[ Page 3017 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm delighted today to be able to introduce in the House Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal; Chief Constable Ray Canuel of the Vancouver police department; Chief Constable Doug Richardson of the Victoria police department; John Westwood of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association; Mason Loh of SUCCESS; Mary-Ethel Audley, a member of the Saanich police board; and Greta Smith, with the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses -- who should be recognized in absentia; she wanted to be here but couldn't be here. I'm asking the House to please make them welcome.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to introduce Gerry Della Mattia, executive director of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia and a longtime friend. Will the House please make him welcome.

L. Reid: In the precincts today is Ms. Christine Chipperfield, a resident of Richmond, and I would ask this House to please make her welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I see in the gallery today a constituent of mine, Stephen Leary, who is a community social activist of many years. I would like the House to make him welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today 46 seniors from the Sevenoaks Alliance Church in the city of Abbotsford. They're enjoying their day in Victoria, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Joining us in the Legislature today is Doug Anguish, a former minister of the Crown and MP from Saskatchewan.

Also joining us from Saskatchewan is my friend Marcus Davies -- and I don't mean to disparage Mr. Anguish by introducing him at the same time. Marcus Davies used to be a speechwriter for Mike Harcourt and had to go to Saskatchewan to find honest work, hon. Speaker, but make him welcome anyway.

J. Kwan: In the gallery today is the person who actually got me involved in politics and into community work some years ago. He is a mentor, a strong social activist, a strong trade unionist and the person in the downtown east side that everybody knows to be the unofficial mayor, and that is Jim Green. Will the House please make him very welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce Angela Austman, my legislative assistant, and with her, from the B.C. Young Liberals in Burnaby, Christian Lopez. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to add my welcome to that of the member for Delta North to Gerry Della Mattia. One of the reasons that my office is so full of toys is his beautiful granddaughter Emily. His daughter was a staff person who came to work with me when I was first elected.

I. Chong: Joining us today is, although not a constituent, a good friend, Dorothy Driedger, who I met during my leisure time when I enjoyed ten-pin bowling. Along with her today, visiting from Mexico, are her friends Lennie Ramirez and Ron Neubert. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: Today we have two guests that have travelled a long way, from Spey Bay, Scotland, and are in the galleries. John and Lillian McSeveney are accompanied by Rita Steer of Victoria to see our beautiful province and how this parliament works in such a functional way. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Police Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce a bill which puts in place new systems of police accountability, in response to complaints about police conduct and services. British Columbians expressed their concerns about police accountability to the commission of inquiry into policing in British Columbia, conducted by the Hon. Mr. Justice Wallace T. Oppal over a two-year period, from 1992 to 1994. Subsequent to that inquiry, there have been extensive consultations with representatives, individuals and groups. The legislative amendments introduced here today are corrective responses to the major deficiencies identified during the consultations.

A new office of the police complaints commissioner, reporting to the Legislative Assembly, is created to independently oversee each and every complaint lodged against municipal police officers or departments. The commissioner will have the power to ensure that complaints are expediently resolved in a process which respects the rights of all involved parties. The commissioner may also order that a public hearing take place before a Provincial Court judge. With the creation of the new police complaints commissioner, the B.C. Police Commission will be dissolved, and any remaining statutory police oversight functions will be transferred to the director of police services, an existing position in the Ministry of Attorney General.

There are now over 500 special provincial constables appointed for duties outside the provincial force, spread across ministries and Crown corporations. It is no longer appropriate or manageable to use special provincial constable appointments for this purpose. To take the place of these appointments and ensure a consistent application of public accountability and policing principles, two new levels of supplemental policing and law enforcement organization and appointments are introduced in these amendments: designated policing units and designated law enforcement units.

The amendments also include provisions to enable regulation of the use of force by police officers and standards for training.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals and organizations who have contributed to bringing about these amendments. These include members of the. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'm sorry, but the allotted time is up.

[ Page 3018 ]

Also, minister, I must advise you that we have neglected to move the first motion for the bill. So if you would kindly move first reading, then we'll do the placed-on-the-order-paper motion. If you'd move those two motions, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My apologies, hon. Speaker. I move that the bill be introduced, and having been read a first time now. . . .

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 18, the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, which will amend certain public sector pension plans. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act.

This bill has four purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to provide employers who participate in the aforementioned public sector pension plans with an opportunity to introduce pension-based early retirement initiatives on a basis to be determined in consultation with the respective pension boards.

The second purpose of this bill is to include the newly established regional health boards and community health councils as employers under the Pension (Municipal) Act, and to provide transitional arrangements for those employees being transferred from the Ministry of Health to a board or council.

