadline?" At least, that would be my question to the minister.

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe I can just clarify for the member what this provision tries to do. The decision to end the program was taken previously. It was no doubt debated in previous years' estimates for reasons that relate to the priorities of the ministry and the government of that day -- relating, as I understand it, to budget pressures and a philosophy within the ministry to move to farm income support. This is not the occasion, nor would it be appropriate, to reopen that debate.

All this provision does is remove the account in light of the fact that that prior decision to terminate the program was made and that the outstanding collections can be accommodated without the necessity of continuing this particular instrument.

J. Wilson: This program did have a great deal of benefit, whether the government realized it or not. Could the minister tell us what interest rate the government is receiving on the present balance that's outstanding in this account on that money that was lent?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'd be happy to follow up with that kind of detailed information. My understanding is that the rate that was provided was a concessionary rate, concessionary to the tune of about 4 percent. Where those loans now stand in respect of that rate and the times at which they were made would require more detail than I have at my disposal. I'd be happy to provide it to the member.

J. Wilson: These loans went back over a period of 15 or 20 years. The interest rates ten and 15 years ago were significantly higher than they are today. Even at half of prime -- which was what these loans were lent at -- it would still be a better rate of interest than we're going to get on our money today if we invest it.

On the other hand, the implementation of this program. . . . Could the minister give me a cost figure on what it cost the government to actually implement this program?

Hon. A. Petter: Just so we don't get into a long inquiry in areas that are really beyond the scope of this particular provision, let me just clarify that the elimination of the account in no way changes the status of the loans, their repayment schedules and the ability of the Crown to collect on outstanding debts. All of that remains the same; it's not affected. All this does is terminate the development fund's special account, because the program has been terminated. The question of collection and amounts due and the terms of those loans will continue outside of this account. So really, this line of inquiry is one that's more appropriate, I would suggest, for estimates debate -- if the member is interested -- or through an inquiry which I'd be happy to respond to in writing.

J. Wilson: My question was not answered. I asked the minister -- and this goes back prior to the cancellation of the program: was there a cost factor for the government? Does the cost of running this program have any bearing on the fact that it's been removed? If that's the case, what I'm looking for is: did it actually cost the government any money, or was the interest incurred on the loan more than enough to pay for the administration of the program?

Hon. A. Petter: This was a subsidized program.

J. Wilson: Hon. Chair, could the minister explain what he means by subsidized?

Hon. A. Petter: What I mean is that the costs of providing the loans at the concessionary rate did not recover sufficient money to pay for the costs of raising the money and administering the program.

J. Wilson: In other words, hon. Chair, he's saying that the cost of the program exceeded the return on the money that was lent.

I had another question that has to do with who was responsible for the administration of this program. Now, I have been told that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Did the Minister of Finance, in the administering of this program, pay the wages of personnel within the Ministry of Agriculture to carry out the approval, the monitoring and this type of thing?

[ Page 2917 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll just make this my final answer on this line of inquiry because it seems to me well beyond the scope of the section. The section deals with the account, not the program. The decision to terminate the program was taken and announced in 1995-96. If the member or his predecessors had fully debated at that time and had been available to inquire into why that decision was taken and all the details around it. . . . All this does is terminate the special account that was associated with the program, in light of the fact that the program was terminated. To revisit the debate on why the program was cancelled, when it was cancelled and all those details really goes beyond the scope of the information I have available and revisits an issue that was properly before this Legislature and debated at the time.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, is it correct that what this does is remove about $2.6 million that presently is paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and is required to be collected by the Assessment Authority from all British Columbia property owners?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that the cost will be borne, at least in this year, by the Assessment Authority. There is not an intention that it will be passed on in this year.

F. Gingell: Could the Minister of Finance inform the committee what revenue sources the Assessment Authority of B.C. has?

[2:45]

Hon. A. Petter: I will defer to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs to answer some of these detailed questions.

F. Gingell: Just to bring the Minister of Municipal Affairs up to date, we have established that what has happened here was to remove approximately $2.6 million from the budget of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and have those funds raised by the Assessment Authority. That was agreed.

My second question was: what revenues does the Assessment Authority have from which to pay these costs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically two sources of revenue, hon. member: the mill rate, in terms of property tax, which is levied provincewide; and sale of services.

F. Gingell: So the taxpayers of British Columbia are still going to pay this $2.6 million. Instead of it being paid by all the taxpayers through sales taxes, income taxes and the whole mix of things, now it's specifically going to be paid by property owners through an assessment against property taxes, because the revenues from the sale of services were coming in anyway and would have reduced the Assessment Authority costs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The mill rate stays the same, so the cost is paid by all taxpayers who pay property taxes. That is correct.

F. Gingell: Could I just switch back to the Minister of Finance, if I may. It is my submission that this $2.6 million, small as it may be in the scheme of things, is still a cost which has in previous years been paid out of the consolidated revenue fund and, in this particular year, is being paid by taxpayers through some other means -- still a provincial government body. When the Minister of Finance makes the claim that the total expenditures of the consolidated revenue fund for '97-98 have gone down compared to '96-97, it is only fair and proper to add this $2.6 million back to that calculation before he makes that statement.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'm not sure if that's a question or a rhetorical statement, but I don't share the view. I think that by and large it's good policy that the Assessment Authority of B.C., or any agency whose activities incur costs, bear those costs. But in this case, as I've previously stated, these particular costs are at least initially going to be borne within the budget of the Assessment Authority. If the Assessment Authority requires additional revenue in order to pay for these costs, then they are free to do so through the means that they have at their disposal, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has already outlined.

F. Gingell: The minister has thrown a little curve ball in here. I appreciate that you may think my question is rhetorical, but I'm looking for some acceptance that all these little changes about where things are paid for is critically important when one makes claims about how this year's expenses compare to previous years' expenses. And I would have thought that was a pretty straightforward question which would have deserved an answer of yes.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Hon. Chair, through you to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. At the present time this House and the elected members of the Legislature have the opportunity to debate, and will vote upon, the expenditures made by a series of various government agencies, one of which is the B.C. Assessment Authority. But now, if I understand this correctly, the B.C. Assessment Authority will be in the position to raise the money that is necessary to pay this cost without going through any process -- i.e., the mill rate that the B.C. Assessment Authority requires all municipalities or regional districts, or however it is done, to put on their annual property tax notice is not subject to any debate within this House. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct. It is subject to cabinet approval by order-in-council.

F. Gingell: Battles have been fought on bloody fields all over Europe for 800 years to ensure the people's right to discuss, debate and vote upon the expenditure of funds. I think it is poor public policy, even though the amount is small, for you to remove costs from the consolidated revenue fund, which is debated in this House, and put them into an Assessment Authority which has the ability to raise taxes to cover these expenditures without any debate.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I always love engaging in public policy debates with the member opposite, and I will try not to get too far into it, because we could spend all afternoon. But really, there are good reasons why, when an authority and the appeals associated with its activities incur costs, that authority should bear those costs. We could get into a discussion around that, but there are good reasons why those who generate costs should bear those costs: so that there's a better relationship 

[ Page 2918 ]

between the activity and the cost. As for this question about debate, there's plenty of chance to debate. We are debating this matter now. In fact, the member is debating the very point he's saying he can't debate.

F. Gingell: The last time.

Hon. A. Petter: No, no. The member says "the last time." That's not so. During the course of estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm sure the member will not feel constrained to stand up and raise questions concerning the B.C. Assessment Authority and cabinet decisions this year and in the future, as well as Assessment Authority decisions of any manner and scope. There will be plenty of chance for that member to debate those matters in the scope of that debate as well. So there are competing public policy interests here, and this provision responds to those competing public policy interests in a way that I understand the member doesn't agree with, but I don't think it's a one-sided debate.

F. Gingell: I agree with the minister that there is an issue to debate here. I note, from reading the minister's CV, that he comes from the legal profession. Let's just think about what this process is. It is a court, even though it is a quasi-administrative court. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the right term.

Hon. A. Petter: Administrative tribunal.

F. Gingell: A tribunal. It's an operation which makes decisions. There are two parties. There is a property owner and property taxpayer, and there is an assessor, who is part of the organization of the Assessment Authority. They have not come to an agreement, and they go to this tribunal for a decision. Does the minister really feel that it's appropriate for the funding of that tribunal to be paid for and raised by one of the members, one of the parties to these disputes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. member. I think you have to realize that the administration of the two functions are completely separate. Even though one is funding the other, the administration of the Assessment Authority and the Assessment Appeal Board are two separate administrations that don't come into each other. One does not tell the other what to do. They're completely independent.

F. Gingell: I'm always suspicious of these Chinese walls. Surely, the B.C. Assessment Authority is the authority for which the assessor who has made the assessment works. The B.C. Assessment Authority is the body that is now responsible for funding the appeal board. I'm sure that the Minister of Finance, with his law hat on, wouldn't agree to some arrangement whereby the justice system funded judges' salaries and expenses of the operations of the courts out of the proceeds of whatever revenues the courts can come up with -- fines, etc.

I just think that it's inappropriate public policy. You were better off to leave these expenses where they were, funded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What have you accomplished by changing it? You haven't accomplished anything. It's not better public policy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The budget continues to be set by the government; it's not set by the Assessment Authority. The Assessment Appeal Board's budget is set by the government. All we're saying is that the Assessment Authority is now responsible to cover those costs. The fact of the matter is that they still remain as two independent agencies. The Assessment Authority has no jurisdiction in terms of telling the Assessment Appeal Board what it can and cannot do, and the budget for that continues to be set by the government.

F. Gingell: Maybe the minister can now tell us what the overriding public policy is that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs believes is being furthered by this change in funding mechanism.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically, hon. member, it's a question of cost recovery from the people whom it serves. That what's being accomplished here. The people who are using the service are the property owners. Okay? So they are paying for full cost recovery. That's what is taking place.

F. Gingell: So in looking at the role of the Assessment Authority, all of its expenses -- the assessment process, the production of the roll, sending the roll out -- are paid for by all property owners. Now, only a very small number of those property owners appeal the assessment.

Hon. A. Petter: But they all have a stake in it.

F. Gingell: But only a few of them appeal the assessment. Is the suggestion being made that it's appropriate for all property owners to pay the costs for those few property owners that appeal the assessment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are reviewing the system, and if there are ways of making it better or more equitable, we do. But I think the key question is equity -- that is, you're correct in saying that a few do take advantage or do have to appeal and go through the process. But those few are not always the same. It changes from year to year. What we have to do is make sure that the system is affordable and accessible to everybody. If you only made the costs of the system. . . . If you charged -- where I think you're leading -- for those who use the system or use the actual appeal process and recover the costs fully from those few, you would make it inaccessible for the vast majority of people. So even though you're asking everybody to pay, what you're saying and ensuring is that everybody has a guarantee of access to the system and that the costs are equitable to everybody who uses the system.

[3:00]

F. Gingell: I'm not convinced, I'm afraid, and I have listened with great care. I see the next move: all the criminals will be paying for the costs of the criminal courts. I really do believe -- and it's no good following this on -- that this is an exercise where we're moving $2.6 million from the consolidated revenue fund to some other government agency, still to be paid for by taxpayers. I've not been convinced of any public policy reasons for making that change.

G. Abbott: I just want to follow up on a couple of the points which the member for Delta South has made. First of all, just so it's clearer to me, we're in a kind of three-step process here in terms of the transition from the old world to the new world of payment. In the old world -- up until this year, I gather -- the funds for the Assessment Authority came from the consolidated revenue fund through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I think I understand that from 1998 on, those funds will be coming from property tax.

[ Page 2919 ]

I'm not clear on what happens in 1997. I understand the previous statement was made that the Assessment Authority will be funding it. But through what mechanism? And who will actually pay?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They will be funding it internally through a combination of reserves, internal savings and internal efficiencies. They also are instructed that they cannot increase the mill rate.

G. Abbott: And again. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, I have to acknowledge you when you've risen. The hon. member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry; I was deep in concentration, hon. Chair, attempting to digest the previous answer. Thank you.

Again, as a matter of confirmation here, we are talking about $2.6 million on average per year to operate the Assessment Authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it's not the Assessment Authority; it's the court of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board.

G. Abbott: Both together, then -- the cost of operating courts of revision plus the Assessment Authority is approximately $2.6 million per year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Correct.

G. Abbott: We understand, then, that the $2.6 million will be gathered by the Assessment Authority from reserves, fees and so on for 1997, that there is no contribution from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the consolidated revenue fund or from property tax. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will come from reserves -- the existing cash flow that comes from or to the Assessment Authority through the existing mill rate, for example. You'll have growth within the economy and the growth in the assessment stock, so that's where it will come from.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the House this afternoon are some students, parents and a teacher from Cindrich Elementary in Surrey. Mrs. Cosens is their teacher. There are 23 grade 7 students and four accompanying adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I want to turn to the question which I believe the member for Delta South pursued briefly, but I want to pursue it a little bit further. Why is this change being made? I'd appreciate it if the minister could provide me with some further enlightenment with respect to why we are making this three-stage move to a new way of financing the courts of revision and Assessment Authority.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically we're moving to the way that other authorities and agencies are funded, and that is to move towards full cost recovery by the users of the system. It's our view that by doing that we can make it more efficient, and it's fairer overall to the taxpayers of the province. This is a system that deals with property tax, and so we feel that property owners who pay the tax should pay for the system.

G. Abbott: I think the answer ties in rather well to a response earlier to a question from the member for Delta South: the point that if this was a move towards cost recovery -- in the sense, I guess, that we've come to expect it from agencies and so on -- then we would see, in fact, the users of the system bearing some portion of the cost of operating the courts of revision and Assessment Authority.

Just to pursue that a little bit more, and so the minister can confirm that it's in fact what we're doing here rather than what might be cynically referred to as downloading, could the minister advise at this point what portion of the cost of the operation of courts of revision and the Assessment Authority is in fact secured through user fees in terms of the cost of appeals and so on?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Approximately $500,000 will come through fees. The rest will come through a combination of either reserves, as I stated before, or the mill rate, as applying to the overall growth within the assessment roll.

G. Abbott: Given that, is it a correct supposition that if the object in making this change is -- as the minister says -- to see the system go to cost recovery by users of the system, it is the intention of the government to see that $500,000 share of the $2.6 million grow?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The $500,000 comes about through users of the Assessment Authority, not necessarily the courts of revision or the Assessment Appeal Board.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that clarification. He still has not, however, addressed the substance of the earlier question, which is: is it the aim, intention or goal of the provincial government to see a higher portion of the $2.6 million cost borne by the people who actually launch appeals through the system, or is it not? I'm just asking that as a straightforward question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In part the cost depends on the number of people using the system. So that's got to take place. So I think what has to happen is that we have to review how the changes affect the public in terms of accessibility. I don't think there will be an impact, because it will maintain the accessibility of the system. Okay?

Then what we've got to do is look at the number of appeals that are taking place over time. And then, I think, you'll be able to find out where the appropriate costs are going to be and where they are going to have to be assessed.

G. Abbott: Actually, that's fair enough. I think we're getting to the point. I wasn't trying to trap the minister or anything shallow like that. I was merely looking for enlightenment.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I believe I have found that enlightenment in what I think was a very definite maybe from the minister, and an understanding that the ministry -- and, I presume, the Assessment Authority -- are at this point in time reviewing 

[ Page 2920 ]

the system to determine whether such changes might be appropriate down the line. He can correct me if I'm putting words into his mouth, but I think that's a fair summation of the position he's advanced here.

Could the minister advise what consultation took place, prior to the introduction of this bill, between the provincial government and stakeholders in the province with respect to this change?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The consultation that took place was within the ministry. An internal review was done to identify areas that could be administered more efficiently, keeping with policies such as those around full cost recovery. That's how the decision was made.

G. Abbott: Again, I don't want to read anything into the answer of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I would presume, then, that absolutely no consultation took place with, for example, local governments on the issue of whether this change should be made.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No consultation has taken place with local government. In fact, they are not affected by the change in this decision.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I think the member for Delta South is attempting to raise a very important issue in a quite informal fashion here, and I'll actually try to get to that point as well. If I forget, I'm sure he will leap to his feet again before or after I'm done.

The next question I have revolves around: if there is to be -- and I'll use the very polite term "devolution" -- a devolution in terms of bearing the cost of the Assessment Authority and courts of revision and so on, shouldn't there also properly be some devolution in the way in which those boards and bodies are appointed? That's where I'm heading here, just for the enlightenment of the minister. The first thing I would like to ask him is: could he briefly tell me how courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board are currently appointed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Courts of revision are ministerial appointments, and appointments to the Assessment Appeal Board are order-in-council appointments.

G. Abbott: Again, just to confirm: courts of revision are ministerial appointments, and appointments to the Assessment Authority are order-in-council appointments. Perhaps I can get clarification on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Assessment Appeal Board appointments are order-in-council.

G. Abbott: Perhaps, as the minister suggests, this could be a very valuable part of his review: giving them significantly distinctive names so that. . . .

S. Hawkins: Better acronyms.

G. Abbott: And perhaps acronyms. I think you and I could perhaps jointly work on appropriate acronyms for these bodies.

To go a little bit further, then, clearly in both cases -- the courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board -- the appointments are made by the province. If we are in fact seeing here -- and I think we are -- a devolution, or what might be cynically termed a "downloading" of the cost of this board, is it appropriate, then, that we see the UBCM, local governments or whatever playing more of a role in who actually sits on these courts of revision and on the Assessment Appeal Board?

[3:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of any review that's taking place, that's certainly a valid point which I'm more than willing to look at. Currently, I can tell you that in terms of courts of revision, for example, I do get a fair amount of input from municipalities. Names are forwarded to me. The same with members for the Assessment Appeal Board, though that's a much smaller body. I do get recommendations on a fairly regular basis from mayors and communities throughout the province to consider such and such a person. But you raise an excellent point, and it's certainly one that I'd be willing to consider.

G. Abbott: It's rare that any statement I make is acknowledged to be an excellent point, and I thank the minister for that.

I would like to. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I'm sorry, I missed that bit of heckling.

An Hon. Member: This side of the House always gives positive reinforcement. I'm not sure about your side.

G. Abbott: Yes, we've noted that on many occasions, in fact.

The issue of how the cost from 1998 on is going to affect the local taxpayer is something that we need to canvass. The member for Delta South, I think, raised this issue. I'm not sure it was answered to his satisfaction. It certainly wasn't answered to mine. And I know it wasn't to his, either, because he informally raised the issue here moments ago, as I said.

The minister -- and I can't remember whether it was the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- at one point suggested that in fact the mill rate would stay the same, despite this change being made. I'm intrigued by that. If the responsibility for approximately $2.1 million -- the Assessment Authority, its reserves and so on -- is being shifted from the consolidated revenue fund this year onto property taxes from 1998 on, I'm wondering how the mill rate can stay precisely the same. It may only be a minor change, but I don't see how it cannot change.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Two points: first, the OIC has already been passed so the mill rate is already in place for the coming year, so it won't change. The second is that we've got growth in the population of about 2 percent per year, which is fairly significant. That will have a pretty big impact. So there's no reason why the mill rate should change.

G. Abbott: I did spend long enough in local government to appreciate that values do change from year to year. They do, on balance, grow. I guess the point I'm getting to here is that if this change in terms of responsibility for paying for the board and the courts of revision was not made, there would 

[ Page 2921 ]

still be growth. What I'm saying is that, all things being equal, there is going to be a slight extra charge to the local taxpayers as a consequence of this.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In part, it will depend upon the assessed value of your property and how your property sits in relation to every other piece of property. I guess it's the same as your property taxes. If the mill rate in the property tax for municipal or local government rises by 5 percent, let's say, and the assessed value of your property rises by 5 percent, you pay exactly the same amount of tax. Likewise, if the assessed value of your property is 5 percent lower than average, you'll pay a slightly lower rate of tax. It would be the same with this. It depends on where your particular property sits in its assessed value in relation to all the other properties in that particular class. I know it's confusing, but trying to explain this is. . . .

G. Abbott: It is indeed mildly confusing. There's no question about that. I guess the point I was trying to get to is that there is a downloading of costs of either $2.1 million or $2.6 million here that the local taxpayer is going to be picking up, that they didn't pick up previously. Whether that necessitates a mill rate change or not. . . . I understand your point about mill rate. All I want is a simple acknowledgment from the minister that some $2.1 million or $2.6 million in extra costs is in fact going to be borne by local taxpayers as a consequence of this change.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The cost is going to be borne by the Assessment Authority internally. Part of where they get the money from is through internal efficiencies or reserves, or through the mill rate. In terms of the mill rate, whether you see an increase is going to depend on how your particular property assessment went for the coming year.

So I come back to my example. If you have a $100,000 house, and if its assessed value has risen 10 percent and every other property in that class has risen by 10 percent, then no, you would not see an increase. If your property rose by 15 percent and the average increase in the assessed value was 10 percent, then yes, you would. But if your $100,000 house increased at 2 percent, which is less than the average increase in assessed value for all the properties in that class, then you would in fact see a tax decrease.

G. Abbott: I understand all that stuff, and I appreciate that if your assessed values go up higher, and so on. . . . Again, all I'm pursuing here is a simple acknowledgement that while it may be a very small figure, the consequence of this change is going to be a slightly larger tax bill for local taxpayers. I know it's going to vary. I'm saying that on average. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess what I'm trying to say is: look, you've got the same mill rate that you had before. On average, some people will see the portion of their tax bill that goes to the Assessment Authority stay the same. Some people may see it go down, and some people may even see it rise, but that has to do with the vagaries of assessment in their area.