The third purpose of this bill is to implement changes which are needed to meet the federal government's requirements for the registration of pension plans under the Income Tax Act.

The fourth purpose of the bill is to make a number of miscellaneous housekeeping changes, including the addition of a few new employers in addition to those which will be added as a result of the reorganization in the health sector.

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

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYERS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

It's my pleasure to present the Public Sector Employers Amendment Act for first reading. This is the bill that will guarantee adherence to the standards set by the Public Sector Employers Council with respect to severance provisions for exempt employees in the province. The amendments will implement PSEC severance standards through legislation and will allow government to recover money paid out in excess of these regulations. Our objective is to balance the need to prudently manage taxpayer dollars with the need to attract the highest-quality executives and senior managers to the public sector.

The legislation will apply to all new and renewed contracts of employment in the public sector. It will enable governments to ensure that severance payments are based on the principles established by common law, allow the governments to recover any monetary sums paid in excess of a regulation, remove flexibility for public sector employers and their executive employees to negotiate deals which do not stand up to public scrutiny, and it will ensure that severance is not paid in cases of voluntary resignation or termination with cause. It will address double-dipping, where an employee accepts employment with another public sector employer while still receiving severance payments.

This bill is consistent with this government's program to reduce the overall cost of government for the people of British Columbia. It affirms our priority for government resources to be directed to front-line services, and it also recognizes the need to recruit the best talent possible to the public sector -- and will allow us to achieve that objective, as well.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RESOURCES FOR CHILDREN IN CARE

I share the frustration of the Minister for Children and Families over this issue. Yesterday the member for Richmond-Steveston asked: what more can this House do to protect the children of this province? We know the ministry's mandate is enormous; its service is vital. We know there are and always will be parents who do not or cannot put their child first.

We know that the daunting task which faces front-line workers today -- caregivers, investigators, respite care providers and foster parents -- is enormous. They often feel overwhelmed. We know that we in this House have an obligation.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: given existing resources and given the fundamental need to protect the child, what additional resources will it take to honour our obligation to put children first in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the concern about whatever resources we need to keep children safe in the province of British Columbia. I would answer that question, I think, in two ways.

[ Page 3019 ]

One of the ways is by bringing together five ministries, by downsizing in terms of administration and management and by putting resources into front-line workers. We will actually have some new announcements coming up in the next while. There are some ways in which we are putting new resources into the hands of front-line workers and families, and that's one way.

But I think the second part of that answer to the Leader of the Opposition -- an important question around resources -- is the resources that all of us as members of our community can offer to people who live next door to us with children, to organizations in our community that work with children. So it's a financial resource issue, but it's also a people resource issue that we can all help with. I appreciate his question.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the minister's response. I'd also, though, like to say that I think we have to do more. It seems to me, as we look at the issues that we've dealt with over the last number of years, that it is critical and crucial for us all to understand that this is often an issue of financial resources. It's often an issue of new ways that we can provide services. It's often an issue of looking at the kinds of frameworks that we set up within our jurisdiction to make sure that children are put at the top of the list.

So today I want to give the minister my commitment to do what we can do within this House and on this side of the House to make sure that children are put first, be it through legislation, budget amendment, resource allocation -- whatever action we together decide must be taken to put children first. I ask the minister: will she commit to take us up on the offer to work together immediately to determine the resources that are required, so that we do not have the kinds of tragedies taking place in the province of British Columbia which we have seen take place time and time again over the last number of years?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, absolutely, I will take up the offer of the opposition to do so. I think we have already done that in many ways. There are members of the opposition who are working with us around a variety of issues that are of concern to them about children in their own ridings.

I think it's important to make two points. One of them is that sometimes it's an issue of financial resources. Probably no minister would stand here and say: "I couldn't always use a little bit more." However, I think that the transition commissioner and others have noted that it's not always an issue of financial resources. It's doing our work differently, it's policy frameworks, and it's how we care for children in our communities. So if we work together on all of those issues, I think we will have success.

G. Campbell: I thank the minister for that, but I would like to be a little bit more specific. Is the minister willing to sit down with all members of the Legislature, with front-line workers and with foster parents to determine both the financial resources and the system resources that are required to ensure that we can put children first? Is the minister willing to do that now, to work together with us now to do that? Because if the minister is willing to do that, I say to the minister: let's do it.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am willing to work with anybody who is willing to work to make life healthy and safe for children and families in British Columbia. I will work with anybody to get that job done.