G. Abbott: Well, hon. Chair, the minister is going around in circles a bit on this. I hope I haven't confused him, because he keeps giving a rather complicated answer to what I think is a very simple question. I understand the averages; I understand that if your assessment goes up and somebody else's goes down, etc. . . . I understand all that. I simply want an acknowledgment that the effect of this is to pass along a small increase to local taxpayers. Previously it was borne by the consolidated revenue fund for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This year, it is being borne by the Assessment Authority internally through reserves, etc. In 1998 and onward, it is going to be borne by local taxpayers by a slight increase. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: It's $2.6 million over the province. I just want an acknowledgment of that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I do appreciate what the hon. member across the aisle is trying to do. He is trying to get me to say that everyone is going to have a tax increase. That simply isn't the case. I'll repeat again that the money that the Assessment Authority will be paying to cover the cost of the court of revision and the Assessment Appeal Authority will come internally as well as through savings and efficiencies -- but also from the mill rate that's available to it. I've explained to him how that works: some people can see a decrease, some people can stay the same and some people can see an increase. It's not a blanket statement that applies to everybody.

I think there's another important point, and that is that one of the things we've asked the Assessment Authority to do is to identify areas where they can generate more revenue that can finance their operations. As minister, I've encouraged the authority to identify areas of revenue generation, particularly through marketing of services, with a goal of being able to generate more revenue outside their day-to-day operations around the assessment of property.

G. Abbott: I really don't want to dwell on this point any longer. I think the minister has probably come as close as he's going to get to acknowledging what appears on the surface to be a fairly obvious point here: that the cost of the Assessment Authority is going to be borne by the tax roll -- i.e., the local taxpayers in British Columbia. That's the only point I want to have him confirm. It seems to me that the whole heart of the thing is that the local taxpayer is going to be picking up $2.6 million of what was previously borne by either consolidated revenue or in the present year by the Assessment Authority. He may want to confirm that as well as answering the additional question, but let me just move on a little from that, if I could.

The minister noted that the budget for the Assessment Appeal Board, and presumably for the court of revision, will continue to be set by the provincial government through regulations enacted under orders-in-council or whatever, but the operation of these authorities will be paid for through the property tax. I'm wondering if there is some inconsistency of principle here and whether, as part of the review, the government should not be looking to address whether there is an inconsistency of principle and whether some change should be made in terms of devolution of authority in that regard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. We are conducting a review, and we are looking at all kinds of options, including some of the ones the hon. member has mentioned -- fees, ability for all kinds of product change and that sort of thing. Those points will be taken into account and will be looked at. But I think the important thing we want to ensure is that at the end of the day the system remains accessible and equitable to every property owner throughout the province.

G. Abbott: I have just one straightforward question before I turn the floor over to any others who may have 

[ Page 2922 ]

questions. Could I get a bit more precisely the makeup of the sales-of-service component in the revenues of the Assessment Authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll be pleased to get that information for the hon. member.

P. Reitsma: Sometimes I think there's a lot to say for hearing aids, because you can turn them off if the answer is repetitive or you can't understand it. I know the minister has been a local council member for many, many years, and I know his mayor. I think next time at the UBCM, if there is any protocol agreement still in place, I should talk to him and find out what job he has done in advising his council member on mill rates and so on.

I wasn't going to get into this foray, but I was a bit astonished -- and curious, I suppose, at the same time -- when the minister replied to one of the questions that it doesn't affect municipalities. I beg to differ with that.

Many a time, in my nine years as mayor of Parksville, I stood at the front line during tax time, partially to shield some of the staff. From time to time we do get, as the member knows, some irate people, in terms of the taxes and what's going on. However, on behalf of the concerns expressed by the mayors and council members of my municipalities -- Parksville, Qualicum and Nanaimo -- it's straightforward: at some time $2.6 million or thereabouts is going to be shifted from the consolidated revenue fund, where it's been coming out of, onto the local taxpayer through the Assessment Authority. That is the bottom line.

[3:30]

Now, when we are talking about side-shifting, sidestepping, the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the local taxpayer is going to pay for it; no ifs and buts. I know that because I've done that. I've collected taxes on behalf of the provincial government. To the chagrin of many people, things are going up. Local municipal governments and regional districts, as the minister so well knows, have to balance the budget. Given the fact that grants are down and taxes are going up, in terms of a small amount through the Assessment Act. . . .

All those little bits and pieces make it different for a local government, particularly -- as the minister has acknowledged in a roundabout way -- since when you unpeel it and strip it down, no consultation has taken place. Despite the fact that there's a protocol agreement with the UBCM and the municipalities, no consultation has taken place. The bottom line, of course, is that it's another off-loading or downloading -- something that this government so abhors when it happens to them. That is the bottom line: it's the local taxpayer that ultimately pays for that amount.

I'd like the comments from the minister on that, so I can report back to my municipalities, and my taxpayers, as well.

Hon. M. Farnworth: First off, the municipalities don't have a role in setting the rate for the Assessment Authority. The provincial government sets the rate for the Assessment Authority. And though that rate. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm replying to your comments, hon. member. I'm responding to them. I listened to what you had to say, so please extend me the same courtesy. Thank you.

The rate has not changed from last year to this year. It's not changing. With the money that the Assessment Authority is being asked to pick up, we've asked them to. . . . One, they're going to do it in the same mill rate. Okay? So there's no increase. They are asked to absorb it, find it internally. It's not being borne by the local taxpayer; it's being borne internally by the Assessment Authority. I've also stated that I've actively encouraged the Assessment Authority to look at outside sources of revenue generation. I've said that I would get back to the hon. member in terms of what the potential numbers on some of those are. So I think you'll see by that, hon. member, that there's no impact on your local taxpayer.

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I might suggest that when you first rise, take a moment before you speak. I'll acknowledge you and then you can speak.

P. Reitsma: Just my last comment. What may happen in 1997 is fine. I'm looking at subsequent years. The bottom line is that there is no consultation taking place between the government, the UBCM and the municipalities, despite a protocol agreement. The bottom line is that about $2.6 million will be downloaded onto the local taxpayer in the years to come.

I. Chong: I have some questions as well. I hope it's not going to be viewed as repetition, but I had to step out momentarily.

Could the Minister of Municipal Affairs just elaborate on whether or not the Assessment Authority, in collecting its revenue, is permitted to build up a surplus?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is.

I. Chong: To the minister, then. Would he be able to elaborate as to what these surpluses would be used for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They generate surpluses almost like a standard business practice. There's no intention to generate surpluses. They're allowed to use the surpluses in the administration or the carrying out of their statutory obligations.

I. Chong: As I understand it, there is no intention to create a surplus. In fact, if a surplus is created, it's to defray other costs.

If for some reason a surplus does build, could the minister advise whether those surpluses could be passed back onto the property tax payers by a reduction in their assessments?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The surpluses generated are normally carried on on a year-to-year basis. Some years you have an increase in costs -- like, there will be an extra increase in appeals -- and some years there's a decrease. So it's a case of good business practice. That's why the surplus is there. I hope that answers your question.

I. Chong: It answers it in part, but only on a sort of accounting basis, not as to the intent of the surplus. That's why I posed the first question. As I understand it, if the idea is to allow the balances from year to year to go up and down, costs can be higher and more appeals are heard. It also stands to reason that if there are savings, if there are efficiencies that were built up over a cumulative two or three years, those would ordinarily be allowed to be passed through to the 

[ Page 2923 ]

property tax payers. I would like to know whether or not, by the imposition of this $2.6 million onto the assessment board, you have in fact taken away and encroached upon our ability to have a reduction in our property taxes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, you haven't taken away the ability for a municipality to vary its mill rate or to raise or lower taxes. The municipality can do with its mill rate and its tax rate what it chooses. In fact, I would venture that most municipalities probably don't. . . . They set their budgets based on their needs and pay very little attention to what the Assessment Authority's mill rate is going to be.

I. Chong: I know there's a difference of opinion here, but given that the mill rate is in fact tied into the Assessment Authority and the property tax payers, then what I see happening here is. . . . With the $2.6 million additional cost, which the Assessment Authority did not previously have to pay, the efficiencies that the Assessment Authority may have gained. . . . They cannot pass those back to municipalities and advise them that those are allowed to be dealt with at a municipal level. In effect, what's happening is any savings in efficiencies that have been gained by the Assessment Authority are not being passed to the taxpayers but are being passed back to this government by allowing them to not have to pay those costs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member is making an assumption that the $2.6 million is passed to the entire local taxpayer. Well, it's not. The mill rate stays the same. It hasn't changed, and it's not going to change in the coming year. The $2.6 million -- the cost of administering the court of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board, now provided for out of the Assessment Authority -- is not passed directly onto the local taxpayer; it's absorbed within the Assessment Authority. So you're not impacting on the municipality's ability to vary its tax rate.

I. Chong: If you don't want to relate it to the mill rate, I'll accept that for the moment. But as property tax payers we all contribute to the Assessment Authority, because that's where they're collecting their source of revenues from. So if the Assessment Authority has to collect $2.6 million in additional revenues because they have $2.6 million of additional costs, it will in fact go on the property tax bills. If the Assessment Authority had efficiencies and surpluses, perhaps in some years they could not increase those costs -- or reduce those costs to the property owners.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll answer the second part of your question first. Over time, costs may very well come down, because you've got growth within the economy; the roll is currently growing by about 2 percent per year. You may very well see a lowering of the mill rate over time. So that's one area.

The second point I'd like to make is that I've instructed the Assessment Authority. . . . We're doing a review, and I've encouraged them to look at ways of generating revenue through services that they can offer to defray expenses within their operations. So your assumption that this $2.6 million is going to be borne directly by the property tax payer is something that I don't accept, because we froze. . . . The mill rate stays the same this year as it was last year.

I. Chong: As he said, I suppose the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't accept the argument that this is a cost that will be borne by taxpayers. The members on this side of the House do believe that. So for the moment I will leave that and go directly to some of the paragraphs contained within the bill.

In section 2(5) you've stated: "Each year before December 31, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing may submit a requisition to the authority for the amount required to cover the. . .costs. . . ." My question to the minister is: if those costs are determined on December 31 each year, is that based on a calendar year, where you're going to determine those costs and then collect them in quarterly instalments throughout the year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's an anticipated cost of the next provincial fiscal year.

I. Chong: I want to be quite clear on this: that in fact the $2.6 million anticipated cost is April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998, not from January 1 to December 31, 1997.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The actual figure is $2.25 million, and it's from April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998.

I. Chong: Has the minister any information available at this time about whether the cost over the last five years has been consistent at the $2.6 million level on an annual basis? I haven't been able to receive the annual reports.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my understanding that it has been consistent for the last few years. I can get the exact figures for the hon. member, if she requires.

I. Chong: Just for a bit of consistency on this, if in fact an averaging has been chosen as the $2.6 million. . .

[3:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's $2.25 million.

I. Chong: . . .or $2.25 million -- it keeps changing -- I would like to know if that is an estimate prepared at the end of the year, whereby quarterly instalments are then required to be paid into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Is there an adjustment that is made at the end of the year to ensure that the actual costs are repaid to the ministry? Or will the estimate be the amount that is permitted for the entire year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The last quarter will be adjusted.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

F. Gingell: Sections 3, 4 and 5. Let's just deal with section 3 first -- a section that this side of the House agrees with and is looking forward to seeing these changes. I wonder if perhaps -- just for the record, so that it's in Hansard -- the minister could briefly give us a short summary of how this will change the method by which personnel employed by the province are reported.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess to boil it all down, there has been a good deal of controversy in terms of trying to figure out the number of employees who are ascribed to the consolidated revenue fund. Various methods of accounting have been used. The member knows this better than I.

[ Page 2924 ]

In the spirit of some of the recommendations that have come previously from the auditor general, this section tries to come to a base that everyone can agree upon and that we can therefore use as an effective basis of comparison, year over year. That base is related to the flow of funds. It defines government staff as those employees whose salaries are paid directly from the consolidated revenue fund. That provides a more certain, stable and verifiable way of tracking those employees who are ascribed to central government and whose salaries are paid from that fund. Indeed, that is how it is now represented and adjusted, incidentally, so there are no games being played in this year's estimates.

I. Chong: Just a quick question to the Minister of Finance. I understand the need for improved disclosure. My question is, though, in cases where there is contracting-out, where it's paid by the consolidated revenue fund, where they can be identified as self-employed contractors versus a business entity, for example, where someone actually does work, will you have any provision to ensure that those are in fact counted, as well as separate individuals with their contracts?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess there are all sorts of difficulties that this section won't entirely deal with, but other initiatives have tried to. When this government was first elected, in its first term. . . . Members may recall the Korbin initiative, which was an attempt to try to prevent government from using contracts to essentially hire full-time employees who weren't employees. Those guidelines continue, and ministries are not permitted to use that device. So those contractors that are usually utilized are not counted as FTEs, as I understand it, but that constraint flowing from the Korbin initiative is there.

Frankly, I think there's an argument. . . . It's a question of whether FTE-tracking, certainly as a control device, is worthwhile at all. The sign of efficiency of how an entity operates is not necessarily a product of the number of employees it has. As the member points out, there may be some agencies that do better with more employees and fewer contractors, and some that do better with more contractors and fewer employees. There are some aspects of government in which increasing employees could increase efficiency, and other aspects of government in which increasing efficiency could be better entailed through a reduction in employees.

So FTEs are, in my view, a questionable measure of efficiency in any event. But to the extent that people find it useful, I think it's useful to track it through the flow of funds. That's what the auditor general suggested, in terms of those who are payed through the consolidated revenue fund, and that's what this amendment does. But it doesn't solve every problem, nor does it make FTE-accounting the best norm or the best touchstone of effective or efficient government, in my view.

I. Chong: I can understand why the Minister of Finance believes that the FTE counts would not necessarily be a good measure. But given that a good number of FTEs are moved out and continue to essentially do the same work, and they're no longer counted. . . . But if they were brought back into the cycle and they were to be counted again, how are we going to get some consistency in terms of a comparative year-to-year, which is the whole idea of changing this to allow for some improved disclosure and improved comparisons?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'm saying that you try to deal with one problem at a time. This deals with the problem of trying to make sure that you have a consistent base in terms of which full-time employees are ascribed to the consolidated revenue fund and which aren't. This helps, I think, to provide a much clearer, consistent and verifiable base.

As to the other question about the use of contractors or not using contractors, this government has made some real strides -- and paid a political price for those strides, incidentally -- in terms of insisting that those people who perform full-time service for government are not allowed to continue on contracts. As a result of that initiative, the FTE rolls swelled and we were criticized for it. But we felt it was better to bring those employees onto the table, rather than dealing with them under the table. There are still functions that are performed by contractors, where those contractors are not performing full-time service.

This government, incidentally, has an initiative to look at contracts across government. We may be criticized for this too, and if we are, well, so be it; it's a good initiative, in my view. Where we feel it could be more effective and that services could be more effectively performed by full-time employees -- say you have three or four contractors in different ministries performing a communications function, and one employee could better perform that function -- then we're prepared to increase the number of employees if it can be shown that it's a more efficient and effective way of doing things, just as we're looking at situations in which contracting services out may be more efficient and effective in other areas.

In all of these areas, wherever you draw lines and you have these distinctions, you will not solve every single problem. But I think the record of this government, in terms of trying to move forward on the contractor -- full-time employee distinction, has been laudable. And I think that this particular initiative, which deals with another problem -- that of which employees you count based on the flow of funds -- is also laudable. That doesn't mean all the problems are solved, but we're making steady progress.

I. Chong: A final question, then. If in fact you're going to be counting the FTEs so a comparison can be made and you track it through the flow of funds, can the minister advise whether or not he intends to introduce any changes as to how an FTE is established?

Hon. A. Petter: No. There is no present intention to make any changes. If the member has suggestions, obviously I'm interested, but I'm not aware of any changes -- beyond these ones -- that affect the way in which FTEs are counted.

I. Chong: One concluding comment. I just want clarification, because in this day and age, with all the amounts of work-sharing and things such as that, I just want to ensure that there is some consistency in what was classified as an FTE. I don't know whether there are intended changes as to the number of hours, number of days, or whatever measure may be introduced. I just want to find out from the minister whether or not there are any impending changes.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just confirm that no, there are not. But in the circumstance that the member posits. . . . Say you have two employees job-sharing and they're not contractors; then those two employees who are job-sharing, each performing halftime work, would be counted as a single FTE. That is not ignored. The fact that a person who is a full-time employee works for less than a full complement of hours doesn't remove that person from the FTE count. They get counted on a prorated basis.

[ Page 2925 ]

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

F. Gingell: The grazing enhancement account is intended, as I understand it, for basically two purposes. One purpose is the maintenance and enhancement of range, and the second is for research, both at universities in the form of pure research and in funding pilot projects. Can the minister give us some rough breakdown on how the moneys have been spent in the past between those two differing programs?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the program is still in a formative or ramping-up stage, and therefore there have not been extensive expenditures in the two categories the member refers to. But what expenditures there have been, I take it, are more in the project end of things than in the research end of things.

F. Gingell: I only went back looking at the costs that had been expended to the year 1995-96, where there was roughly $925,000 spent. Were there any in years prior to 1995-96?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that 1995-96 was the first year, and the expenditure in that year was $362,000.

F. Gingell: Which brings me to a somewhat different subject. We've just spent some time talking about FTEs. Perhaps we could improve the accounting practices so that we can look at last year's estimates and find out what really was spent on these projects. My evaluation, looking at last year's estimates book, was that $925,000 had been spent. This program was set up to run for a five-year period, to the year 2000. What this amendment does to the bill is extend it to the year 2005. I guess that is to give some certainty to this program. When I look back and I see the commitments that this government has made to municipal governments about the certainty of future grants -- and they lasted one year -- what is there to convince us that this government's commitment to continuing this program to the year 2005 is any better than the commitment they had to give municipalities certainty for grants in the future?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll ignore the rhetorical part of the question and say that the intention here is indeed, as the member suggests, to provide an additional five years so that the spending commitments towards grazing enhancement can extend beyond the year 2000. It's taken longer in some cases to start the program up. There's more work that needs to be done in some areas, and to provide an additional five-year period is seen as something that will send a signal to those who will benefit from this program. This government remains committed to the program, and for that reason I think this amendment is seen as a positive signal.

F. Gingell: I take it that many of these projects you got involved in in the first two and a bit years are more than one-year projects. You go into an enhancement of grazing land, and it takes more than one season; it goes into multiple seasons. Have commitments been made for multiple-year or multiple-season projects?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know the answer to that. We can go about it two ways. I can undertake to find the information for the member, but probably the easiest way is to take up that question during the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

F. Gingell: Then perhaps for estimates I could at this point ask the minister, seeing that it's to do with this, if they could provide us with a clear statement of what the intent of this program is: what it is you are trying to accomplish, how those things are to be measured, volume numbers, what are you planning on doing as far as acreage and quality are concerned, irrigation projects and those kinds of things.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll pass the member's request along to the Minister of Agriculture, through staff, so that information can be provided in anticipation of the estimates debate.

J. Wilson: This grazing enhancement fund which you have now modified. . . . How is this going to be distributed to the people out there?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, if the member wants to get into real detail on this, probably the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture would be the best way. My understanding of how the program is administered is that it's targeted at three different areas, and in each of those three areas there are advisory groups that have been brought together to review the objectives to which the program might be put within those areas and to advise government as to how best to expend these funds, consistent with the objectives of the program.

J. Wilson: Could the minister be a little more specific here? He has referred to advisory groups. That leaves me a bit confused. Are these government-appointed advisory groups? Are they industry-appointed? Could he clarify that?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know the answer as to how they are composed. I am sure the intention is that they be representative of various stakeholders and those with an interest. But again, this is a matter which probably is better taken up during estimates. All this amendment does is extend the period of time through which the grazing enhancement fund special account will operate, and it extends its benefits. If the member has questions as to how the minister intends to operate within that time frame, those are matters that could easily and properly be taken up in the estimates debate.

J. Wilson: Is this modified grazing enhancement fund meant to cover the entire province?

Hon. A. Petter: In the sense that there is no other grazing enhancement fund, yes, it's designed to cover the entire province. But, to my knowledge, the program is focused in particular on three areas of the province in which there have been land use planning initiatives. In those three areas, those initiatives gave rise to a particular need for an investment program with respect to grazing enhancement; hence this fund exists and provides support for those programs.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

J. Wilson: I believe that what I hear the minister saying is that this grazing enhancement fund of $1.4 million or $1.5 million is earmarked for the three land use plans that have been completed at this point.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure that it's specifically targeted for those three, but those are the three of which I'm aware. Again, the details on that could most properly be taken up in estimates debate. The fund is, I suspect, not specific to those areas, but those are the areas that are currently identified and targeted for benefiting under the fund.

[ Page 2926 ]

J. Wilson: It would appear that the minister is a little bit ambiguous, here, in his answer. We don't know if this money is going to be earmarked for land use plans that have been completed or whether it encompasses all land use plans in the province. I believe there are certain LRMPs which have not yet been completed. Are they going to be included in the formula, or will they be left completely out once they come on line?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to provide this member with this information in writing, but really, this is the kind of inquiry that he should undertake during estimates debate with the minister who, with staff, is directly responsible for administering this program.

I'll make this my final answer, at least on this line of questioning, hon. Chair. All this amendment really does is extend the period to which the fund applies so that the benefits of the fund can continue beyond the year 2000. Insofar as the details of how it is going to be applied, that's a matter which estimates debate is really designed to accommodate.

J. Wilson: An important part of our grazing enhancement fund as it existed before this was changed. . . . It was an integral part of the three land use planning processes. There was a set amount that was put in place by the government to fund each land use planning area. There was also a commitment by the previous government to allow additional funding for land use planning that was to be completed over the next two or three years.

Some of these things have been completed at this point, and some of these land use planning processes are still ongoing. There is nothing in the funding change here to indicate whether it is going to be all-encompassing or whether it is going to target specific land use planning areas. I think it is very important that we get some direction from the minister, because he has made a drastic change in the amount of funding that is available. If we haven't got any target for that, it leaves a lot of people out there with really no direction as to what's happening.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me see if I can answer the one new point that I think comes out of that line of inquiry; that is, the budgeted funding reflects the anticipated annual funding required for this program. Because the program is anticipated to not require. . . . Let me put it this way: because it's viewed as more desirable for the program funds to extend over a longer period and it's taken a longer time to get the program up and running in some areas, extending the period is beneficial in the sense that it means that the program will not terminate by the year 2000.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

F. Gingell: I'm going to do something different on this occasion, if I may. I'm going to suggest that the minister should make a minor change to this section.

The thing that surprised me was that the section requires the reassessment to be made. I'm sure there are many occasions when equity will determine that a reassessment should not be made. For instance, when I think about this particular application, it deals in this first one with the hotel room tax. I understand that you get into some disputes relative to when lump sums are paid for room and board. There has to be an allocation as to what's for board and what's for room. The room portion is subject to the room tax, as long as it doesn't exceed certain periods. Advice may have been given by ministry officials to someone, and then subsequently it changes.

I don't think that the Ministry of Finance will lose anything by changing the word "requires" to "may." I think it would give you more flexibility. I think it would make your lives easier. It would allow you to react and respond to unusual circumstances in the understanding and humane manner that Ministry of Finance officials always do.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's concerns. Let me assure him that the situation he posits is counter-factual. There is, within the general provisions of taxation statutes such as this, the ability to exercise discretion where there's some injustice. But under these circumstances. . . . This is a circumstance in which someone has been overpaid a refund. That refund comes about through a claim that they make for refunds. There are no assurances given in the context of that. If it's been determined that there has been an overpayment made of that refund based on the information provided, why shouldn't there be any discretion in claiming back the money that's due to the Crown beyond the discretion that already exists and can be applied in the circumstance to all tax matters where there's unfairness?

To introduce a secondary or additional discretionary element around the question of overpayments per se would only complicate the matter and undermine the excellent policy objective here: that is, to create a situation in which the ministry can provide refunds with confidence, knowing that if those refunds are excessive, they can recover them, rather than the current situation, in which the ministry must exercise an overabundance of caution and delay refunds in some cases. Because once they go out the door, they can't be recovered.

I think the member's amendment, while well intentioned, would only further complicate that matter and is unnecessary in light of the discretion that already exists with respect to inequities within the tax system.

[4:15]

F. Gingell: My only thought now is that the only way a person will then be able to bury a reassessment without going to court -- and we're not talking about that -- is through an appeal to the minister. I wasn't necessarily speaking about refunds that were originally generated by the taxpayer. In my years of public practice, assessors would come in, look at a set of circumstances, deal with them in a fair and equitable manner and advise the taxpayer that they had overpaid their taxes. I wasn't trying to do anything other than trying to get you out of a position where you are required to do something, which you could still be able to do, through it being permissive rather than regulated.

That was the only point. The minister doesn't think that's a good idea. I won't make any more suggestions.

Hon. A. Petter: I always appreciate the member's suggestions, and I don't want to discourage him in making them. Very often are they not only well intentioned, but they find their mark. So please, member, your suggestions are always welcome.

In this case it is just not a concern that requires a change. The practice, when the ministry audits, is that that audit then provides the basis for seeking an overpayment or recovering an overpayment -- or not. The ministry, when they audit again, will audit for a different period.

[ Page 2927 ]

The situation here is one in which people will claim refunds. The ministry wants to be in a position to provide those refunds in a timely way, and this provision allows the ministry to recover them, in terms of discretion, for some injustice that already exists within a statute and can be applied in this situation as in others. Therefore the kind of factual pattern the member seems to be describing is not one that exists. If it were to exist, it could be covered off through the general discretionary powers and appeal provisions that exist under the statute.

I. Chong: Just to pursue this a little further, but not too much, I'd like to ask the minister, then: is there a discretionary limit that your department uses such that as a result of an inspection audit or examination. . .? If, for example, you determine that there's a $20 overpayment -- and here in this subsection it says that "the director must make an assessment" -- would the cost of that reassessment not counteract the benefit of the recovery?

Hon. A. Petter: The way this operates in practice is that once the refund has taken place, an auditor may go in. The auditor will identify whether or not the refund and the tax assessment was appropriate. If we're talking about minor, insignificant amounts, then the auditor, just as a matter of practice, would not dwell on that matter. It would be inefficient and ineffective to do so. Certainly, if there are any significant amounts, the auditor then can seek, as a result of this provision, to recover overpayments.

The good news at the front end, then, is that the ministry will not feel constrained in providing refunds, because they know that if those refunds are excessive, and that's demonstrated in a subsequent audit, they can then make those recoveries in an effective and timely way. No one has an interest, as a matter of good administration, in hassling over pennies or a few dollars. The goal here is to enable effective recovery of amounts that are substantive.

I. Chong: I want to be very clear. I appreciate what the minister has said, because it is only common sense that you wouldn't be spending $100 to collect $20. But the amendment clearly says that "the director must make an assessment." If that's the case, as the member for Delta South has suggested, the word "must" should be changed to "may." Otherwise, you're stating that the legalities of this will be compromised by a policy to not follow this. I just want to be reassured that we will have something in place to ensure that that discretionary ability is there. If it's not there, then we should have it in the statutes and ensure that it is there.

Hon. A. Petter: I really caution the member not to make things more complex than they are and not to assume that every legal provision anticipates how things actually happen in practice administratively.

What this provision does is provide that the director must make an assessment. But as a matter of administrative practice, when an auditor goes in, the auditor goes in to audit the business. If, in the course of auditing the business, they determine that there's been a substantive error made or mistakes made or an overpayment made, then as a matter of administrative practice, that would be communicated to the director. If, as a matter of good administration, the auditor determined that discrepancies were within the norm of ordinary acceptability, then they would not report that. It would not show up as something that the director was then forced to act upon. That's the way the administration of statutes must and does and should occur. If we try to provide for that in every statute, legally I think we'll be creating a Kafkaesque nightmare that we wouldn't want to create.

R. Neufeld: Could you give me an indication if. . .? Because of this statute being brought in, has it been common practice that people have been claiming refunds that are larger than they should receive?

Hon. A. Petter: No, it hasn't been common practice, but it has happened. Particularly in the recent year, we have encountered this. The difficulty with it is that a few bad experiences have a chilling effect on the ministry, which then is visited upon those whose refund claims are legitimate. The ministry then, of course, immediately feels they can't let the money out the door, because they have no way to recover it. So really what we're trying to do here is provide a situation where a few exceptional, bad experiences don't colour the ability of the ministry to provide timely refund cheques to the vast majority of claimants whose refund claims are ones that prove to be accurate and verifiable.

R. Neufeld: Chilling is right.

What happens now if someone doesn't remit the tax at all? What process is in place? Is it much the same penalty as prescribed here for overpayment of a refund?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, if a person doesn't pay the tax, then there is provision to go and seek the tax and provision for payment of the tax plus interest. However, if the failure to pay was advertent, if it was due to some attempt to avoid the tax, then I understand there are additional penalties that would apply to someone who's trying to evade tax. That would then apply, in addition to those that apply simply by failure to pay due to some inadvertence.

R. Neufeld: Attempting not to sound too tough, I wonder if the prevailing interest rate is a deterrent. If one thinks about a time, not that long ago, property taxes in communities weren't paid for three years, because they could go out and borrow the money at a low interest rate when it had to be paid. So they didn't lose the property.

I'm just wondering. If someone knowingly overclaims a refund, there should almost, I would think, be a penalty larger than just the going interest rate. If someone does not remit to the government the tax that it has collected, I would almost think the same. There should be a stiffer penalty than just paying the tax and the interest, because my goodness, we could have almost everyone doing that. I can tell the minister that when it comes to the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act, there is a very stiff penalty when you do not remit the correct tax.

I'm wondering why we're really tough in one part of the tax on motive fuel, compared to something like this, where it's just the going interest rate, and that could be, I mean, 3 percent or 4 percent -- my goodness.

Hon. A. Petter: That's an excellent question. The reason is that in the circumstance where someone advertently, knowingly, deceptively tries to achieve an additional benefit that they're not entitled to, there are penalty provisions right now to deal with that. What this is really trying to deal with is a situation where someone inadvertently makes a claim, and it turns out that due to their inadvertence they are paid an excessive amount back by way of a refund. Subsequently, the Crown wishes to recover that amount, and there is interest due.

[ Page 2928 ]

As I say, the problem here is that where that happens, it sends a signal to the ministry that perhaps they should be far more conservative in providing refunds in a timely way to everyone because there hasn't been an ability to recover up until now. Given that that is the circumstance being dealt with here, given that there are additional penalties where someone tries to abuse the system consciously, I think the rate of interest here is an appropriate one in light of the circumstances I have described.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

F. Gingell: The industrial incentive fund would seem, at this point, to be being given a further two years' life, roughly. I would first of all just like to confirm if, in the opinion of the minister, this will see the fund through the '97-98 year and the '98-99 year, and if that is the intent.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, in looking forward and forecasting, one never knows with certainty, as I as Minister of Finance have already found out -- to my disappointment. I think it's a rough estimate. In the normal course of events this should provide for up to two years' requirements, as the member indicates. But that is a prediction, or a forecast, and it depends on how circumstances unfold.

F. Gingell: This fund is basically for two purposes: one is to look after new technology and technology improvements in present and existing businesses, and the second is to deal with any advances to be made by government that may be recommended by the job protection commissioner.

Appreciating the inaccuracy of financial statements and estimates put out by the government, who have already been proven to be wrong once today. . . . When my reading of the statements showed $900,000, I'm informed that the amount paid out was $325,000. My current understanding is that we paid out roughly $73 million in the year 1996-97. Can the minister advise: (1) if I've got that number right; and (2) how that might have been broken down between the new technology side and the job protection commissioner loans?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's number is correct: about $73 million. My understanding is that with respect to that $73 million, virtually none -- I'll say that, to be careful -- was job protection-related. Almost all of it was dedicated to the other component of the program.

[4:30]

F. Gingell: So that we can get some feel about this roughly two-year life span we discussed, could the minister advise us whether there are any commitments that have been made in the 1997-98 year and how much they might amount to?

Hon. A. Petter: None are committed to date that I'm aware of. Obviously there are some projects which may come into this year that are publicly known, but none have been committed in this fiscal year to date that I'm aware of.

C. Hansen: If I could just follow up on my colleague on that. Can we also draw from that that there have been no commitments made for a subsequent fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to get this right, and I'm sure staff will correct me, or the member will, if I miss the mark. I think commitments. . . . There have been no commitments made for new projects beyond this year that I'm aware of, but for projects that have already been committed to, the disbursement of those funds may well take place in this fiscal year and in future fiscal years because of the cash flow of funds to those projects. I want to be completely accurate, member. There are projects that have been approved, not in this fiscal year but previously, the disbursement of funds for which may be accounted for in this and future fiscal years, as I understand.

C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us how much of these funds have actually been committed?

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that up to March 31, 1997, the amount approved is in the neighbourhood of $388 million, and the amount disbursed is roughly $308 million. So there is about $80 million outstanding to be disbursed from those commitments.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

C. Hansen: My rough calculation would leave us with about $71 million that's not committed out of that fund at the end of this fiscal year. Sorry, my calculation is very rough. I was wondering if the minister could explain where the $50 million number has come from.

Hon. A. Petter: As I indicated in response to the questions of the member for Delta South, it's an estimate as to the requirements for the next period of time. The member for Delta South suggested perhaps for the next two years, and I suggested that yes, in the normal course of events, probably for the next two years. It's an estimate.

F. Gingell: But I'm taking it from the answers that in fact the $50 million is not enough. If one goes to page 120 of the estimates. . . . The additional $80 million, I take it, is part of the $67.5 million that is anticipated to be paid out in this year. There will be a further $12.5 million the following year. So after this exercise is finished, we will have roughly $59 million.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure where the last number came from, but up to that point I'm in wholehearted agreement with the member.

F. Gingell: Just to make sure we're not confused, there is roughly $139 million at the beginning of this year, after the additional $50 million has been added to the fund -- that's after the $50 million. We've got $80 million outstanding from previous commitments made, and 80 from 139 leaves $59 million for new projects.

Hon. A. Petter: My calculations, I guess, are based on the numbers that I gave earlier. They're a little different; they come out to about $62 million -- roughly $60 million, yes.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

G. Abbott: I'm really choked up about this particular section of Bill 2. I wonder, hon. Chair, whether we should allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs a moment to don his Superman costume and enter the chamber. Or shall I direct my comments to the Minister of Finance?

[ Page 2929 ]

The Chair: You can direct your comments to the Minister of Finance for the moment, and the minister will be here shortly.

G. Abbott: One of the last things I would want to do, hon. Chair, would be to insult the Minister of Finance in any way by intimating, suggesting, even contemplating the notion that he might not be capable in any way of dealing with any sort of questions that I might advance with respect to section 12.

Perhaps, given that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not here yet and that we regrettably didn't have an opportunity to hear from the minister in second reading with respect to the reasons, the philosophy and the policies behind the changes to the Local Government Grants Act, I will begin with this question to the Minister of Finance. Why are they proposing in section 12 to repeal section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act?

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the member wasn't in the House, but I thought I covered the answer to this in a succinct and dignified way yesterday in the conclusion of second reading debate on this bill.

The situation is one in which this government, in the determination to protect health care and education funding that has been threatened by reduced federal transfer payments, has been searching for ways in which we can find efficiencies across government in order to protect those funds. The reductions from the federal government are substantial: $600 million in this year alone relative to what we received two years ago; $1 billion in total over the last two years. In doing that, we initially looked at savings that we could make internally to government. We made substantial cuts within our own budgetary envelopes in administration, in communications budgets, in travel budgets, in furniture budgets right across government, and we made major savings.

We looked at programs and we reduced some programs. I know that members opposite who say we should cut programs in principle seem to oppose them whenever we do them in practice. But we did that, nonetheless, in order to protect funding for health care and education. Then we said we should look at other levels of government and others who receive subsidies from government, like businesses, to make similar savings within their organizational structures to assist in protecting health care and education.

In the case of municipalities the decision was made to make reductions that were no greater than 3 percent of the revenue base of municipalities and, in the case of small municipalities, to protect them altogether from reductions -- to have those municipalities play a role in protecting health care and education for their residents in the same way that we are making our contribution to that same initiative.

This has to be a collective effort. Everyone has to play their part. Municipalities are being asked to play theirs. Businesses have reduced subsidies. We've sharpened our pencils. Municipalities are being asked to do the same. The goal is to protect health care and education funding in this province to ensure that we have our social priorities well protected.

Thankfully, as a result of these reductions and others, this year's budget sees increases in both of those areas and does so in a responsible way that shares the pain and shares that burden fairly.

G. Abbott: There isn't, I don't think, a lot of point at this time in reviving the arguments that were raised in second reading. I think that members on this side of the House made the point very, very well that what the government had done in proposing to repeal section 2 of the act was in fact to betray their trust with local governments in this province.

It's tiresome, to say the least, to constantly hear the mantra that it is necessary to download onto local governments, to arbitrarily, unilaterally cut transfers to local governments, because something along the same lines has occurred to the province from the federal government. Again, I don't propose to explore that issue in depth. I think the vital point to recall here, though, is that, first and foremost, there was absolutely no notice given by the province to the municipalities that these kinds of changes were coming.

I had the good fortune -- or bad fortune -- to be here in Victoria on November 26, when the extent, the magnitude, of the cuts was announced. Speaking to the UBCM executive members that were there that day. . . . They said they were shocked to hear on TV on the night of November 25 and read in the papers on the morning of November 26 the extent of the cuts. They, unlike the federal government, were not provided two years' notice of the changes in transfers. They were advised without any kind of proper notice -- and just a week before the municipalities were obliged to tender their provisional budgets.

So I think, first and foremost, that the way in which municipalities were treated by this government is absolutely shameful. I hope that this government has learned a lesson from what has happened over the subsequent months: that this is an absolutely wrong way to deal with local governments.

Further, I'm also very tired, as I'm sure all members on this side of the House are, of the constant chime that everything is justified because we must protect health care and education. We have seen over the past months an absolutely curious, striking range of things that this government has tried to justify on the basis that they're protecting health care and education. Presumably, at some point, that gets very difficult to justify. All members of this House clearly place the highest priority on protecting health care and education, but I think it's hollow indeed to claim that the horrendous range of developments that have come about by this government are all because it's in the interests of protecting health care and education.

Further, with respect to the issue of an impact no greater than 3 percent, this is pure spin. In order to make that work, not only do the transfers to regional districts and school boards and so on have to be included in the mix. . . . If we're looking at purely municipal revenues, the impact is far more significant than 3 percent. Of course, in terms of the transfers themselves, we have seen cuts in transfers up into the high 70th percentile as a result of the changes being proposed here.

[4:45]

That, I guess, leads back again to the question which I asked initially: why repeal section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act? Were alternative ways of dealing with this situation contemplated? What were they and why were they not pursued?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I know the member opposite finds it tiresome when he is reminded that we have gone through some major changes in financing in this country, many of which were initiated by his Liberal cousins in Ottawa, who decided, without any consultation with the provinces, to not only make reductions in transfer payments but to target their 

[ Page 2930 ]

deficit reduction program at health care and education. He may find it tiresome to be reminded of the fact, but there it is. Those are the facts.

We know that when there are changes made -- and certainly this member should know that from his own professional background and study -- in financing arrangements from one level of government to another, from one order of government to another, they have secondary and tertiary impacts. There's no magic here. When less money is provided to the provinces for health care and education, those provinces have a choice. Some provinces. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I know members don't want to do this, because members opposite aren't interested in constructive solutions on this issue; they're interested in ranting and raving and being negative.

They have a choice. Some governments have taken the choice of passing those cuts through in areas that correspond to the areas that were being cut. So other governments have cut health care and education. The other choice is to not do that; it's for the province to fill that room and to then find savings elsewhere or to increase taxes.

Now, the members opposite have to, at some point, come forward and say what they would have done, not what they wouldn't have done. Yet they refuse to do so. They are so unremittingly negative and non-constructive; they refuse to do so. The fact is that we went about a savings exercise that was announced well before last November, in which we indicated we'd be looking to municipalities and businesses to make a contribution. We limited the impact on municipalities to 3 percent of their revenue base. Half of municipalities were omitted altogether from impacts because of their small populations and the difficulty they would have had in accommodating those changes. As a result, we have protected health care and education.

Now, what would the members opposite have done? I guess I can only assume from their position that what they would have done is what other Liberal governments have done and what their Liberal friends in Ottawa have done -- that is, target the cuts at health care and education. We chose not to do that. And rather than ranting and raving and crying crocodile tears, perhaps they should come clean and say what they would do for a change and not tell us what they think we oughtn't to have done.

G. Abbott: I'm certainly glad, personally, that I didn't try to revive the second reading debate on this issue, because it would have permitted a rhetorical flourish on the part of the Minister of Finance, and of course that would certainly not have been welcome at this point.

Regrettably, it seems that my question somehow got lost in that flourish. I suppose I could rephrase it and deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs now, if that doesn't offend the Minister of Finance in any way. The question which I posed a few moments ago to the Minister of Finance, he was unfortunately unable to answer -- apart from a kind of rhetorical flourish. Perhaps you can fill in the small technical spaces that I was really looking to be filled. Were alternatives to the repeal of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act explored -- alternative ways in which some savings could have been achieved without this rather fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act? What were they? Were they explored, and why were they found wanting?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This exercise, this reduction, took place in the context of every ministry identifying cost reductions and cost efficiencies in areas where we needed to make cutbacks and to assess where finances were going.

As the hon. member knows, we had budgetary problems which we had to deal with. We've had to absorb, as the hon. member has said, significant downloading from Ottawa, and we had to do a ministry-by-ministry examination of where potential cost savings were. That's what took place, and that's why what happened, happened.

G. Abbott: I must pose my questions in an unusually convoluted fashion. I always fancy that they're straightforward, and somehow the responses that come back suggest that I've asked something completely different.

I merely want to know whether alternatives to the repeal of section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act were explored, what they were and why they were found wanting.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. I'll tell you one of them, hon. Chair. It would have been to do nothing -- to leave the grants intact and have a significantly higher deficit. We weren't prepared to allow that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. We want to be able to hear both the question and the answer.

G. Abbott: Section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act, which is being repealed here, is titled "Municipal General Grants." Is it correct that the repeal of section 2 involves, in fact, the eradication of the concept as well as the reality of municipal general grants? Are they eradicated, eliminated, struck from the face of the earth, and have they disappeared forever?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The general grant, as the member has stated, is gone, but in fact it was replaced by two other grants.

G. Abbott: Those, of course, would be the small communities protection grant and the equalization grant. Is that correct?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a little background noise on the other side of the House that makes it difficult to hear the instructions of the Chair. Anyway, my answer to the hon. member is yes.

G. Abbott: I'd like to briefly discuss with the Minister of Municipal Affairs the consultation which preceded the decision by the government to repeal section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act. Could the minister outline for me the obviously extensive round of consultation which preceded this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of consultation, the province is required to act in the province's interest, first and foremost, and that's what we did. In terms of extensive consultation with the municipalities, I would have to agree that there was not an extensive period of consultation. Having said that, I would also say that at the time -- because I know where 

[ Page 2931 ]

the hon. member is leading -- the protocol was signed. That was made extremely clear. In fact, there was a reluctance at that time to sign the protocol for the very reason that: "Look, there are cuts coming." The UBCM was warned at that time.