In terms of the mention of front-line workers, that's why we have social workers, one from each region around this province -- front-line workers who do the work every day -- helping us redo all of the policy manuals that are very onerous for social workers, so that they can spend their time doing what they got into this to do -- which is work with kids and families. So we are working with front-line workers, and we will work with anyone who will work with us to make lives safer for children.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. Will he tell British Columbians and all Canadians that British Columbia's first and only constitutional position is to take a leadership role in a new and renewed united Canada?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, hon. Speaker.

G. Plant: Canadians will be grateful for the minister's assurance. But it is clear that the appointment of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as constitutional adviser is fast becoming another in the long list of the Premier's dubious achievements. Anyone who had taken the time to read the policy of the PDA in the last election would have seen that the Premier's chief constitutional adviser wrote: "If the separation of Quebec from Canada is indeed inevitable, then we may be forced to seriously consider an independent status for British Columbia." Faced with these rather alarming statements, does the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations accept the opinions of his constitutional adviser?

Hon. A. Petter: The position of this government has been one of leadership on the national stage in terms of promoting national unity and in terms of demonstrating to British Columbians that Canada can work for them. The leadership of the Premier in terms of achieving agreements on fisheries, agreements in terms of labour market training and agreements in terms of child poverty has been groundbreaking, has demonstrated to British Columbians that not only can this country work well for all Canadians, but it can work particularly well for British Columbians.

But, unlike the member opposite, we're not afraid of hearing opinions from all different quarters. The work being done by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is going to provide us all with some valuable insights from which I'm sure we can benefit.

I would suggest that on this important issue, rather than being derisive, the members opposite should keep their minds and ears open to all opinions. If they are certain . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Will you wrap it up?

Hon. A. Petter: . . . of their own commitment to a united Canada, they won't be afraid of those opinions when they come.

[ Page 3020 ]

NISGA'A POPULATION FIGURES AND
PER CAPITA COST OF AIP

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. My expectation, subject to confirmation, is that the numbers on the web site would reflect the definitions within the Indian Act for establishing who is aboriginal and who is not aboriginal under that definition. Given the new relationship which would come as a result of making a treaty, the issue of enrolment is a subject for negotiation; and, indeed, a new definition is established through that negotiating process, which explains the fact that there is a difference in that number.

We do not necessarily accept that the federal government Indian Act definition is the definition that should obtain in a climate of first nations having self-determination, with a view to putting forward their view and us being able to negotiate that view.

[2:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll be meeting with the federal minister tonight, so I will certainly express to him your concerns with regard to the federal Indian Act designations.

But with regard to the issue of per capita cash costs, the system works out, in a nutshell, so that there is no additional benefit given additional enrolment in other areas.

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

The Speaker: Could we have a question, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I know we're all anxiously awaiting the question.

M. de Jong: As I'm sure members are.

If this is how the government is treating its friends, I can only imagine how it is treating its enemies, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Matsqui, please give us a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Order, members. I must hear the question. I'm sorry, Matsqui. Please proceed.

M. de Jong: If the minister has so little confidence in his chief constitutional adviser, why in heaven's name did he appoint him in the first place -- allow him to be appointed -- and why is he giving him all the money that he's giving to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, to prepare documents that he doesn't believe and that he finds suspicious in the first place?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to answer this question. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is well known and well regarded for his views on the constitution and national unity. In fact, as I recall, in the last round of constitutional discussions, while I was on the opposite side of the issue from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, he was on the side that British Columbians subscribed to in that particular debate.

I think that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has demonstrated a depth of understanding and knowledge that would help all members in this House to better understand these issues. The fact that he has agreed to take on some responsibilities in order to assist this Legislature in dealing with the important issues of national unity is a plus that transcends party lines and should be welcomed by the members opposite, who can't seem to get beyond their partisan myopia and welcome this constructive proposal.

M. de Jong: Kind words. It still doesn't explain why you've got him under surveillance. That's the question.

The Speaker: Is that the question?

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the documents, as you might expect, are extensively whited out, as per usual, and the explanation is section 16 of the appropriate act, which says that there was information there that was "harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations."

Can the minister responsible tell us what the Premier's chief constitutional adviser is telling him that is so harmful? What is he saying that is so harmful to intergovernmental relations in this country of Canada?

Hon. A. Petter: The issue of national unity, quite seriously, is a very important issue that we cannot afford to ignore in this House. The role the member is playing in assisting us all in better understanding that issue is one that I welcome. I think members opposite should welcome it. Obviously the government has ultimate responsibility for setting government policy, and the document the member refers to reflects that fact. But the fact that the member has undertaken, in his own time, to pursue the seeking of further advice to government and, through government, to all British Columbians is good news that members opposite would do well to emulate, not deride.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

[ Page 3021 ]

Orders of the Day

BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997
(continued)

On section 13 (continued).