G. Abbott: I have heard the rather interesting if not particularly informative comments of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to why he signed a protocol which had, as its central feature, consultation between the province and the municipalities, while at the same time saying that consultation would not apply in this instance. Regardless of all that, and I don't necessarily accept that that's the case, does the minister agree that the consultative process in this case -- and I'm going to be as diplomatic as I can here -- left much to be desired?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess, in an ideal world, one would like to engage in as much consultation as any particular issue merited. Depending on your point of view, either consultation is extensive or it's not extensive, or it's too much or it's too short. You know, hon. member, I could say, "Yes, it was," and you wouldn't like that. And I could say, "No, it wasn't," and you'd say: "Yes, I agree." One can always have more consultation.

G. Abbott: When Hollywood makes its movie about this particular era in British Columbia politics, I'm not sure whether they will treat it as a kind of horror movie -- say, perhaps, "A Nightmare on Government Street" -- or perhaps as a humorous piece: "Honey, I Shrunk Municipal Transfers." Either way, I do think that there are important lessons which the province could have learned with respect to the consultative process as a result of the fiasco, shall we say, surrounding the amendment of the Local Government Grants Act. My questions are always very straightforward: are there important lessons that have been learned by this government with respect to consultation as a result of this experience?

[5:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that in any exercise, one always learns important lessons.

G. Abbott: There's clearly no point in pursuing the issue of consultation any further. We seem to have come to a bit of a brick wall on that one.

I do want to ask the minister: what effect does he anticipate the repeal of section 2 will have with respect to government grants in '97, '98 and '99?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of this year, as the hon. member knows, those allocations have already been determined. One of the things that I think is extremely important, one of the things that I have committed to, is to discuss as soon as possible with the municipalities what the implications of government's finances are going to be for grants next year. That process is already working. We've had three meetings now with the joint council process, and we've already committed to having a meeting on the budget in the summertime. That process is in place, and I think that's working quite well.

G. Abbott: At the heart of this thing is the unfortunate fact that the Local Government Grants Act is a pretty good piece of legislation. From the province's perspective, at least for a time -- and certainly from local governments' perspective -- the Local Government Grants Act was a good piece of legislation, particularly because of section 2, which provided from year to year what was claimed in 1994 and still applies today: stability, predictability and certainty. That surrounded an act which required transfers from year to year to be within 2 percent of what they had been the previous year. People could look to the year ahead and know that there was some stability, certainty and predictability about what they would be receiving on that end.

It seems to me that in repealing this, we are repealing away all of that certainty, predictability and stability. It's at the heart of the matter here. What is there, given the repeal of section 2, that would provide that stability, predictability and certainty?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what's important is what is in place, and that is a joint council process. That is starting to evolve into a mechanism where the province and the municipalities can sit down together and discuss legislative changes and, equally important, financial changes. As far as I'm concerned, the key is getting that process, that joint council, up and working, so that we can get to a position where the municipalities know well in advance of their own budget year what financial decisions the province will be making and what the financial implications are going to be for them in the coming years. That's a very positive way that we can provide a sense of certainty to them and give them the ability to plan well ahead of time.

G. Abbott: Actually, I appreciate the minister's comments with respect to a joint council; I think that's good. On this side of the House, we take some satisfaction in -- how shall we say? -- the receipt of that portion of our community charter which now forms part of provincial legislation. I appreciate the minister going that way. Perhaps it would be worthwhile at this point for the minister, if he wishes, to outline in further detail how he sees the process of grant determination involving members of the joint council.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The way I've indicated it to the joint council and the way I'll communicate it to you is that I hope to receive, in my discussions with the Ministry of Finance, well enough ahead of time, how much money is likely to be available for grants in the coming year. Then it will be a question of sitting down with the joint council and starting to determine: okay, here's how much money we've got to work with. It may be the same as the previous year, it may be raised, or it may be less. Then the question is: how should it be allocated?

I have committed to them that they will have a great deal of input in how the money will be allocated. For example, do we maintain the small communities protection grant as is? If, for example, there was a reduction, should that program stay in place? Should it perhaps be spread equally across all municipalities? These are the types of issues and the types of discussions I think we need to have at the joint council. My response so far from the UBCM members of the joint council has been very positive on that. That's how I see it working.

G. Abbott: Again, to the extent that it goes, I think that is good. What concerns me, however, is that again, for example, we've seen in the instance of the last year a situation where particularly the larger municipalities in British Columbia -- those over 5,000, but in reality those over 7,000 -- received considerable cuts in their provincial transfers. What will possibly happen in 1998 is that the provincial government might come back again and say: "Hey, we've got $100 million less in 1998 than we had in 1997, and there's going to have to be additional pain spread around."

[ Page 2932 ]

It seems to me that while it's good that the joint council sits down and discusses how to mete out the pain, the problem here again is where or how the stability, predictability and certainty from year to year, in terms of the size of the overall amount of transfers, are going to be achieved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess that in terms of certainty and predictability, I would hope the biggest thing we could rely on is that if we're no longer receiving reductions in transfer payments from Ottawa that are announced and that the province has to absorb, then that creates greater certainty for us in terms of what revenues are coming in, what revenues are available. If we're facing less pressure in terms of health care and education from moneys that we're expecting from Ottawa, then what we're saying is: "Look, we don't have those pressures, and there's money that's available to go outside the core areas of health and education."

G. Abbott: To pursue this point just a little bit further, the issue of the federal transfers and how they have their impact on, for example, the Local Government Grants Act. . . . There are relatively few areas in which the federal government makes transfers to the province; health and education are the dominant ones of those. For example, as far as I know -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- the federal government doesn't make a grant to the province for the purpose of assisting municipalities, so there's nothing there to cut. So is the minister then saying that if the federal government advised that in the year to come, the transfer for health, for example, is going to be more than what they had previously advised -- as it has done in recent days -- that is going to allow this government to reconsider the possibility of again providing some stability, certainty, predictability in grants from year to year in provincial-municipal transfers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will resist the temptation to say that that's if the federal Liberals get re-elected. But I guess. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, a real federal Liberal on the other side. Now, if only we can get the others on that side to make comment to that question.

Anyway, the key point in all this has been a reduction in transfers to the province for health and education, as the member quite rightly points out. But the fact of the matter is that revenue comes to the province for those areas, and if there's a reduction in health and education transfers, then we have to make that up elsewhere. We have to look at every other ministry to do a reallocation of resources in order to protect those core areas. So if we're not facing dramatic cutbacks in health and education transfers, then certainly it makes the job of allocating resources to other ministries easier.

G. Abbott: I'm just about to wrap up here, but I want to ask the question that I asked previously. When the federal government comes through with a larger than anticipated transfer for health. . .

An Hon. Member: Like next year.

G. Abbott: . . .like next year, does that give the province the opportunity to redress the change that they're making here by restoring some stability and predictability? I don't think we can have it both ways. We say that cuts to health and education transfers from the federal government to the provincial government necessitate us cutting grants to local municipalities. Then, when the federal government turns around and does something which I'm sure is rather surprising to the minister -- and that's to add some money back in -- we don't at that point in time again try to redress what we said had to be done because of the first cut.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If we receive extra money from the federal government, it helps in the overall financial picture, and it allows us some latitude in the choices we have to make. Let's be clear: our first priorities are health care and education.

Having said that, as far as I'm concerned the key for the municipalities, in terms of predictability and stability and getting some sense of the choices they have to make, is allowing them enough lead time to know what it is we have to deal with. So I want to get to a position where I'm able, through the joint council, to sit down with the municipalities and say: "Look, here are the choices that we're having to face over the coming year. Here's how it could potentially impact on you." Whether it's positive or negative, whether there's been past real cuts to the province from the federal government. . . . Right now, two days into an election campaign, there's the statement, "Yes, we found an extra billion and a half dollars and it may help," and that would be very nice.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: But having said that, we've got to deal with what is, hon. member; and what is, to date, has been a real reduction. If there's an improvement in finances through an increase in revenue, either from transfers from the federal government or through increased economic activity in the province that results in an increase of revenue, then, of course, that has a bearing on what type of money is available for provincial programs. Then the key is to sit down, as I just commented, with the joint council, and to do it well enough ahead of time so that they've got some certainty and some idea and some parameters, so that they know what they're working with.

[5:15]

G. Abbott: Just so we've got it absolutely right here, what we're saying, then, is that if, during the course of this election campaign -- and the minister knows, as I'm sure all ministers on that side of the House know, how quickly these promises and little buckets of gold can appear during election campaigns -- we find that the cuts have been restored, will the minister then want to restore the stability, predictability and certainty of the Local Government Grants Act to municipalities in this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the federal government is willing to restore the $7 billion in cuts that it's made to the provinces, I'm sure that every province, not just this one, would be able to do an awful lot of things that we'd like to do at the present time.

G. Abbott: There are many things that local governments would like to do that they have been unable to do as a consequence of the downloading that accompanies the changes to the Local Government Grants Act.

I think this will be my last question -- although the minister's comments occasionally provoke another question in me, so I can't guarantee this will be the last. I would like his comments on a proposition which I heard recently that munici-

[ Page 2933 ]

pal transfers are a subsidy that this province can no longer afford. Does he agree or disagree? What are his thoughts on that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know a set-up question when I hear one.

Anyway, municipal transfers continue to be an important part of this government's financial agenda. As you know, we maintain a small communities protection program because we recognize the difficulty that small communities could have in absorbing cuts to municipal grants. So, yes, they continue to remain a very important part of the government's financial agenda. I eagerly await the member's response, because I know he's got one.

G. Abbott: I really shouldn't have gotten up -- just left him dangling, forever wondering who said that. In fact, it was the Premier who said that during his famous infomercial a few months ago.

But I do appreciate the answer. I think that's good. That's more reassuring, certainly, than the comments of the Premier led me to believe back in October, I guess it was, when he did his famous dissertation on Glenocchionomics. At any rate, that concludes my questions. I know a number of my colleagues also have questions that they'd like to raise.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question on this is to the Minister of Finance, actually. Can he tell the House when he first became aware of the amount of transfer that the government was anticipating getting from the federal government for this fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The federal government made announcements concerning their intention to reduce payments to the provinces some time ago. I don't know the exact date, but the numbers do change from year to year as the federal government's policies and calculations change.

G. Farrell-Collins: The answer I suspected is that the government has known for a number of years the schedule of reductions. Or I should say, because there's not an actual reduction in dollar figures, that it's a less than previously anticipated growth of the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to the province. As a result, this government has been well aware of what the cuts, as they call them, coming from the federal government would be. In fact, they probably knew it well before the last election. They probably knew it well before they ever made the promises that they made within this local government grants provision to provide some agreement by legislation on what those were going to be.

Certainly the debates that took place in 1994 between municipalities and the government in the agreement that was reached. . . . Even at that time the government was aware, more or less -- pretty darn close -- of exactly what the transfers were that they were to be anticipating from the federal government. So I find it interesting to hear the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He says that the reason government has had to renege on this solemn promise and has had to renege on yet another legislated agreement they've had with an outside body is because of changes and downloading from the federal government.

This minister's ministry knew. In fact, the entire government knew, more or less, what the figures of the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to the province were well in advance. So it wasn't like there was some big shock post-May 28, 1996, that all of a sudden: "Boy! The money's gone; there's a whole bunch of money that we were expecting to get from the federal government that we're not."

So at the time the government was entering into this agreement in 1994, at the time the government was campaigning during the last election, promising everything to everybody. . . . Remember the announcement-a-day that went around? Remember the shovelling of money off the back of the truck by the gentleman who's now the Premier?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, the Minister of Finance questions the length of my question. I believe I have 15 minutes to get to my question, and I'm moving as quickly as I can.

It surprises me to hear the explanation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the entire reason for going back and abandoning the commitment they made to municipalities, the entire reason for reneging on a solemn promise they not only made verbally and in written form but in legislation, is because of cuts from the federal government.

My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is: given that the Minister of Finance has just essentially blown his argument out of the water, can he tell us what the real reason is for the reduction in grants to municipalities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's the same as before: the constant downloading by the federal government onto the province, whereby the province was absorbing those cuts year after year after year. It finally came to a point when we were notified that there was going to be more downloading coming from Ottawa. The province has to make choices. Sometimes the province has to act in what is in the best interests of the people of this province. Hon. Chair, I can tell you that the municipalities have been aware of this, as well.

I can also tell the hon. member that at the time the protocol was signed, the municipalities were made aware that there was reluctance on the part of the government to sign that protocol for the very reason that when we signed it and committed to a period of consultation, we would be accused of having broken that once those cuts were announced. That's exactly what happened.

No one likes having to make cuts. I mean, the government doesn't like having to tell municipalities: "Sorry, we're taking away X amount of dollars in terms of grants next year." The simple fact of the matter is that the financial conditions of the province required the government to take some action, and if we were to protect the key areas of health care and education. . . . And we looked at every other ministry to make tough choices. We said to the municipalities that they have to do their share, and that they have to find efficiencies and cost savings within their ministry. They've known the pressures the province has been facing for a number of years and, depending on the outcome of the election, could continue to face.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell me when it was that this change occurred in the anticipated reduction of funds through the Canada Assistance Plan that the 1996 budget was based on and that was tabled in this House last year? The surprise that occurred somewhere in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and in the government with regard to the actual figures that came from the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan. . . . Can he tell me when that changed -- when the 

[ Page 2934 ]

government became aware of this big change in the transfer that they were anticipating -- and what the amount for that transfer was?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I've already answered the question. The fact is, though, that governments -- maybe the member is having difficulty appreciating this -- have to respond in each budget year to the accumulation of pressures that they're faced with, including the fact that the economy in the past year has performed at a substantially lower rate of growth than certainly anyone, including the Liberal Party, had forecast previously.

The accumulated effect of federal off-loading against that backdrop, the increased pressures that exist from increased population -- all of that necessitates government making decisions in each budget year. So while certainly there was an indication -- and it wasn't just the Canada Assistance Plan, incidentally; it was through the transfers for education and health -- that there were major off-loads coming and accumulating, the full significance of those, in terms of trying to maintain priority areas in health care and education against the backdrop of slower economic growth, is something that the government has to grapple with as those circumstances arise in each budget year.

That's something that this government has grappled with, and grappled with very successfully, in terms of protecting health care and education in the face of significant budgetary pressures, of which the federal off-loading is -- as the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicates -- a significant and overriding contributing factor to some of the tough decisions we've had to make, including the ones affecting municipalities.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would argue with the Minister of Finance, because it's quite clear that he hasn't. There was no dramatic change. There was no dramatic change in the anticipated transfers from the federal government between the time the government put together the 1996 budget and their election platform, and what we're faced with today and what the government was faced with in putting this year's budget together.

In fact, the dramatic change in transfers didn't occur. What did occur was the fact that this government. . . . How can I say it and still remain parliamentary? The government said they had balanced the budget -- not once, but twice. Despite all the indications they had at the time they were drawing the budget up that there was going to be a massive deficit, the government said that in fact they had a surplus. So the government went around and campaigned on that and made promises to municipalities and to people right across the province -- promises that they knew at the time they were making them that they couldn't deliver on.

What we have now is a Minister of Municipal Affairs standing up in this House and trying to blame a blatant breach of a promise to municipalities on another level of government, when nothing changed from year to year. There was no change. It wasn't unanticipated.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I asked the minister the question, and he couldn't give me an answer. He refused to give me a dollar figure. He refused to give me a time, so I can only assume that he doesn't have one.

If the government had made these promises in good faith and then something dramatic had happened, in the order of. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's shocking. The Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture says: "Like a drop in pulp prices." Well, I think everybody in the province knew pulp prices were dropping -- including the people in the Finance ministry, who were telling the Finance minister at that time that their revenues were not going to be on target. Despite that, despite every piece of information, every document and every recommendation that was being given by the Finance officials to the minister at that time, the government went ahead anyway and said that they had a balanced budget. As a result, they also made a promise to municipalities during the election campaign -- and prior even, in 1994 -- and they were only to find after the election that that promise has been breached.

Now we find ourselves before this House debating Bill 2 and this section, which is to renege on a promise that this government made -- a solemn commitment, as I said earlier -- not just verbally, not just in writing, but in legislation.

So it's a little tough to sit here and listen to the explanation of the Minister of Municipal Affairs not taking into consideration all of the other absolutely ridiculous projections that were made by the Minister of Finance at the time, who knew full well that she wasn't going to able to meet those targets. So now, after the election, in this budget year, we have the government scrambling for funds -- not just from municipalities but from forest communities with regard to forest renewal, from ICBC with regard to the reserve fund through the no-fault. You name it; they're going after resources and revenues wherever they can possibly find them.

So all I'm asking the minister to commit to, all I'm asking the minister to stand up and say, is that in fact there were no surprises, the government knew in advance more or less what the transfers from the federal government were going to be, and they over-promised. If he would stand up and admit to that, if for once one person on that side of the House actually told people what really happened with regard to the reason why they're going to have to go back and break all of these promises to people, I'd be encouraged. I'd say he's the one member on that side with any real integrity, and I'd be glad to sit down and leave it alone.

[5:30]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have already answered the question. You asked me why we made the choices we did. I've told you. Over the last few years there has been an increasing download from the federal government that we have been able to absorb, and most municipalities have known that. The challenge has come to the point where we can no longer do that, and we have had to make tough choices.

I repeat again: no one likes to do that. We would like certainty in our finances, too, because it makes it easier for other branches of government to have certainty as well. But the fact of the matter is that transfer payments to this province are significant, and the reductions over the last number of years have been significant. There comes a point where we are no longer able to absorb them internally, and we have to make tough decisions.

C. Clark: I'm interested in this topic, particularly from the angle of planning, because it's important that a government does its planning properly. It's important that a government look forward and make its best guesses and its best estimates and really offer the people some convincing argument 

[ Page 2935 ]

for what might happen in the future. Make a convincing case for what it expects to happen in the future. Clearly, that is not something that this government has done.

I think the question that my colleague was getting to is the idea that. . . . I know the Minister of Finance doesn't want to answer this question, but we know that the provincial government knew years in advance that the federal government was going to be reducing its transfers. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs likes to centre his argument around the idea that those transfers shouldn't have been cut, or that we didn't like the fact that it happened. Well, the fact is that it did happen. The Minister of Municipal Affairs knew it was going to happen, and he was provided with a period of time in which to plan for those cuts. Instead, the minister is presenting it as though it was some sudden shock to the province, when it wasn't a sudden shock to the province. The province knew that that money wasn't going to be there. I mean, you can't even blame that one on the weather.

The fact is that the decline of funding was predictable, it was expected, and the province didn't act on it. Instead, what the province said was, "We know that we're not going to get this money; we know that these things are going to happen; we have all these expectations," and at the very last minute they went to the municipalities. At least the federal government gave the province the courtesy of telling them something in advance so that they could plan. But the province didn't even go to the municipalities and give them any opportunity to plan for that. They didn't give the taxpayers in those communities, who are going to be footing the bill for this government's lack of competence, this government's inability to plan and its inability to clearly state -- I'm trying to put it in parliamentary language, hon. Chair -- the expected outcome, the events that are coming down the road financially. They didn't even give the municipalities that basic courtesy.

My question to the minister is this: did he learn, when he looked at the federal process. . .? I know the minister says that they have to cut their subsidies to municipalities. I guess he would assume that the federal transfers are also subsidies to the province. Of course, neither of those premises would we on this side of the House support.

Can the minister tell us if he thinks the process that the federal government chose, where they told the province in advance what was going to happen, is preferable to the process he chose for cutting his budget -- the subsidies or the so-called subsidies that he passes down to municipalities? Which process is it that he prefers? Which process is it that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs intends to use in the long term, when they are considering passing on cuts to municipalities? Is it a process where they tell them in advance? Or are they going to continue to undertake this process where it's sudden, it's unexpected, and they don't give anybody any notice of where they're going with their financial picture?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll refer back to a couple of answers that I've already given, the first being: when the protocol was signed back in September, the municipalities were warned at that time that there were cuts coming. I accept the criticism from the members opposite, because as the member for Shuswap said earlier on: "Oh, well we could consult. There was not enough time to consult. We should have more consultation." And you know what? I said: "Look, one can always have more consultation."

What I want to stress is that since becoming minister, I've been sitting down with the municipalities on a regular basis to put in place the consultation mechanisms that were agreed to at the signing of the protocol. So what we have in the future is a way for municipalities to have some sense of what the fiscal realities of the province are, some sense of what resources are available to the province. We can sit down and discuss solutions. They know ahead of time what the potential impacts of the coming fiscal year are going to be on them from the province's point of view. And we work through and come to resolution that way. I think that's the appropriate mechanism to do this, and it's been working. The feedback from the UBCM members at the three meetings we've had so far has been extremely positive, because that's the direction we want to go, and that's the direction they want to go.

So you know, hon. member, you can sit and focus on the past, and you can say you should have done this and you should have done that. The fact is it's time to focus forward. It's time to look at how we deal with issues in the future. We had some tough decisions to make, tough financial choices to make. But at the end of the day it was $113 million, which is significantly less than the $181 million you were saying you were going to reduce grants to the municipalities by. I don't want to focus on that; I want to focus on where we want to go. I want to focus on forging a strong, solid relationship with the UBCM, and so do they. In the three meetings we've had to date, we're doing that.

C. Clark: What the minister has pointed out, of course, is that the province came to a firm agreement with the municipalities, and then the province went back on that commitment, completely abrogated that commitment. Now they're prepared to make that commitment again. Well, I'm sure that's cold comfort for all the homeowners and renters that are going to have to pick up the cost of the financial incompetence of this government. The fact that you make a promise once, you break it, and then: "Gee, isn't it great? The government's prepared to make the same promise again. . . ." In the words of the Minister of Finance: "Gee, I don't expect you to believe me." I wonder if that rings a bell over there. I wonder if the minister expects municipalities to believe him.

So we've got this new process. I know the minister doesn't want to dwell on the past, but, of course, Bill 2. . . . We certainly have to talk about the promises that were made in the past that are not being kept in this budget. Otherwise, how are we supposed to track where the government's going? I wonder if the minister will agree that the fact that he is prepared. . . . They've gone from making the promise to breaking the promise to making the same promise and commitment over again. Does the fact that he is prepared to make that commitment again to sort of change the process from what it was that day back to what it was before. . .? Does he recognize that implicit in that action is a recognition that what they did in breaking the promise in the first place and getting rid of the consultation was wrong? I think that's implicit in the action the minister is taking now, when he says: "Well, we're going to go back to the old way of doing things." I think implicit in that suggestion is that the way they did it when they broke their promise was wrong -- when they went to a system where there was no consultation, when they passed these cuts, without any discussion, directly onto the backs of homeowners and renters in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, I find it fascinating to listen to the opposition. They want to play a tired record over and over again. We get the tired heckling from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi all the time.

However, when the protocol was signed, the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time made it clear: "Look, there are 

[ Page 2936 ]

cuts coming. The province will have to make decisions, and there may not be the time you expect for the full consultation that you might like to take place." That protocol was signed with that caveat being told to the UBCM. So the opposition can stand up and say that the consultation didn't take place and that the province broke its commitments. But the province signed that agreement making the UBCM aware of the problems that the province faced and that there were tough decisions coming down the pike.

Those tough decisions were made. I understand the anger, I understand the hostility and I understand where municipalities are coming from, because we all like certainty. But you know, since that announcement was made, the municipalities have shown more interest in getting down and working to ensure that for choices and decisions that are to be made down the road, a process is in place and that process works. I think there was a recognition that when that protocol was signed and we moved to this joint council process to deal with legislative change and financial change, the structure wasn't going to appear overnight, and it was going to take some time to work its way through and to evolve. That's happening.

To repeat once again for the hon. member, we've now held three meetings of the joint council, discussing legislative issues and, in particular, financial issues. They've had a commitment from me that I want to make them aware as early as possible of what the financial picture looks like for the coming year, what the implications mean for the municipal budgeting process and what it means for the amount of money that's available in terms of grants. We're committed in terms of sitting down and discussing with them how allocation should take place. That's what they've asked for. The members opposite can sit and say that consultation isn't in place and that we're breaking promises by not consulting, but the simple fact is that we are and we will continue to do so.

C. Clark: Well, gee, I guess if the minister has signed a piece of paper making a commitment, a promise, that's really comforting. I guess the municipalities will be really happy to know that the minister has made a firm commitment and followed it up in writing. Boy, I bet those municipal councillors and mayors are sleeping easy tonight, knowing that this government has made a firm commitment and followed it up in writing.

I noted the minister's comments about municipalities being so welcome to come and work on the consultations. You know, now they're all beating down the door to go in and consult and to work with the province. He almost makes it sound like it's the municipalities' fault in the first place that no consultation occurred. Well, now they've got them onside; now those folks are really willing to work with the province. Gee, you know, tough love really works. I guess that's what the minister is telling us.

The fact is that it is not the municipalities' fault, because the municipalities legitimately expected and accepted in good faith the minister's and the government's commitment that there would be some consultation. When the minister talks about his agreement with the UBCM, which indicated some expectation that there might be some cuts, what he doesn't tell us or what he only briefly refers to is the fact that that agreement included an expectation that there would be a period of consultation with the municipalities. That was part of the agreement. The minister did allude to that a little.

I want to make sure I'm quoting him correctly. He said that it included a commitment for "some consultations." I wonder if the minister can clarify for us now whether the consultations that took place after or before these cuts occurred were consultations or "some consultations" -- or were there no consultations undertaken at all?

[5:45]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. The minister has the floor.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair.

The hon. member is expecting me to make extensive comments on actions that took place before I became minister. What I'm telling her is: look, when that protocol was signed in September at the UBCM, the minister of the day made it clear to the municipalities that there were cuts coming, and if he were to sign that protocol which commits the government to extensive consultation, there may not be a great amount of time to do that. There was a reluctance to sign it for that very reason. As I said to the hon. member in answer to her previous question, that's what happened. Okay? So we can go over and over how the Liberal opposition feels there has not been enough consultation, but as I said, you know, I'm willing to. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, you can make all the criticisms you want, and I'll accept it. But what's important is how do we go. . .? Where do we take what we signed in the protocol and make it work? How do we take that joint council process which we committed ourselves to and make it work? How do we take this idea, this set of principles, and make it work into a process so that municipalities are able to resolve problems and issues with the province, and the province is able to resolve issues and problems with the municipalities?

We've put a process in place which has seen three meetings to date, which has seen a great deal of progress in starting to resolve those issues, and which is building a framework on dealing with financial issues -- one of the key components of how we have to resolve things. How do we deal with the financial problems and financial implications the province faces?

I made a commitment to the UBCM, to the joint council process, that we're going to do that. When I know what it is we're working with and the province is aware of the fiscal situation for the coming year and what our goals and targets are, we will sit down with the joint council so they've got enough time to plan. We can consult on options, and we can bring some certainty and stability, and that's what is going to take place.

C. Clark: Well, I think it's very instructive and important that we define what the government means by the word "consultation." It's something that they committed to in the past; it's something that they're now committing to in the future. Perhaps my understanding of what that word means may be different from the minister's. I don't want to go into asking him exactly what his definition of it is right away. What I'm interested in knowing. . . . He referred to the fact that they did commit to some consultation in the agreement with the UBCM, and that this consultation. . . . At least when he said, "Well, not enough consultation took place," he indicated, I guess, by that that some consultation must have taken place. 

[ Page 2937 ]

So can the minister tell us how much consultation took place? How long a period of time was provided for that consultation and for the input from municipalities on this portion of the bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Look, I've already answered the question half a dozen times, you know. What I'm telling the hon. member is that we are currently consulting with the municipalities. We've held three meetings on that already. There will be another meeting in the summer before the UBCM. That meeting will focus strictly on budget items and the financial implications of the coming year. You know, that's what we committed to, and that's what is taking place.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, if the hon. members don't want to hear that, if they don't want to accept that this is the way that provincial-municipal relations should evolve, then fine. But that's how I see it, and that's how I intend to make it work. That's how the president and the executive of UBCM that make up the joint council have said they want to make it work.

I've stated to the hon. member and I've stated publicly before that when this protocol was signed, it didn't just appear in place. The structure wasn't defined. It would take some time to evolve; it would take some time to get things up and running. That is what's happening. It will take more time -- probably a year.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says "evolution." Well, it is an evolutionary process, and it's working.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, hon. member, you want us to consult, and that's what we're doing.

The Chair: The member continues, perhaps from a slightly different angle. I think this topic has been canvassed quite extensively.

C. Clark: Quite. Of course, we haven't had an answer to it. I'll assume by that that the minister either isn't prepared to answer the question or doesn't have an answer to the question. I think that's something that's probably quite clear to most British Columbians, even the ones who aren't currently transfixed by this debate on their TVs at home.

An Hon. Member: Those very few that have it on.

C. Clark: Those very few that can resist.

You know, it is interesting to understand the definitions this minister uses to describe what this legislation is supposed to do, from his approach as a result of this legislation to the way the relationship between the province and municipalities is governed. The minister used two words which have been used in the past: certainty and stability. When the previous minister -- or the minister prior to that -- used those words when she introduced the act that's now being gutted, she must have meant that certainty and stability would mean that there was no consultation and that cuts would be unilaterally foisted on municipalities, homeowners and renters. That must be what she meant by stability and certainty, when she said that in the House, because that has certainly been the outcome of what she said. That minister, of course, isn't here to comment on that.

I would be interested, then, in this minister's definition of certainty, stability and predictability. What do those words mean when he applies them to the process by which his relationship with the municipalities will be governed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll resist the temptation to say that certainty and predictability mean that the hon. member will always certainly be opposed to everything I say and will be predictably repetitious in her questions.

But having said that, hon. Chair, when I've been sitting down with the municipalities, I've made it clear that we want to have certainty in terms of consultation, which is taking place, and that the joint council is predictable in that it works. What is going to bring stability to provincial-municipal relations is when we're sitting down face to face and discussing issues of common concern.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 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: I said before we broke for lunch that I would ask questions about victims of crime, and I mean the legislation and the programs. One of the special accounts, which I guess is a new special account established as a result of the implementation of the Victims of Crime Act, is a special account for that act. It has allocated to it roughly $7.2 million, both as revenue and as expenditure, for the fiscal year we are now in.

[ Page 2938 ]

According to the estimates book, the revenues include proceeds from a victim surcharge levy on fines from all provincial offences, both court-imposed fines and those which result in a violation ticket. My first question is: is this in fact a direct link? That is, are the moneys collected from fines, from this surcharge, going straight into this special account?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Does the allocation of funding here represent the totality of all amounts collected pursuant to the surcharge, or is it some smaller amount? If so, how is it calculated?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is an estimate for the year. Essentially, two major categories that were taken into account were photo radar and Motor Vehicle Act violations. There could be other fines. Obviously, the surcharge would affect all provincial offences. The money may be more than this; this was an estimated amount this year.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. Am I right that some amount of funding is budgeted to go to the neurotrauma fund also?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, a maximum of $1.6 million -- it could be less than that -- and a maximum of $2 million every year thereafter.

G. Plant: Does the $1.6 million represent a deduction from the $7.24 million?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: So the $7.24 million figure is an estimate; I understand that. I guess I want to know if it's sort of a prediction ahead of time of the totality of the revenues collected as a result of this surcharge as opposed to, for example, a specific amount, which would perhaps leave the balance going to the consolidated revenue fund.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't really understand the complex question, but the simple answer is that all of the provincial fine surcharge is going to come into this account.

G. Plant: Well, that was a clear answer to a question that was unnecessarily complex. While I'm at it -- that is, on the subject of special accounts -- the forfeited crime proceeds fund had a total account balance at the end of the last fiscal year of about $3.2 million and is expected to decline to approximately $2 million by the end of this fiscal year. Is there some administrative reason for that decline, or does it represent an estimated reduction in the proceeds from the disposition of forfeited proceeds of crime?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that $1.186 million of that money would be spent this year. No projections have been made as to what might come into that fund, since the projections are somewhat unreliable in that particular regard.

G. Plant: So if any funds do come in during the year, then that will have the effect of increasing the total account balance at the end of the year. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I suppose one exception to that would be if the expenditures were to rise. I take it that it's an option open to the ministry -- that is, to increase the level of expenditure. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, with Treasury Board approval.

G. Plant: What are the kinds of things that this $1.186 million is expected to be spent on, in broad generalities?

[2:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This fund, of course, will be spent for purposes that are indicated on page 84 of the estimates, which the hon. member. . . . It's the middle of page 84, "Special Account Description." They would not be ongoing expenditures. This would be a one-off kind of project which would be approved by Treasury Board, keeping in mind the words: ". . .which will facilitate the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement in the province." So it would be a project that might be of one year's or two years' duration. It can't be an ongoing project.

G. Plant: Does the minister know now or does he have any idea of the kinds of programs or projects that the money will go towards next year? Again, I'm not looking for a complete or exhaustive list, just an idea of some of the places that this money is going to go.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are a wide variety of issues that confront this ministry, from new initiatives in the area of justice reform to assisting police, to doing crime prevention. We have not at this time finalized any plans to go to Treasury Board, but we will be doing so. Of course, once the decision is made, the hon. member would know publicly. It may go into pilot projects regarding diversion and the like.

G. Plant: Is there a list available of the expenditures from the special account for the fiscal year that has just ended?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No moneys were spent from this account.

G. Plant: I take it that's why there are essentially offsetting entries in the statement of the special account in the estimates.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Turning to the inmate work program, according to my reading of the special account description on page 84 of the estimates. . . . I should say I'm an even worse accountant than I am a mathematician, so I may get this wrong. It appears to me that in determining the balance between revenues and expenditures in respect to the inmate work program, the administration costs of running the program are funded from other sources through voted appropriations, which I assume might well be appropriations in the corrections branch. I may be wrong about that, but if I'm right, I'm curious to know whether, roughly speaking, this program operates in the red, in the black or somewhere in between once those administration costs are taken into account.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member is correct in his assumption, and the answer is that the administration costs are rather low and the project runs relatively even, in terms of the cost budget.

[ Page 2939 ]

G. Plant: The office of the public trustee appears to be forecasting, out of the special account, an increase in expenditures over the current fiscal year. Is there some new work that is associated with that expected increase, or is this simply the growth of the office as the population grows?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Half a million relates to the implementation of adult guardianship this year and half a million to simple growth in volume.

G. Plant: I want to turn, if I might for a moment, to vote 66, which is a vote for the office of the police complaints commissioner that has allocated to it half a million dollars for last year and half a million dollars for next year. I understand from remarks the Attorney General made publicly over the weekend and, I think, may have also made in the course of this estimates debate that the minister has hopes of introducing a bill that will introduce a new complaints commissioner process in B.C. Does the half a million dollars for '97-98 represent a reasoned assessment of the costs of operating that office over the course of the fiscal year we're in now, or is it just an approximation to deal with the transitional period?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a reasoned estimate.

G. Plant: What is the timetable, if the ministry has one, for the implementation of the office and the expenditure of money on the new office?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are into a tricky area. Obviously the legislation has to be introduced and passed and then the timetable determined, but it is my hope that we are able to do it this year.

G. Plant: That's a fairly long implementation period. If the minister were lucky enough to get the bill introduced and passed over the course of the next month or so, does that mean that it would still be a six- to nine-month process to get the thing up and running?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Assuming the legislation is introduced and passed, I am hopeful that we would have this machinery up and running rather quickly, based on how long it might take us to find the appropriate commissioner.

G. Plant: One of the issues that arises in the context of people holding positions like this -- and I want to raise it in this context because. . . . I mean, I could raise it in other contexts; I think I raised it last year. Earlier in these debates the minister and I exchanged some views on the desirability of independent officers of the Legislature. I gather from the minister's comments at a public forum on community policing over the weekend that he is expecting that the bill that will come into the House will create another independent officer of the Legislature. In that context I want to sort of put on the record again my desire, my hope, my wish that when we go to the trouble of creating independent officers of the Legislature, we create some kind of mechanism that ensures that they are accountable to the Legislature in a way that I think the current officers are not. Just in the spirit of making gratuitous observations, I would encourage the minister to examine the draft legislation and see if. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: We should indeed have a committee doing that. We should have committees for each of the independent officers of the Legislature or, alternatively, one committee for all of them, or some combination. But that's exactly the process that we should have. It will be, I think, unfortunate if we as the Legislature go to the time and trouble to create another independent officer that in a practical sense becomes someone who is in fact less accountable than the current police commissioner. With that free public service announcement on my views about accountability. . . .

I wanted to ask the Attorney General a few questions about the Legal Services Society. The challenge here, of course, is to avoid asking something less than a few hundred questions about the Legal Services Society. There are one or two places to begin with, if I might. As I understand, the current complement of directors of the society is three short. That is, there are 12 of the statutorily required 15 members of the board, and the three missing directors -- at least, as of two weeks ago or so -- were the Law Society's nominees to the board. Have there been any developments in that regard over the last couple of weeks? Is the society up to its full complement? To what does the Attorney General attribute this deficiency in the composition of the board?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there were some concerns by the Law Society with respect to questions around indemnity, liability issues, and those have now been clarified. When we reappoint the board as of May 31, I am hoping there will be a full complement.

G. Plant: The resolution of liability and indemnity issues that the minister speaks of: is that a resolution achieved by, in effect, offering the government's indemnity to each of the 15 members of the board?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, as well as the senior officers of the organization.

G. Plant: Another issue that has been brought to my attention is a concern -- although I have to say I haven't substantiated it. . . . It comes as an apprehension from counsel who do legal services work that the Legal Services Society is thinking of requiring lawyers to pay for a billing number. I may be wrong. I believed that it was not the practice of the Legal Services Society to charge lawyers for the dubious privilege of doing legal aid work. I mean dubious in the sense that it's not terribly lucrative financially. There does appear to be some talk on the street that the society is thinking of requiring lawyers to pay up to $2,500 for a legal aid billing number. If the Attorney General is able to dispel that rumour, I'm sure that would be a good thing. If he has to confirm it, we'll pursue the issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is actually the first I've heard of it; I'm glad the hon. member has mentioned that to me. Not that I can, without legislation, directly do very much in terms of what the Legal Services Society board decides, because the board is independent in the way it functions. But I'm delighted that I have been alerted to the issue, and we will certainly pass that concern on to the board.

G. Plant: I take it that the Attorney General's view -- and I think he's entitled to have one on this issue -- is that for the provision of legal aid services in British Columbia, it would not be a good thing for lawyers to have to pay for a billing number. But perhaps the Attorney General doesn't have a view on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do have a view on it -- rather quickly constructed -- and that is that if someone is going to charge 

[ Page 2940 ]

lawyers to be able to take legal aid cases, if it's a matter of the Legal Services Society board saving money or making money, they could deal with the tariff issues rather than putting on a front-end fee. But that's a mere suggestion. I can't direct them in what they do.

G. Plant: That all depends on how we define direction, because in terms of holding the power of the chequebook, it seems to me that the Attorney General has a fair amount of authority. Frankly, I wish that he would exercise it more from time to time.

I want to talk about the management issues around the society, and I don't want to talk at length about the. . . . I'm not going to talk about some of the decisions that the society has made to attempt to reduce costs in light of the budgetary decisions made by the government, although I think one or two of my colleagues have particular concerns about particular areas of that. But broadly speaking, I am sort of concerned about the relationship between the society and the government, and the leadership role which I think the government can provide in terms of helping the society find its way through the current difficulties.

[3:00]

I was reading through some of the material the society has generated over the last few months as it has attempted to cope with the budget reductions and the announcements made earlier this year. I know that many people believe that it is possible for the society to change the way it does business and therefore save money. But it struck me as interesting that in one of its press releases, the society says that the single largest driver of LSS expenditures over the past year has been the increasing number of very lengthy and expensive criminal trials. This is a subject that I know we've already canvassed, but I'd be interested in knowing what role the Ministry of Attorney General is taking with respect to this problem that the Legal Services Society has. And I think it is a problem, because obviously the public policy options in terms of whether or not the society can do criminal work are extremely limited. There are constitutional obligations that exist here that perhaps don't exist in other areas of service delivery. And, of course, I think the act itself requires the society to fund criminal defences, yet that seems to be a fairly significant -- if not, as the society says, the single largest -- driver of the society's expenditures.

If that's the case, then the government certainly puts the society in a difficult position when it forces the society to operate at a level of funding below that which it considers to be necessary in order to maintain existing program delivery.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is obviously a difficult issue in terms of trials that may happen some years and may not happen other years. It creates difficulties in terms of managing extraordinary expenditures that the Legal Services Society may incur. But that's part of doing business in serving those who need those services. Obviously if you as a society are given a certain amount of funding, you build in contingencies such as the ones that are referred to by the hon. member. I know that's tough, but I believe that has to be done. I don't think that the Legal Services Society can come to the Attorney General and say: "This year there is this long trial; give us more money." They have to build in contingencies to make sure that they take care of those issues within the budget that they are given.

We are prepared to assist the Legal Services Society if we can get onto our reform measures, such as diversion and disclosure court, which the hon. member doesn't think is as fruitful as it could be. In fact, even in terms of the preliminary hearings, if I can get a legal opinion from my criminal justice branch -- which I've asked them for -- on whether or not I can do direct indictments on many of the cases and then eliminate the preliminary inquiries, many of which happen on legal aid costs, I think those are some of the issues that we can assist the Legal Services Society with. And I'm prepared to do that.

As well, there was an issue around legal aid for young offenders. We raised that at the Attorneys General meeting in Fredericton. It was our view, from British Columbia -- very forcefully -- that for those young offenders whose parents can afford legal representation, that's one of the things they have to do rather than have every young offender, even where the parents can afford legal representation, simply going on legal aid automatically. There has to be some arrangement to determine who can or can't afford legal representation, based on the parents' means. I know that's a difficult issue sometimes, but parents have obligations for their children, and we want to make sure that those who can live up to those obligations should.

G. Plant: Obviously these are difficult issues. I suppose I could say that this is one area where I'm happier to be in opposition than in government, because it's easy to find out what's wrong and to say it. But over time, it is going to be harder to fix it.

I've always been struck by the fact that there's a bit of a whipsaw effect here. What has happened here, to some extent, is that society is having to live with the consequences of the government's expansion of its mandate of half a dozen years or so ago, and I think that at some point the question arises as to whether funding requirements as a result of an expanded mandate mean that we need to ask questions about mandate.

I'd like to come back to the issue that I said I was more interested in, which is the relationship between the society and government. The Attorney General will recall that one of the provisions of the agreement about funding that sort of got the society over the hump last spring, but only temporarily, was that there would be a management review. The auditor general conducted that management review, and there is a report dated December 1996, which is that review. There are a number of recommendations made by the auditor general. Some of the recommendations deal specifically with the role of government and the relationship between the society and the government, and the kinds of processes that ought to be in place in order to ensure that the government can keep track of this society and how it's working, and to help the society develop the kinds of models it needs to operate in the way it should.

There are a number of recommendations made, including the recommendation that there be a formal liaison committee established by the society and the government, which should meet on a quarterly basis. There's the recommendation that the society and the Ministry of Attorney General develop an implementation plan that ensures the integration and synchronization of their various planning processes. There are some recommendations suggesting that the society develop plans to report, in a better way, strategic goals and results and performance measures. And there is a recommendation that the government review the current system of governance of the society and develop a model that best reflects both the government's responsibilities and the degree of independence required by the society.

All of these recommendations suggest to me that it was the view of the auditor general that there needed to be a 

[ Page 2941 ]

rethinking of the relationship between the society and the government. There needed to be better accountability, better control and better systems in place to ensure that the society operates in a way which does allow it to be independent in respect of the things that it has to be independent for, but also to operate consistently with what the government is entitled to expect of it.

All of that leads to the question of whether the Attorney General has accepted the recommendations of the auditor general in this report, in this review, and if so, what steps he is taking to implement them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we have accepted all of the recommendations in principle. We will be working out the details of these issues with the Legal Services Society. The ministry has had discussions with the Legal Services Society. They wanted to be able to deal with the budget issues, and once they have dealt with all of the budget issues and changes resulting from those, they will begin discussions with us and we will work together to deal with some of these issues.

As well, the ministry is examining its legislative options with respect to accomplishing some of the goals that the auditor general mentions. We will, of course, work with the LSS to establish a performance and accountability framework that would be designed to provide direction to the LSS on matters of public policy and priorities, so that they can establish some definite goals based on those criteria.

G. Plant: Is there a timetable for these processes? If so, what is it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that they are slated to meet with me either next week or the following week to present their budget. Subsequent to that, once that matter is resolved, we will then begin discussions with them.

G. Plant: Which budget are they going to present? I thought that the society had already made the decisions about this fiscal year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I should have explained that a little bit. I'm trying to give you brief answers.

That is all of the budgetary measures they have taken and all the cuts they have made, and they will come and sit down and explain to me what they're doing. Once we've gone through that process, we will have a better understanding of where they're at, and we'll then begin discussions on all these other issues.

L. Stephens: Yesterday we were talking about the child support guidelines. I was talking about what I thought was Manitoba legislation that talked about two parallel orders. It is Ontario legislation, and it's called the family support plan. This is where a woman goes to court for a support order, and, at the same time, the judge signs a companion parallel order of garnishment that goes right to the place of work of the individual. So there are those two orders that are signed simultaneously; the garnishment order is done right at that time. I just wanted to tell the Attorney General that, in case he wants to have a look at that legislation to see if there might be something he wants to look at for implementation here in British Columbia.

The federal child support guidelines and the enforcement talk about providing funding over five years to continue to support provincial-territorial efforts, introducing measures to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of support enforcement services and assisting the provinces to develop streamlined procedures for enforcement of out-of-province orders. Is there anything in the ministry's budget for this coming year that takes this into account? If so, what kinds of initiatives is B.C. looking at for this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have not as yet received the money that we're supposed to receive from the federal government for the implementation of these guidelines. There are new areas, such as issues around passports and the like. We would determine how best we can utilize those to effectively implement the child support guidelines. Of course, the money that they are going to give us is not going to be enough. That much we have determined. Once we have received the money, we will have to determine. . .and go to Treasury Board to get more money to deal with implementation of these guidelines.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry know how much money British Columbia will be getting? What share will we be receiving?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just trying to compare notes from the ADM with my memory of what I may have gathered up in Fredericton. If my memory serves me correctly, they will give us about $6 million. I wanted to make sure that they would give us that money in two years. I understand that they have agreed to give us $2 million upfront for these guidelines -- and then the rest over the next five years. It's about $1 million spread over the same five years for implementation of the other enforcement mechanisms.

[3:15]

L. Stephens: Does any of this amount include the on-line computer access between federal and provincial governments for those enforcement services, to improve efficiency of the garnishment and tracing service and to facilitate the exchange of information? Is that money you've just talked about to include these initiatives? Or is there going to be extra funding or funding provided to set up computer linkages to provide for these services and this exchange of information?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those are proposals of mechanisms by the federal government. We would certainly be considering those as to which ones we can implement successfully. It is an important area for me and for the government. We will be implementing as many of those mechanisms as we can. We may in fact need more money than the $1 million that the federal government has allocated itself towards the implementation of these mechanisms. If we believe that any of those mechanisms would require more money but would be effective in doing the job that we're supposed to do, we will obviously be going to Treasury Board to ask for more money.

L. Stephens: The Department of Justice is doing a study on the nature and extent of compliance in default-of-support orders in Canada and to test the linkages between support compliance and custody and access issues. Will B.C. be participating in this study by the Department of Justice and providing research and data?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

L. Stephens: The federal people, I understand, are going to be pursuing custody and access in a very serious way now. Once they have implemented the child support guidelines, 

[ Page 2942 ]

they're apparently going to turn their attention to custody and access issues. Is this an issue that the ministry is going to be highlighting or prioritizing in this coming year? Is British Columbia looking at doing the same thing -- trying to sort out some of the custody and access issues that fall, I think, behind the issue of child support?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We recognize that those are important issues, and I understand that the Senate may be driving that as a result of the informal agreement the Senate made with the government. We'd be interested in participating in any of those endeavours that they engage in, because we believe that these are important issues.

L. Stephens: Joyce Preston has stated that 30 percent of the calls to her office are about custody and access. I know -- and I'm sure the Attorney General is aware -- that a lot of the MLA offices receive a large number of calls around custody and access. So are there any initiatives that are going to be getting underway this year? Is the ministry going to perhaps set up some study areas or consultation groups, or whatever you want to call them, around custody and access? Is it going to take on a higher profile within the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is, with the establishment of parent education programs resulting from the successful evaluation of the four pilot projects of family justice centres. We're hoping that with those parent education programs, we will begin to deal with these issues by way of education.

These are obviously important issues that cause a lot of aggravation in addition to unnecessary expenditure for parents. We recognize that custody, access and maintenance are three equally important issues. That's why we believe that those three would form the core of the work that we do around parent education.

L. Stephens: There were four centres, I believe, and from what I understand, those have been expanded or are in the process of being expanded. Could the minister talk a little bit about the expansion of the centres and what services are available in those centres at this point in time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be 20 such programs across the province. We haven't identified the communities as yet, but we are working on that. We want to have these programs underway this year at the earliest possible time. They would begin with parent education counselling and mediation. That would be the core of the program, and then we will add, in each location, the programs that could be added to the centres to enhance them and make them a one-stop shop for people needing these services.

L. Stephens: I understand that once it has been finalized and announced, the list of where these centres will be and what the programs will entail will be made available to the official opposition.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

L. Stephens: The other initiative that the federal government is undertaking is a National Crime Prevention Council. This council is supposed to deal with violence against women and children as part of its mandate, and its membership draws from the community, including advocates for the rights of women and children. Would the province be participating in any way? Would there be any opportunity for the province to participate in this National Crime Prevention Council?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we work very closely with that. We have two members on that council; we've had them for the last three years. It is an important body. It does good work, and one of the members is Patti Pearcey, who the hon. member may know of. She is an activist on these issues in British Columbia and is quite well known.

L. Stephens: Is there a provincial partnership committee on family violence, an interministerial committee, a more formalized group that represents the ministries of government? Other provinces have them -- a group within government that comes together in a formal way to talk about family violence -- and usually there are representatives from Health, Social Services, Justice, Education, and Women's Equality. Is there such a group within the government? Does the minister's office participate?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On the VAWIR issue, we actually work quite closely with the Women's Equality ministry on an ongoing basis in terms of developing initiatives or updating issues. Even on other issues in the past, I'm aware that the ministry has worked with the Women's Equality ministry, as well as Health and others. We will continue to do that.

There is no formal committee that I'm aware of that does that, and I believe that the hon. member has mentioned that. I will take that issue up with the Ministry of Women's Equality, and maybe they might be interested in exploring it and leading that committee.

L. Stephens: There's been a lot of discussion around women's centres and records and disclosure. I wonder if the minister could talk about the current policy and perhaps any new initiatives that he's going to be introducing in that regard.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member may be aware, there has been some federal legislation passed. There has been a Supreme Court of Canada case on that issue, and we are happy that the legislation is being passed. In fact, we sought assurances from the federal Attorney General that that legislation would be passed, and we did that at the last Attorneys General meeting.

We are currently working with the women's groups, trying to look at what their needs might be once that legislation comes into place in terms of trying to protect their confidentiality, in terms of their needs for legal counsel and legal advice, and in terms of how we can help them within our fiscal constraints. We are working on that issue currently.

L. Stephens: Is there a time line around when that particular policy or directive, or whatever will flow from that, should be ready? Does the minister have any idea of when that may be finalized and formalized -- those policies that will flow from the new federal legislation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Now, I may be wrong; I believe Bill C-46 has passed. But I'm told that it may not have, so I'll stand corrected, whatever the situation is. If it hasn't passed, it should be passed at the earliest opportunity.

The time lines, I believe, would depend on the passage of this legislation, because all of the legal issues would revolve around what kind of assistance, advice and support the organizations might require. The ministry is currently working on this issue. If the hon. member is interested, we can keep the hon. member apprised of what the progress is.

L. Stephens: I would appreciate that very much. I'm sure the ministry has been working on developing these policies, 

[ Page 2943 ]

knowing that the legislation has been introduced in the House in the Parliament of Canada. I'm sure that there have been some ongoing consultations. I presume that there has been a tremendous amount of work done on this issue to make the implementation as quick and efficient as possible. So I look forward to receiving whatever the minister is able to share. When the legislation is complete, I would be happy to receive the current policy from the Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Even before then, we could provide some of the work that has been done already. Some guidelines for managing the records kept by these government-funded support programs have been developed. Also, the Ministry of Women's Equality, in cooperation with my ministry, funded the development of information paper and records management guidelines. There are several other issues. Then we can advise the hon. member even before the legislation does pass, if it hasn't passed already.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the minister and his staff for the questioning this afternoon and yesterday, and to thank him for providing me the information that I have requested. Thank you very much.

G. Plant: I want to now move away from the community justice branch to ask some questions about agencies, boards and commissions, with a few miscellaneous questions after that. I want to begin by asking a question or two about the Law Reform Commission, which the Attorney General probably knows is a subject that I think is important enough to warrant discussing from time to time.

The estimates for 1997-98 as stated in the budget funding overview, which the minister's staff provided to me, indicate that there will be funding for the Law Reform Commission in the amount of $99,000 in the current fiscal year. I understand that the Law Reform Commission, as a practical matter, came to an end; it ceased to exist at the end of March of this year. I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General to confirm if my understanding is correct. If so, what is the $99,000 for?

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is primarily the salary of the chair till, I believe, the end of August and some other issues around assets, as well, that we're simply handing over to the new law reform entity.

G. Plant: That last part of the answer was helpful as to where I'm going, but maybe I could just back up and ask the Attorney General to confirm that, from the government's perspective, the Law Reform Commission has ceased to exist as the Law Reform Commission as of the end of March.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I raised this issue last summer in the estimates. Subsequent to the estimates debate, I received some documents from the ministry pursuant to an FOI request. I had that unfortunately all too usual experience of enjoying the aggressive use of whiteout in the context of reviewing the documents that were disclosed.

But in the documents there was a memorandum that was dated December 15, 1995, to which was attached another memorandum written in 1993 by Russell Getz respecting what he called "the necessary character of the functions performed by the LRC." He says a number of things in that memorandum, but the most important theme is his statement that the function performed by the Law Reform Commission is essential and irreplaceable. He makes the point that without something like the Law Reform Commission, the government and the Ministry of Attorney General would really become more dependent on other persons and groups who would not necessarily have the combination of resources, scholarship, experience and independence possessed by the Law Reform Commission. I said last summer, I'm sure, and I'll say again here, that it's unfortunate that this view has not prevailed.

I think it's interesting to look at that in the context of other ways in which the government spends money, just for a moment. . .to note that the work of the Law Reform Commission last year cost the government less than half a million dollars. That's about a third of what the government spent to commission a study by KPMG to look at no-fault and insurance products. I would think that in terms of government expenditures and the value for service, the Law Reform Commission was good value for money. I hope the Attorney General is not encouraging me to engage in a discussion with him about no-fault insurance. I'd be delighted to go on to that one, but I think I'll resist the urge.

Moving from the demise of the commission to the attempt by those who supported its work -- including the chair -- to keep something going, the Attorney is aware that in January of 1997 the B.C. Law Institute was incorporated. As I understand it, the intention of the institute was to continue to carry out some of the functions of the Law Reform Commission and to maintain some kind of visible face for institutional law reform in B.C. I'm sure the Attorney General had seen the literature that the institute has generated about its work.

What I'm not clear about is what the current status is, if any, of the Attorney General's support for the institute. I know that at one point the institute contemplated that there would be two members appointed by the ministry. I think there was also a proposal put to the ministry last fall about the institute, which at least as of mid-February had not been responded to. I'm sure the institute has also sought some assistance from the ministry in respect of funding. So there are a variety of ways in which the ministry could assist this institute and by doing so could, I think, demonstrate both the minister's personal commitment to law reform and the government's commitment to law reform. In that context, I ask if the Attorney General could provide us with a progress report on the institute.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are considering making the two appointments that have been requested of the Attorney General's ministry. We are in fact going to be doing that very shortly.

I also understand that we will be looking at any project funding that they might require. I, in fact, was at the UBC law school yesterday, speaking to Dean Smith and Professor MacIntyre. Professor MacIntyre, in fact, raised the issue of project funding with me, and he indicated he had some interesting proposals which I suggested to him he should pass on to Maureen Maloney, the Deputy Attorney General, so that we can consider them.

We would have, I hope, a very fruitful relationship with the B.C. Law Institute. I spoke to Greg Steele, who I understand is on the board, at the CBA gathering the other day. He was speaking to me about our appointments, and I told him that I was anxious to do that. Essentially, we are in full support of what's being done. We don't have any core funding or 

[ Page 2944 ]

ongoing funding available for the institute, but we support the work they're doing. We will be looking at their projects and will provide whatever project funding we can make available.

G. Plant: I'm sure that the proponents of the institute will be encouraged to hear that statement. There is the legacy of work done by the Law Reform Commission including reports that it has done on a variety of topics, some of which have resulted in changes in law and policy -- and others have not.

My colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I think, has some questions for the minister on one particular issue.

C. Hansen: This is an issue that was brought to my attention by a constituent, I guess about a year ago. It's an area that I must confess I knew very little about, not realizing how profoundly it impacted on my life and my family's life until I started doing a little bit of research into it. It's the whole area of recreational waivers and the report that came out from the Law Reform Commission in 1994, "Recreational Injuries: Liability and Waivers in Commercial Leisure Activities."

I must say that I made an inquiry of the ministry last week to see if there was any update on this from what I had previously, and the word that I got back was the offer of a briefing from the ministry last Friday. My comment at the time was: "I'm sure we will have covered it by then." I apologize to the Attorney General for not taking him up on that offer, but. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I wish you had, because it's a complex issue.

C. Hansen: It is a very complex issue, and partly I don't want to get into the complexities of it, but I did want to get an understanding as to where we stand on this issue. It appears that some very good work has been done and that there is a willingness on the part of the industry to address some changes that may be desirable, which other jurisdictions have pursued. It seems that the only thing that may be holding it back is availability of appropriate legislative time.

What I want to pursue with the minister this afternoon is perhaps some ways that this whole issue could be moved forward in a way that takes it out of the cut and thrust of the Legislature into a way that could be addressed in a less confrontational way, that could perhaps allow for some changes to be dealt with more expeditiously.

I had it sort of in my face in December when I went up to Cypress Bowl to sign up for season passes, both for my wife and I and for our two children -- signing a document on behalf of your children that prevents action being taken, even in the case of negligence on the part of the ski hill operator. I know from research that these are all worded the same on every ski hill in British Columbia, so it's not simply the case of Cypress Bowl in particular but all of them.

I just wonder if the minister could give us some insight into how this issue may be addressed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is not, firstly, appropriate for me to give any legal advice, but if I remember my tort law from a long time ago. . . . Some cases decided even, perhaps, by the likes of Lord Denning indicated that one cannot protect oneself from one's own negligence. But that's cold comfort to the hon. member.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There you are. So there's the other view.

Let me say this to you. This is obviously a very, very complex and difficult issue. There is the Law Reform Commission report on this. There hasn't been much work done on that report, because it is a very complex issue. I have been looking at this issue for a little while. It was the hon. member's intervention or inquiry of my office that alerted me to this issue that's been lurking there. I was aware of it but didn't pay any attention to it because of the complexity of it and seeing no way out of it.

But I think it's important that if we are to implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, we have to do that with the widest possible consultation. I don't know how much consultation they did in arriving at their suggestions and recommendations. They probably simply looked at the legal issues and did not talk to any of the operators in question, or even the consumers.

I will make a promise to the hon. member that I will look at this issue in the next two or three months and maybe have a joint briefing from the ministry, with the hon. member present, as to the difficulties there might be in directly proceeding to deal with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Then maybe the hon. member can make some suggestions as to how we can best deal with the situation.

C. Hansen: One of the concerns I have that was brought to me by my constituent is a perception he has that operators may, in some cases, be hiding behind the waiver. He's a few years older than I am, but I first started skiing 25 years ago, and I certainly don't recall seeing the promotion of a code of responsibility, which I understand has been there in years gone by. I think skiers that have skied for many years and have really studied their sport are aware of this code of responsibility. My understanding is that prior to this waiver becoming as solid a document as it has become, this code of responsibility was promoted much more. His perception is that a lot of the ski hill operators are in fact not spending as much care and attention as they could to promote the code of responsibility, because of the fact that they have this waiver supported by the courts.

[3:45]

At the same time, I understand that the Canada West Ski Areas Association is quite willing to look at this issue. There are 26 jurisdictions in the United States that have passed specific legislation that relates to ski hills and ski hill safety. I understand that the only jurisdiction in Canada that has done so is Quebec. So there's talk about it being an insurance issue and about the cost of insurance. But certainly this has been dealt with in other jurisdictions, and I think it's something that could be done here.

I appreciate the minister's offer to address this issue, and it is certainly my objective to raise the profile of this issue, in hopes that it can be moved up on the priority list. I would also like to suggest that the way the changes to the Motor Carrier Commission have been handled may in fact be a model for this. I've been very impressed with some of the work that's been done by a very small all-party committee to address some very specific changes that are obviously not politically contentious but may be in the best interest of the general public. I would just like to leave the minister with a suggestion that there may be ways that we can proceed with this. I would 

[ Page 2945 ]

like to add that I'm not a lawyer; I've had no legal training, but I certainly do have an interest in this and with my other colleagues who do have legal training would certainly like to assist in that project.

G. Plant: I was going to change the subject, but I don't want to deprive the Attorney General of the opportunity to continue his discussion of the tort law of British Columbia. The English dealt with some of the problems by enacting a bill called the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which has statutorily made it impossible for. . . . What it does is interpose a reasonableness requirement in any case where someone wants to rely on a waiver of negligence in a contract. That's my recollection. But anyway, I'm not being paid for legal advice, so I decline to give any.

The B.C. Review Board is a relatively new tribunal and has recently experienced a transition. Norman Prelypchan was the chair of the board. His term came to an end, as I understand it, and a new chair has been appointed. Would I be correct in assuming that there's no intention here to do anything other than effect a transition from one chair to another -- that from the ministry's point of view it is intended that the board continue to do the work that it's been doing over the past several years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: In the press release in December of last year which announced changes in film classification, there was an interesting statement made to the effect that the amendments in the film classification categories would pave the way for an agreement with the Saskatchewan Film Classification Board, under which the B.C. film classification office would also classify Saskatchewan's films and videos. I was interested in this because as I understand it, the film classification office is one of those areas in government where a valuable public service is provided -- but at very little cost to taxpayers, because of the charges that are levied for the work that it does. Is the Attorney General aware of whether any progress has been made in negotiating an agreement with the Saskatchewan Film Classification Board, which I assume would have the effect of increasing cost recovery by the B.C. office?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, to the latter part of the question. And we are very close to an agreement with Saskatchewan.

G. Plant: I can't remember which of my colleagues made the observation earlier about the diversity of terms used to express in very general terms that something is imminent: it's very close to happening; it's on the verge of happening. Would I be right in assuming that this is something that's going to happen over the next few months, as opposed to years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would expect it to happen in the next eight to ten weeks.

G. Plant: The Law Courts Education Society of British Columbia issued some form of announcement through its executive director on March 10, 1997, announcing fee-for-service charges for courtwatching as of April 1997. The document that I have is a letter addressed to teachers -- I assume to the teachers of high school and elementary school law programs, who would be the kind of people that would visit the law courts. It says: "Effective April 1, 1997, schools and community groups visiting the law courts will be asked to pay a fee-for-service for Law Courts Education Society programs. Courtwatching programming will cost $2 per participant." And then there's a cost for daytime mock trials and things like that.

People who care a lot about the programs that give young people access to the courts are concerned that charging a fee here is in effect denying them that right of access to watching the important public business of the courts. Now, I suppose the issue is whether the Attorney General is aware of this decision having been made by the Law Courts Education Society. If so, what, if anything, is he planning to do about it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I'm aware of this, and I'm concerned about it. But the schools could always come into the courthouse and take students into the courtrooms -- except, of course, they wouldn't have the guidance, or the guides, from the Law Courts Education Society.

We actually did try our hardest -- our best -- to provide as much funding as we could within the fiscal constraints. After having discussions with Justice Oppal, we did in fact increase the funding from the level that we were going to initially reduce it to. I understand that Justice Oppal has also been speaking to the Minister of Education, trying to urge him to provide some funding. I am urging him to do the same. I have asked him to see if he could even give $50,000 more to the Law Courts Education Society, because it does very good work. Hopefully, we would be able to persuade my colleague the Minister of Education to do that.

Beyond that, all I can say is that I believe the Law Courts Education Society obviously have done this out of their recognition that they can't do this work without staff. They have to be able to pay the staff, so they levied this charge. It's unfortunate, but I believe resourceful teachers probably would be able to get around without the Law Courts Education Society. That is not to denigrate the work that the Law Courts Education Society is doing. What can I say? It's a very difficult issue.

G. Plant: This is a piece of correspondence that came to my attention and which I want to bring to the minister's attention. It deals with a subject that, in general terms, has already been canvassed. It has to do with firearms. I have a letter from someone who's a member of the Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association. It's a club. They've sent their applications in for firearms renewal prior to the expiry date every year. Each year they've received their new permits on time. They say that this year they followed the same procedure, but as of today's date no permits have been received. Apparently the RCMP and the Attorney General's office are claiming a huge backlog of permit applications as the reason for delay. I'm told that other clubs are in the same situation. The problem is that these clubs hold shows and competitions. The club members need to have their permits in order to practise and compete.

The note I have says that a member of the Courtenay Fish and Game Protective Association has called the RCMP, the Attorney General's office and the Premier's office, but no answers have been forthcoming. I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Attorney General to respond; then we'll have the answer that they've been waiting for.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the specific concern. I don't know what the backlogs are in terms of the applications, but I'd be happy to receive a copy of the correspondence from the hon. member, hand it to my ministry and ask them to expedite an answer -- whatever that answer might be. Hopefully it's an appropriately receptive one. We'll do our best.

[ Page 2946 ]

G. Plant: Thank you. I'll provide the minister with copies of the correspondence.

I had some questions about Elections B.C.; I don't think they are questions that have been asked before. This is an issue about expenditures by Elections B.C. I'll simply make the point, and then the minister can respond. In 1996-97, which was an election year, the estimated expenditure on salaries and benefits for Elections B.C. was $2.3 million. Operating costs were just under $1.5 million. For reference, this is from page 37 in the estimates. The estimated expenditures for 1997-98 in both those two categories are the same. There is no expectation on my part. . . . The minister may have insight into this issue which I lack, but so far as I'm aware, it's not expected that there will be an election this year. So the question arises: why are spending levels for salaries, benefits and operating costs remaining the same?

I would have thought that in a non-election year, the activities of Elections B.C. could be scaled down and reduced to a fairly small number. After all, the chief function of someone like the chief electoral officer is to run provincial elections. Is the minister able to explain why it's necessary to maintain this administrative spending at the same level?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all -- and this is not to say that I won't answer the question -- I don't believe that it falls appropriately within this ministry to deal with the budget for the chief electoral officer. I believe, since he's an officer of the Legislature, it would be vote 5. That would appropriately be in the Premier's estimates, if I remember correctly; special officers are all dealt with separately. But let me try to explain to the hon. member as much as I can -- not that I would have been able to better explain it had it been my responsibility. I'll try, anyway.

The expenditures for the office of the chief electoral officer are about $3.7 million. The other expenditures, which are election expenditures, are statutory services, and that's why they're not reflected in the estimate. They were $20.2 million for '96-97, and they are estimated to be about $3.2 million for '97-98. I'm now simply assuming that those are anticipated expenditures and that they may relate to referenda, petitions, a recall initiative and the like, or by-elections. I think that's the best I can do.

G. Plant: I wonder if I could pursue the process just for a minute or two, beginning with a simple question. The Attorney General is the minister responsible for the administration of the Election Act. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I am responsible for the act. The act is housed within my ministry. That means that any changes that might need to be made. . . . I'd be responsible for carrying those in the House eventually; or any changes that the chief electoral officer might want to see happen, he'd be referring those to me. That's the extent of my understanding. Unless I'm told I'm wrong, that's the extent of my responsibility when the act is within my ministry.

[4:00]

G. Plant: Does the Ministry of Attorney General have any responsibility in relation to the budgeting process for Elections B.C.? For example, does Elections B.C. submit its proposal for its budget for 1997-98 in the first instance to the Ministry of Attorney General, or does that budget proposal go somewhere else?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It goes directly to Treasury Board.

G. Plant: In terms of the comments of the minister in respect of possible changes to the act. . . . I understand that there has been some discussion about that over the course of the estimates debate. The question, I suppose, is as to the process that will be followed here. I'm sure the Attorney General will forgive me for reminding him of some of the concerns that were expressed during question period today when I ask him if it's his intention to ensure that any review of the act that may take place will be an open review -- a review conducted in as non-partisan a way as possible, in order to ensure that all British Columbians have input into the important question of how elections ought to be operated in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I obviously answered that question the other day. Technically, it is out of order. But I can tell the hon. member. . . .

G. Plant: I can make it in order. How much money will you spend on the review process, and how will you. . .?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know whether there will be a review. I haven't received the request from the chief electoral officer as yet -- at least, it hasn't come to my desk. On those issues, if they ever proceed, I will keep the hon. member's comments in mind and the comments of the other hon. members that have been made here.

G. Plant: Thank you. The minister knows that in terms of the organization within our critic responsibilities, there are others in the caucus of which I'm a member who have responsibility for particular issues that are included within the Attorney General's large responsibilities. I intend to yield to those individuals at this point -- subject, of course, to the 4 o'clock tea break. But before 4 o'clock arrives, I want to say again that which I'm sure I said at the beginning, which is thank you to the minister for making his staff available for briefings and for the assistance which his staff have provided during the course of this extremely interesting debate.

The committee recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, it's a pleasure to be back and speaking with the Attorney General.

Harking back to last summer -- July 18, 1996 -- we briefly spent some time together concerning gaming in British Columbia. One of the issues the Attorney General spoke of was the desire to set goals for the gaming audit and investigation office. The office had been newly transferred to the Ministry of Attorney General, and there was some prospect within the next several weeks that those goals would be laid out, including goals as to the number of random audits to be done over the coming year, and so on. I wonder if we could get an outline of what the result was.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The gaming audit and investigation office has established a goal of 6 percent of all licences issued by the B.C. Gaming Commission as their target for this year in terms of audits and investigations.

K. Krueger: Has that result been met pro rata thus far in the past months?

[ Page 2947 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we discussed last year, they were developing a field audit program, which they finalized in November of 1996; they've been functioning ever since.

K. Krueger: How many audits would actually have been completed, then, since November of '96?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the breakdown here, but for the period from April 1, 1996, to February 20, 1997, total audits were 57, total investigations were 26, and total background checks were 66. That's what has been completed.

K. Krueger: As a result of those 26 investigations and 57 audits, were any charges laid or any penalties levied at all?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information, since we don't have the gaming enforcement person here. I can provide that information in writing to the hon. member at the earliest opportunity after we get out of the estimates. That information should be available anytime.

K. Krueger: Thank you; that's great. At the same time, I wonder if I could be provided with any current mission statement and business plan of the gaming audit and investigation office.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The gaming audit office is, of course, responsible for conducting background and source-of-funding investigations on applicants seeking to enter the gaming field, conducting a directed field audit program with particular focus on the use of gaming proceeds that the hon. member has just talked about, and responding to requests for investigations or audits from the B.C. Gaming Commission, the Lottery Corporation, the Attorney General and the public at large. In terms of the budgetary information, that we can provide. The 1997-98 budget is $951,000, with 11 FTEs.

K. Krueger: Prior to the announcement of the gambling expansion intentions on March 13, my understanding was that there were on file 35 applications going through the management registration process. I wonder if all of those had been completely checked out by GAIO prior to the expansion announcement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm functioning with no individual here from the gaming office, particularly Steve Letts. But my understanding is that nobody would get a licence unless this branch does a background check on the applicant. I can get that information from the gaming enforcement office for the hon. member.

K. Krueger: On average, how much FTE time is consumed by doing one of those background checks for a casino application? I presume that question would need to wait until Mr. Letts is here, as well. Perhaps we'll come back to touch on these subjects a little later in estimates.

I want to ask the Attorney General whether or not it is necessary. . . . Now that the gambling expansion has been announced and the betting limits have been increased dramatically, and with the introduction of slots to charitable casinos and so on, would those checks have to be redone by GAIO for all of those 35 applications? Or would the existing work be deemed to be sufficient?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of why checks might need to be redone, but obviously that's a question that Steve Letts can answer once he's here.

K. Krueger: Is the minister aware of how many new applications for casinos have come in since the expansion announcement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me make a suggestion. Maybe we can move off this area and go into some other areas until Steve Letts comes in; then we can get back into this area. I don't have that kind of specific information. If there are general questions, I'd be happy to answer, but I can't anticipate any general questions on this particular audit unit. So maybe we can move on to some other area in the interim.

[4:30]

K. Krueger: I thank the Attorney General; I'll certainly do that.

Last year one of my questions to the minister was with regard to other costs that flow from gambling expansion and the setup of casinos and, potentially, crime that occurs as a result of gambling addictions that develop. The Attorney General's answer was that in the normal course of business of the criminal justice branch and policing in British Columbia, those things were anticipated and weren't necessarily budgeted for in advance.

However, this announced expansion is a massive one, in that the Minister of Employment and Investment is anticipating $270 million per year in net revenue from these casinos and slot machines, which is 18 times the amount of net revenue that was flowing from charitable gaming up until now. Indeed, it is virtually the same amount of net income as the province has been enjoying from all the operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, plus horse racing and charity gaming. In light of all that, I want to ask the minister whether any studies have been commissioned or considered by this ministry with regard to the increased workload for policing agencies and the courts as the result of the planned gambling expansion.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not anticipating any appreciable increase in that aspect of our work, but I can assure the hon. member that we will monitor the issue. If additional resources such as policing are required to deal with those issues, we would ask for those additional resources from Treasury Board and put them into where they're needed.

K. Krueger: I was at a large public meeting in Vancouver where the chief constable of the Vancouver city police laid out the business plan that he had presented to Vancouver city council in anticipation of the waterfront casino development in the fall of 1994. The list of crimes that he expected would occur, and the percentage increase in various types of crime in Vancouver, were horrific. He had anticipated a substantial increase in manpower being necessary if that development proceeded. I had hoped that the Ministry of Attorney General would have had the benefit of some specific studies for British Columbia, but my understanding is that no such studies occurred specifically with regard to what demand would be placed on our policing resources and courts.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the hon. member and I differ on whether or not this is massive expansion or modest expansion. This is essentially a modest expansion in charitable gaming and some destination resort casinos -- small ones -- in communities that ask for it.

The 1994 comments of the chief were predicated upon a huge waterfront casino being built in Vancouver, which is not the case. It's not going to be the case. In fact, I've spoken on 

[ Page 2948 ]

this issue publicly a couple of times. I'm very concerned that we not exaggerate, either advertently or inadvertently, the possible consequences of this expansion.

As Attorney General, responsible for policing and the administration of justice, I can tell you that I am going to be monitoring this very, very carefully. There is going to be, obviously, according to even the hon. member's party's estimates, increased money coming into public coffers, and if we need more resources to make sure that we do crime prevention, deal with extra policing needs and we. . . . Obviously, on the health side, there would be a program to deal with problem gamblers. All of those issues, at least with the exception of the other issues, the issues that concern my ministry. . . . I would be monitoring them and have someone in my ministry monitor the impact and be ready to deal with them with increased resources if need be. I can tell the hon. member that the gaming audit and enforcement office is already planning to seek more funding to meet the increased need for their services as a result of the expansion.

I'm saying that without ever passing any value judgement one way or the other. I think it's important that once a policy is in place, rather than looking backwards and saying I wish it weren't the case or I wish it were different, the fact is that that policy is here. As Attorney General, responsible for enforcement of law, I want to make sure that I monitor the issue and deal with it as developments happen.

K. Krueger: With no wish to exaggerate, either, the $15 million net revenue fund from charitable gaming to the province is, I think, pretty well accepted as the right number. It's certainly in the auditor general's report.

There are studies from jurisdictions all around North America concerning the results with regard to increased crime in the jurisdictions where gambling has expanded. Last week in the Legislature we discussed a report on the effect on aboriginal youths in Alberta of gambling which has expanded over the years there. The study that we were dealing with said that 28 percent of aboriginal youth were problem or pathological gamblers and that 21 percent were at risk, in the large sample studied. We also tabled studies and discussed results of studies paid for by this government with regard to the effect of gambling expansion and gambling in general on families, on women, on family violence -- issues that we know are of grave concern to the Attorney General, which he has also commented on publicly many times.

There are a plethora of studies that say that when the number of venues increase in a jurisdiction, the percentage of people who have problems with gambling and who become pathological gamblers also increases in sync. There is a huge increase in crime, right from breaking into vending machines in order to have money for slot machines, on up to white-collar crime -- tremendous amounts of money involved in white-collar crime -- and into really heinous crimes as well.

I'm certain that the Attorney General is going to monitor those things closely, but I don't think anyone should consider this a moderate expansion of gaming in British Columbia. It's a whole lot more than that. I'd like to know if the Attorney General has had the benefit of any consultation with other jurisdictions that have gone down this road ahead of us, with regard to their experience with increase in crime and in policing and court costs.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, but I'm aware of conditions in other jurisdictions. I've read about them and know about them. We will proceed with the law enforcement issues as they need to be dealt with.

K. Krueger: There's been a recent publication by the Minneapolis Star Tribune that runs to 56 pages. Certainly we won't go into a whole lot of the detail here, but it deals with the issue of gambling expansion in Minnesota. The title is: "Dead Broke. . . Welfare Benefits Turn Into Gambling Dollars." It starts out:

"In less than a decade, legalized gambling in Minnesota has created a broad new class of addicts, victims and criminals whose activities are devastating families and costing taxpayers and businesses millions of dollars. Many are people who have never previously broken the law but who turned to robbery, forgery and embezzlement to support their habits. Thousands have ruined themselves financially, and a handful have killed themselves. Thousands more will live for years on the edge of bankruptcy, sometimes working two or three jobs to pay off high-interest credit card debt. They are mostly middle-class people whose appetite for wagering grew from the office football pool or church bingo to pull-tabs, racetracks, lotteries and casinos when state and federal governments began legalizing them in the mid-eighties."

It wraps up:

". . .as the Star Tribune articles have documented, gambling's most significant economic impact lies in ruined lives, families and businesses; in bankruptcies and bad loans; in the suicides, embezzlements and crimes committed to feed or cover up gambling habits; and in the increasing cost to taxpayers of investigating, prosecuting and punishing those crimes. All of this was predicted before Minnesota's gambling craze took hold, but the warnings were dismissed as the moralistic rantings of religious zealots out to spoil everyone else's fun. The price of Minnesota's love affair with gambling is turning out to be every bit as high as opponents had said it would be, not only for those who get caught directly in its web but for everyone else as well."

So it seems to me, that study having been replicated in many other jurisdictions around North America, that we should be rapidly gearing up for an increase in policing responsibilities and an increasing draw on our courts. Many studies from around North America bear that out. Has any impact analysis on the basis of the announced gambling expansion been done at all with regard to these issues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, we're ready to deal with these issues. We'll monitor them and deal with them as they develop -- if at all.

K. Krueger: Has any preparatory work been done with regard to the prospect of organized crime being involved in this gambling expansion or of money laundering occurring in casinos that have suddenly had their betting limits increased so dramatically?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certain that the police would be dealing with these issues as they develop. I'd be happy to provide them with the resources as the need develops -- if at all.

K. Krueger: The March 13 announcement took the NDP caucus by surprise, let alone the police. I was hoping that this ministry would have done some groundwork on their behalf. Has any impact analysis been done with regard to the potential for youth crime or to the potential for gang involvement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member can perhaps continue to ask questions. My answer in simple terms -- and I don't ever mince words -- is that I have indicated to the hon. member that those are all issues I'm concerned with. I am certain that the fears the hon. member is talking about will not materialize. I am also certain that if there is any problem, we will continue to monitor it and provide the resources that need to be provided to deal with it.

[ Page 2949 ]

K. Krueger: I don't mean to try the Attorney General's patience, but I've been focusing on this full-time for months now, and there's ample reason to be afraid of the consequences to British Columbians. Many British Columbians are afraid and have been saying so. I get carbon copies of their letters; the originals go to cabinet.

The Attorney General and I did discuss in estimates last summer the issue of gambling addiction -- the fact that there is already a significant level of gambling addiction in British Columbia, given the gambling that's presently being allowed. Government studies were paid for in 1993 and 1996, which did detect an increase in the number of problem and pathological gamblers in British Columbia. It was reported by those studies to have risen from 3.5 percent in '93 to 3.9 percent in '96, even though expansion was pretty much on hold at the time. Looking at the recent report of the auditor general, on page 35 our own auditor general says:

"'The criminal justice system can be severely affected by pathological gambling. Studies have shown that two out of three pathological gamblers commit illegal acts in order to pay gambling-related debts and/or to continue gambling. Such acts typically are turned to out of desperation and occur late in the disorder. Some crimes committed by pathological gamblers involve violence or armed robbery. . .most are non-violent crimes against property. Many involve embezzlement or fraud.'"

The auditor general repeatedly uses the statistic that 4 percent of British Columbians are affected. We know that while the incidence of problem drinking is substantially higher presently in British Columbia, at 15 percent, gambling can bring a family down or bring a person into a life of crime a lot more quickly than alcohol often does. As I say, these are very serious concerns.

[4:45]

I'd like to know if the Attorney General has followed up on his concerns about the addiction problem in British Columbia and has had some input into the plans for assessment and treatment of gambling addicts and problem gamblers in B.C.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As it was announced, there will be a program for problem gamblers in British Columbia. I don't recall the amount of money. I believe it was $3 million that would be spent. I could be wrong, it may have been $1 million. I know there was a substantial increase in the amount of money we'd be spending on problem gamblers in British Columbia for the first time. Yes, that's an important development; that's a development that's welcome.

K. Krueger: We've dealt with the question of whether or not any preparation has been done with regard to policing in general and the predictable problems with crime in British Columbia. Has the Attorney General made any recommendations to cabinet with regard to extra policing resources or court resources specifically for the communities that will be affected by casinos opening there?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What recommendation I may or may not have made to cabinet, of course, remains confidential; that's part of our system of government. But I have advised the hon. member that we would monitor these issues on an ongoing basis very aggressively and make sure that we deal with them.

K. Krueger: Communities such as my own are already paying substantial portions of their police bill, so anything that affects that manpower requirement is of grave concern to them and to anyone who represents them. Has the Attorney General taken part in any studies or made any recommendations with regard to conflict-of-interest codes for government officials who will be involved in handling the applications, the processing -- in general supervising this gambling expansion and the doubling of gambling activity in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Gaming is the responsibility of my colleague responsible for Employment and Investment. The Gaming Commission rests with his ministry, although at arm's length. My responsibility is with respect to the gaming audit and investigation office. If, through that office or otherwise, any issues come to my attention where the issues around conflict are raised, I would be concerned, of course, and deal with them and make them known to my colleague who is responsible for the issue.

K. Krueger: With regard to the rapid escalation of gambling expansion in British Columbia, it's my hope that the Attorney General has been consulted by the Minister of Employment and Investment with regard to the schedule of implementation and the timing of things, in order that he might make recommendations with regard to anti-crime strategies. I would like to know if that's the case.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The implementation is in the public domain. Obviously my ministry continues to monitor the implementation, and we will deal with the developments.

K. Krueger: The implementation may proceed at various rates, depending on how concerned people are with the types of issues that I raise, I guess. I want to ask the minister about his budget for GAIO, which, as I understand it, was $1,230,982 last year and this year has been reduced to $951,000. It was 13 FTEs last year, and this year it has been reduced to 11 FTEs. It seems to me that the GAIO is expected to do much more, as gambling expands, with less resources. I wonder if that's the case.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I indicated earlier, they are currently reassessing their potential need as a result of the expansion, and they will be making submissions to the appropriate agency to get an appropriate level of funding.

K. Krueger: I'm not sure if Mr. Letts is with us now. Apparently not. I'll pass debate to one of my colleagues on another issue and come back to this later.

R. Coleman: I would like to canvass the Residential Tenancy Act and its provisions and some of the things that are affecting residential tenancy in the province. It is a rather extensive review, actually, so if we could just sort of break this out, I'd like to do it in a number of sections to start with.

My first concern is that I want to deal with the Residential Tenancy Act as it affects social housing. There are some concerns that I canvassed in estimates last year with the Ministry of Housing with regard to that, and I think there are some adjustments that need to be made to the residential tenancy non-profit housing tenancy agreement so it would be applicable and actually be enforceable. First of all, I guess I should ask the minister if he's familiar with the document I'm referring to. It is basically referred to as the Ministry of Attorney General "Non-Profit Housing Tenancy Agreement."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a standard agreement. I haven't seen the actual form, but the member can proceed with questions, and we may be able to answer them.

[ Page 2950 ]

R. Coleman: I want to refer to section 7 of the addendum that is attached for general information with regard to this particular form. The reason I want to deal with section 7 is this -- and I'll read it for the minister. It's actually a fairly simplistic question; I don't think you have to scramble that much. It says: "Once a year the landlord may increase the rent for the existing tenant. The landlord may only increase the rent 12 months after the date that the existing rent was established with the tenant, or 12 months after the date of the last lawful rent increase for the tenant. . . ." It says: ". . . Even if there is a new landlord or a new tenant by way of an assignment. The landlord must use the prescribed notice of rent increase," etc., in regard to the residential tenancy office. Then it goes on. It says that the landlord must give three whole months' notice.

This is attached to the non-profit residential tenancy agreement as the guideline to operate from. I just want to explain the reason I have this concern. Social housing operates under what we call a CNIT, which is a core need income threshold level. When you operate under a CNIT, people are basically paying 30 percent of their income. There are two flexibilities allowed within that type of tenancy, which cause potential difficulty for the housing commission and for any organization that operates social housing in the province.

The first risk is that if someone actually loses their job in social housing. . . . Let's say they're making $2,000 a month and paying $600 a month in rent. If they go on unemployment insurance or lose their job or go on welfare, the arrangement with B.C. Housing allows for a reduction of rent to take place to meet their income levels. But it also allows for an increase of rent when they go back to work. They do that without notice by doing reviews. They simply do an annual form of review, which they don't give any notice of. They just do an annual review of income and then establish the required rent level for the following year. They do that on an annual basis, but not with three months' notice; they just do it based on last year's income. So there are two adjustments. One is their up-and-down adjustments. Basically what we're doing is tying the hands of the operating agreements of the non-profit societies and B.C. Housing to effectively manage their housing stock, because they can't technically adjust rents according to their agreements with government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that when the amount of rent is tied to the level of income under those circumstances, then those increases are exempt from the provisions of the legislation.

R. Coleman: Could the minister please advise me under what section they are exempt, because there seems to be some confusion that the housing commission is going to get hit with this problem.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would appear to be determined pursuant to section 18(6). I would say this in general terms to the hon. member: if the hon. member has some very technical questions around these issues, they don't need to be resolved here unless the hon. member chooses to have them resolved. I'd be happy to have ministry staff sit with him, get his views, provide a written response, and then if any need for changes flows from that dialogue, I would certainly be happy to consider them. I don't believe estimates lend themselves to a discussion around technical issues. This act has changed quite a bit. Even when I was at law school I found it difficult to understand. But I'm happy to carry on with the hon. member asking those technical questions, if he can bear with the slow pace that we might be going at.

R. Coleman: I can concede a substantial number of hours of time on the technical side of the act by doing that, I'm sure, and I don't really have a problem with that.

My next question, then, would deal with something that is very much more basic. Would the minister agree that it is time that we rewrote this act in understandable language for the people that would be using it in the field?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand. I can confirm that my ministry has been attempting to do this for some time and is working on a rewrite of this law in simple language that even the Attorney General would be able to understand.

[5:00]

R. Coleman: That's good news. Do we have any idea when this process may be completed?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised by my staff that at the pace we're going, we're hoping to have it ready for the next sitting of the Legislature.

R. Coleman: I'd be remiss, then. . . . There are some crises that exist in residential tenancy in the province, and I think it's important that we at least canvass those today and get some commitment on how we can deal with them. The first crisis deals with manufactured home parks -- mobile home parks. In my office I have a list, dating back to 1992, of somewhere in the vicinity of over 100 mobile home parks that have some form of financial crisis as a result of some confusion and some problems with rent increases. The section of the act that we're dealing with is section 13(1)(b)(ii), which reads: ". . . the rent increase notice under section 18 is given on or after October 1, 1992."

The difficulty with this particular section is that it is allowing for appeals to take place on retroactivity of rent increases as far back as six or seven years, whereas only in mobile home parks is this in effect. Anywhere else, rent increases basically have more like a 30-day situation, as far as retroactivity and problems are concerned. I will get into some arbitrations and some discussions on it, but it's causing some parks to be on the verge of closing down. Water will be cut off, taxes can't be paid, and they won't be able to pay utilities. We're ending up with whole mobile home parks which will literally be shut down, with no services. People will have to move for health reasons, and they will not be able to function. Obviously the solution is to amend that section to not make it retroactive to 1992 and allow for it to operate under the same guidelines as any other residential tenancy.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm aware of the difficulty that the hon. member is talking about; we actually did attempt to have this rectified by legislation this sitting. As a result of much other legislation crowding the agenda, we've been unable to bring this forward. But I take the hon. member's comments, and I will certainly go back and see if we can deal with the issue.

R. Coleman: From my perspective in dealing with what is in the marketplace, I must say that this is not legislation that should wait because the agenda is full. I don't think a one-line adjustment to an act should be that difficult. Frankly, if we leave it and go through another session, and we wait until next spring's session, we will find that a number of people will be out on the street without a place to live. I wonder if we could possibly look at doing that posthaste.

[ Page 2951 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I take the hon. member's comments, and I would certainly take another look at this issue.

R. Coleman: I'm happy to hear the minister state that, but I do have some concerns in that there's a number of letters that I have, dating back as far as September of 1996 and further back than that. Letters have been written to people that have brought this to the attention of the ministry, and the ministry has a standard line with regard to this. I'm just trying to pick it up out of the one letter, because I don't want to read the whole letter. It says that it will be considered for introduction when the next opportunity arises, and it also says that it won't be considered in this legislative session.

I think it's important that we understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about effectively having empty mobile homes in parks. People will have to move out of their assets and into apartments, because they will not be able to occupy their homes if they don't have water, sewer, electricity and such. To me, it's one of the major crises in housing in the province, and it can be fixed by an amendment to the act.

I know you don't want to make a commitment at the moment, but I think we should make that commitment to fix this now -- immediately and quickly. I could go to my colleagues and say: "We're not going to debate this at length. Let's just get this fixed and have these people's lives put back the way they should be."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the concern expressed by the member; I am equally concerned. I'd be happy to sit with the hon. member and go over a briefing from my own ministry in his presence, with the understanding that I'm extracting from my officials that this is just one of many problems; that this isn't necessarily the problem that's causing people to be teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

If it were that serious, and subsequent to a briefing the hon. member is able to persuade me, I will do everything possible to make sure that we do it. But at the end of the day, I can't guarantee anything to the hon. member. It's a legislative process. Somebody might say to me: "The civilian complaints commissioner legislation is a huge piece of legislation; people have spent two years talking about it. What are the priorities?"

I understand the hon. member's concern about the financial life of some of these undertakings. I'm happy to discuss that with him, and I think we should do it outside the estimates -- sit with my ministry in the next week or ten days once we get out of the estimates. I'll be happy to talk about it. We may come to a better understanding. The hon. member may change his mind; he may change mine. I'm given to understand that this is a problem that's more complex than just this one factor involved.

R. Coleman: Well, hon. minister, you're right. It is a bit more complex than just one factor, but the driving factor is the retroactivity that is causing the financial side of the question. That financial side then leads us to some things that affect the expense of operating the residential tenancy branch, because what we're doing now is dealing with appeals on tenancies going back five years. Each time we're getting through an appeal process, we're going through another appeal process. We now have the expense of manufactured home park owners going outside the residential tenancy branch and going to the courts themselves to try and deal with the issue, because it can't be dealt with effectively at the residential tenancy branch level. These are things that affect the cost of the operation of the ministry.

If the minister wishes to approach it that way, I don't have any difficulty with it; I think that it might be worthwhile. But on the basis that we're not. . . . I would like to have some assurance from the minister that this isn't just a process to delay -- that it's a process to actually try and address the issue, and to try and address it quickly for the stakeholders involved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, it is impossible for any member of the Legislature or the cabinet to guarantee the passage of a particular piece of legislation or an amendment. All I can do is say to the hon. member that I would certainly look at his concerns. My ministry will sit with him and have a thorough discussion.

At the end of the day, if I'm persuaded about the need to do this at this sitting of the Legislature, I'll take it forward to my colleagues. They may turn it down. That's why I can't give you an undertaking that it will be done.

R. Coleman: I accept the fact that your colleagues may not want to address it, but the fact that you would try would be satisfactory to me -- to at least see if we can deal with the issue. It certainly is the largest issue in residential tenancy that comes through my office as the Housing critic for the official opposition. As a result of that, I think it's something we need to address in a hurry.

I'm going to move off mobile homes for a minute, because there's a tremendous amount of information and a number of questions on that if we're going to get into the technical side of this thing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Could we just go off the record for a minute?

The Chair: The motion is that the committee recess for a few moments.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 5:09 p.m. to 5:11 p.m.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

K. Krueger: While we awaited the arrival of the correct expert resource, I was awaiting some responses with regard to the 35 applications that were on file from people wishing to develop casinos in British Columbia prior to the announced gambling expansion plans. I was asking the minister whether it would now be necessary to review all of those applications again because of the increased betting limits, the increased amount of funds that will be flowing as a result of the changes in plans and the new technology, in the form of slot machines, being allowed in the new casino arrangement. In brief, the question is whether those applications will have to be reviewed all over again.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The function of the gaming audit and investigation office is complete with respect to those 35, and because of the changes in betting limits and the like, there would be no need to do further reviews. They have already dealt with the fundamental questions that need to be dealt 

[ Page 2952 ]

with in terms of their checks. Of course, the lottery advisory committee will look at their business plans in a different light, and they may need to review them.

K. Krueger: My question, then, is: were all 35 applicants in a position to receive the blessing of GAIO as far as proceeding with casino developments?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, only 29 of the 35 were.

K. Krueger: And how many new applications for casino operations have come in since the gambling expansion was announced?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: None.

K. Krueger: Under the new arrangement, with the lottery advisory committee having taken on such an active role, and with the gambling expansion, will GAIO retain the full responsibility to screen new applications? Or will the LAC have some of that responsibility?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: GAIO will retain that responsibility.

K. Krueger: Given the fact that we are dealing with substantially larger amounts of money and new technology, will the screening process change substantially?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The screening process is comprehensive as it is now. It's comparable to any other jurisdiction in North America, so there will be no changes in that.

K. Krueger: Is it anticipated, then, that as a result of the gambling expansion, the workload of GAIO will increase very substantially with regard to the type of responsibilities it has had up until now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is some anticipation of increased workload. The projections and an assessment are currently being made to determine what the needs might be.

[5:15]

K. Krueger: How much FTE time is devoted, on average -- if a ballpark figure can be given -- to a review of an application under the present system?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is pretty difficult to determine the average length of time that might be required in terms of FTEs dealing with a particular check. I think the range is anywhere from four weeks to 11 months for different applications. That's a difficult question to answer.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

K. Krueger: Now that we have Mr. Letts with us as a resource, some of the questions I asked earlier -- concerns about the much larger sums of money flowing through casinos in British Columbia, concerns around the potential for money-laundering and infiltration by organized crime or gangs and that sort of thing. . . . I wonder if any further information could be provided as to whether GAIO has some specific strategies to deal with those concerns.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the GAIO would be looking at the mechanisms that the Gaming Commission uses, or the casinos might use, in dealing with the issues as they proceed to the expansion. Yes, they will obviously have a hand in making sure that everybody in that spectrum looks after their appropriate functions vigorously.

K. Krueger: I'm looking now at the document produced by Peter Clark entitled "Gaming Review: Expansion Options and Implications" and, specifically, at the conclusions on page 17. I'd just like to go down a brief list that Mr. Clark provided with this heading: "Additionally, it is important that future expansion recognize legitimate social concerns and provide programs, policies and structures which effectively deal with the following issues. . . ." Almost every one of these issues seems to me to bear directly on the responsibilities of the Attorney General, so I'd just like to cover them one at a time. The first is "the development and availability of programs to assist problem gamblers." What specifically has this ministry done with regard to that recommendation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that's the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families. The new program dealing with problem gamblers would be housed in that ministry.

K. Krueger: With respect, though, this problem has been identified for years by the NDP. It's documented in a number of reports. This minister and I dealt with it in estimates last summer. In the meantime, we've known at least since 1993 that approaching 4 percent of the population of British Columbia are problem and pathological gamblers, and a great number of problems flow from that.

The next item is "the protection of youth." I'd like to ask what the Attorney General did with regard to the protection of youth prior to the implementation of gambling expansion.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I answered that question about an hour ago.

K. Krueger: With respect, I don't see that youth have been protected at all, other than setting an age-19 limit for gambling in British Columbia, which may well meet with the same lack of success as provisions for alcohol and drugs and tobacco in British Columbia.

The next item. . . . Some of these things, I agree, we have touched on. I am summarizing these questions, but I wish to find out whether these recommendations were followed by cabinet before this expansion was launched and announced. The next one is "minimizing the potential for crime." We've covered the question of whether or not any studies were done. It sounds as though the Attorney General took a decision to deal with those issues as they arise. Is that a fair summary statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I answered that question as well.

The Chair: Member, perhaps you could take into account that this has been canvassed fairly heavily, and you could restrict your comments to the minister's estimates.

K. Krueger: I'm attempting to do that. But there are overlaps, in that this ministry is responsible for all of these things when they become consequences of crime, and policing and justice issues.

It's true also that we covered the issue of the level to which municipalities and police agencies experience increased costs. 

[ Page 2953 ]

It seems to me, again, that the answer of the Attorney General was that they'll deal with that as they go along. I wonder if there's anything further that he'd wish to add.

Apparently not.

The next issue, then, is first nations involvement. This is not something that we covered earlier this afternoon. As I said earlier, we introduced a report in the Legislature last week touching on the dramatic effects on aboriginal youth and aboriginal families of gambling and gambling addiction -- a very high prevalence in aboriginal populations in Alberta, the fact that the extended-family situation seems to lend itself to increasing prevalence of the problem. I'd like to know if this ministry has undertaken any studies or made any recommendations with regard to safeguarding aboriginal populations from crime issues that could flow from gambling expansion.

The Chair: Member, do you wish to continue? Or we could call the vote.

K. Krueger: Hearing no answer, I wish to defer to either of my colleagues that might have any questions. The Housing critic has taken leave of the room for the time being, so I'd like to move that. . . . Oh, did you have a question?

P. Reitsma: I've got a couple of questions on the Residential Tenancy Act. It is my understanding that there is going to be a special meeting with the ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I made a proposal to the hon. member, who is the critic for residential tenancy, that if he has any concerns, instead of talking about the technical issues around a particular piece of legislation -- which is somewhat cumbersome at the best of times and more particularly difficult during estimates -- I would arrange a briefing with the staff from the ministry who are responsible for those issues. And then, if there are any concerns arising out of that, if we can have an understanding to proceed to make any changes, I would certainly undertake to pursue those changes to the best of my ability.

That's essentially the understanding. There is no specific promise. As the hon. member recognizes, I can't make any promises other than making my best efforts.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the member, it's important that all members recognize that this is not a forum for discussing legislation. That seems to be the area that you're going into. I think the offer from the minister probably covers the whole question.

P. Reitsma: I guess I'm waiting for one of my colleagues to come. That being the case, I could be ruled out of order, but the questions are. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Why don't we just recess for a minute and wait for the other member who wants to come? Is that acceptable, rather than you being out of order?

P. Reitsma: Let me see if I'm going to be out of order, pending the following question, hon. Chair, if I might.

Last week one of my constituents asked to meet with me -- which I did for a couple of hours, actually, on Friday afternoon. On his behalf, I'm attempting to express some concerns. If I am out of order, I am certain that his concerns are not out of order. Just for my benefit, I suppose, with the Residential Tenancy Act, in terms of the legislative power. . . . He referred to those regulations as being as charming as the actions of a boa constrictor. It's really constricting him, actually. In fact, as my other hon. colleague mentioned, at some of the mobile home parks they find themselves in some financial difficulties.

Talking about rent controls, the market currently -- certainly in my area -- is fairly soft. In fact, the vacancy is running between 12 and 15 percent, and many of the landlords have to give major incentives, such as a free month's rent, during the difficult times. During these difficult times, his concern is that this government is not coming to the rescue. But when the times get better, and when they attempt to raise the rents to try and recoup the losses they are suffering at the moment because of the fairly high vacancy rate, the Residential Tenancy Act, as a result of this government's amendment, makes it very difficult to do so.

A point in question: for instance, when the vacancy rate is so high -- 12 to 15 percent is high, because it's been around 1 to 2 percent in the past -- in order to attract tenants. . . . It's a supply-and-demand market, of course. The example he gave me was that he had to lower his rent from something like $625 a month to $540 a month in order to have some vacancies filled; however, once the market gets better and he wishes to increase the rent, that simply cannot be done.

Are any changes in that act contemplated to make it really fair on both sides? On the one hand, the tenants are looked after when there are difficulties. But if the landlord has difficulties, as I mentioned, the regulations seem to them to be like the actions of a boa constrictor.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't know whether the hon. member's thesis is correct. I'm told that the protection is for the tenant entering into a tenancy agreement. Once a tenant moves out, the landlord can rent the premises at whatever rent might be acceptable to tenants that might want to come into a place that's vacant. If there is a 12 or 15 percent vacancy rate, perhaps the landlord can lower the rent for those suites and have them occupied.

The Chair: Members, while this is very interesting, we really need to restrict our debate to the administrative actions of the minister.

P. Reitsma: On that question, before I defer to someone else, and since the minister brought it up, the argument of the. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You brought it up.

P. Reitsma: Well, you responded, and that gave me an opening.

When the vacancy rate is high, and supply and demand dictates that rates are lowered. . . . If the vacancy rate is, for some reason, lower and more competitive in terms of the percentage, he cannot, for that particular tenant, increase the rate from, say, $540 back to $620 again. That tenant has to leave first, which is very restrictive.

[5:30]

G. Plant: I find that I have the unexpected opportunity to return to the estimates of this important, diverse and wide-ranging ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there are no questions that you have to ask, we could actually adjourn. If we're just wasting time -- not that the hon. member would, but. . . .

[ Page 2954 ]

G. Plant: There are important issues around the operation of the residential tenancy branch. I certainly don't want to waste time. If the minister is indicating that it might, in his view, be a time when he would be making a motion that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, I would be happy to do that.

Alternatively, we could pursue the subject of residential tenancy, which is an important subject and one that excites a certain amount of interest among people who take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with me, as the Attorney General critic, on issues around how the branch does and does not work well.

I want, since we're in the happy situation of having an opportunity here to pursue this subject, to talk for a moment about the arbitration review panel, which is an aspect of the internal administrative process that exists in the residential tenancy branch. As I recall, the process is a fairly new one, and I think that it is perhaps a process that has experienced some growing pains. I'm not exactly clear in my own mind when it came into effect, but I think we are probably not much past the second year of its operation; I think we may be, in effect, in the second year of its operation.

As a starting point, recognizing that this is an important issue of consumer protection in British Columbia, I wonder if the minister could indicate how they establish performance accountability criteria within the ministry. How does the ministry say to the residential tenancy branch: "Here is what we expect you to do"? What is the business plan, if any, that the ministry gets from the residential tenancy branch? How does the minister measure the performance of that branch? Is there a process that allows the minister to obtain quarterly reports? Are the reports made in writing? Is there any formal reporting structure to oversee the way the branch works? I'd be interested in the comments of the Attorney General on those aspects of the relationship between the branch and the ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the residential tenancy branch, there is ongoing reporting to the ADM responsible for that area, and we monitor those issues on an ongoing basis. With respect to the arbitration review panel, that panel came into effect in December of 1995. There are no backlogs; things seem to be working. There are no performance criteria at this time. Of course, we're monitoring those issues, and if any difficulties or problems are seen from the operations, we would have those criteria in place. Currently they seem to be functioning fine.

G. Plant: The reporting that takes place between the branch and the ministry -- and that, I understand, involves the assistant deputy minister. . . . Does that reporting happen in any kind of formal way, in the sense of being in their quarterly reports in writing? Or is it just a question of the assistant deputy keeping tabs on what's happening in an informal way?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The director of the residential tenancy branch is part of the management team under the ADM's jurisdiction, and therefore there are regular meetings and discussions around what's going on.

G. Plant: One of the challenges the government faces -- and opposition members face, I think -- in examining an issue like the residential tenancy branch is that it's easy to respond to what might be called "anecdotal hot spots" -- that is, the kind of information that comes to the attention of people like me from aggrieved tenants and landlords who feel that the process doesn't work for them. It is sometimes more difficult to set out, in a constructive, positive, forward-looking way, vision statements, mandate statements, goals or benchmarks for success. What is it, from the minister's perspective, that constitutes the ministry's goals for the operation of the residential tenancy branch? What does the government want to achieve by having the branch in place? What is it that the government hopes to achieve, in a measurable way, from the operation of the branch next year?

Or, if there is an alternative to having definitive performance criteria with certain benchmarks and certain goals, it is that we have what tends to be a demand-driven service where the government simply responds to the demand that is out there that's generated by landlords and tenants. In a sense, it becomes government like Topsy -- government just sort of doing what it has to do to cope with the demands made on it for a particular service. Does the minister have any specific goals for this branch and any criteria or benchmarks for measuring the success or failure of the branch's ability to achieve or meet those goals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously it is very important to make sure that the branch provides fast, accessible, inexpensive dispute resolution to residential tenancy disputes that come to it. Therefore we have made available, from the branch to the ADM, statistics on a monthly basis in terms of hearings and the like. It's important that that continue. I don't have any statistics to provide to the hon. member right now.

There has been, of course, over the past two and a half years, the auditor general and deputy ministers' council. They've developed a major initiative for improving accountability and performance measurements in government. Those spread across government; I understand that there are at least 40 different ministry programs for which objectives and performance measures and standards are being developed as a result of that initiative. This branch is included in those 40 ministry programs for which those measures and standards are being developed.

G. Plant: I'm sorry to ask the Attorney General to repeat something that I didn't hear properly. I heard him say that there were something like 40 different programs within the ministry for which performance criteria are being developed. My question is going to be to ask him to clarify whether the residential tenancy branch was one such program.

I understand, through the magic of non-verbal communication, that indeed this is one such program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We should communicate like that all the time.

G. Plant: The Minister of Health, apparently, has developed new techniques for that form of communication, but we won't pursue that.

I want to say that when I listened to the Attorney General speak about statistics and the fact that he didn't have any available necessarily, it struck me that, in a way, what this initiative is about -- one that I think has been driven in large 

[ Page 2955 ]

measure by the Public Accounts Committee's work -- is moving away from simply input-output facts to larger statements about what a program should be about. It's about different sorts of ways of defining goals and different sorts of ways of measuring success other than simply saying that a thousand people passed through our door and we were able to serve their needs within a period of time that was measurable and adequate.

I take it that when the Attorney General says that the residential tenancy branch is one of his ministry's programs which is subject to this kind of review, he means the kind of review that will hopefully move beyond simple statistics towards the development of other criteria and principles. Am I right in that assumption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

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