R. Neufeld: I don't intend to re-debate all the things that have been talked about from both sides of the House in regards to fairness or the size of the cuts or any of those items in regards to the unconditional grants to communities. But I do have a couple of questions in regards to what happens in my constituency. The only community actually affected in my constituency is the city of Fort St. John, which will receive a $350,000 cut. The other communities are under 5,000 in population and so haven't suffered any cuts so far, but they're holding their breath and wondering what's going to happen to them.

I wonder if the minister could give us some advice for the community of Fort St. John. I've received a little bit from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview about what should be done, and that was to cut a whole bunch of fat out of the system to take care of the $350,000 cut. I want to relate to the minister that for Fort St. John, receiving a $350,000 cut is quite substantial. That community faces the highest residential tax rates in the province. It faces the highest business tax rates in the province. And it has the worst infrastructure of almost any community in British Columbia.

Now, you might say that's the fault of the local politicians, but in fact it's not. It is because there is a tremendous unfairness in the taxation system in the northeast with the oil and gas industry, because Fort St. John is the hub and provides all the services for the people that work in that industry. But the industry is taxed by the province, and all those funds come south. Within the municipal boundaries, there's absolutely no oil and gas assets that can be taxed. So they face a tremendous burden. They are a community that has not increased their taxes for four years.

I'll just give you a bit of a comparison with Victoria. A house in Victoria that's assessed at $240,000 will pay approximately $2,000 a year in taxes; I'm using rough numbers. But a condominium in Fort St. John that is assessed at $80,000 pays $1,800 taxes. I ask the minister where the fairness is in those types of comparisons, because the services in Victoria far exceed what services those folks in Fort St. John receive.

I just wonder if he could give us some sound advice. He is part of a government that has decided to cut municipalities. Could he give us some sound advice that I can take back to the community of Fort St. John on how they can maintain the services that they provide now, which I must say are the bare bones, and not have to increase taxes on people that are already far overtaxed? I'll leave that with the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for his question. I guess there are two points I want to raise. The first is that in terms of this particular bill and the grants and the grant reductions for this year, Fort St. John has been treated the same as any other community in the province, and I recognize that.

I also recognize the challenges the community faces. Having said that -- and those comments relate to the bill -- I guess the point that I would like to address now to the comments the member made is that, yes, I do recognize there are some unique challenges that are faced in the Peace River country. I can tell the member that one of the first places I went to visit upon becoming minister was the Peace River country. I travelled up to meet with the regional district and with the communities in the Peace River country to get an idea of the problems they face.

[2:45]

I can tell the hon. member that my ministry is reviewing that proposal. It is looking at the suggestions they raised. As I've indicated to the member privately, I'm more than willing to work with him and his council to look at ways of ensuring that. . . . You know, I think the proposal that is outlined has merit. Let's see what we can do with it. I think that in the long run that will address some of the issues that the member has been talking about. I think that's what they're asking for: some way of addressing their long-term problems or some of their long-term issues, particularly around the fact that so much resource wealth in the oil and gas industry comes from that part of the province, and they don't think they're receiving their fair share. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, their proposal was called "A Fair Share."

R. Neufeld: I do thank the minister for taking the time to come to Fort St. John. He did travel to Fort St. John shortly after being appointed minister, and Fort St. John does appreciate that.

I am pleased that the minister responded in the kind of way I wanted him to respond to the question. But I would pose this to the minister: three years ago the same proposal was put forward to the ministry -- not to you as minister specifically, because there was a different minister at that time. It was much the same kind of a proposal. Maybe a few things are a little bit different, but basically it's the same proposal -- that the oil and gas industry be taxed a certain amount to increase taxation on them by about 1 percent per year, and that would provide about $13 million to be shared amongst the communities in the Peace regional district for infrastructure.

At that time, after the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and your government. . . . What they came away with was $2 million in taxation and a $2 million grant from the province, which amounted to $4 million. Now, they are certainly not unhappy that they only got $4 million. I mean, that was better than zero -- what they were getting before. But it has again been proposed -- and I know that, because I have the proposal also -- to put it forward.

I would actually appreciate it very much if the minister could stand in the House and say, "Yes, I support this, and yes, 

[ Page 3022 ]

as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm going to take this to cabinet, and yes, I'm going to be the leader in bringing this through cabinet," so that all those communities -- it's not just Fort St. John; Dawson Creek would benefit, and Fort St. John, Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Hudson's Hope -- would benefit from this taxation.

I don't know how much more study has to be done. I know that that's always a great way to get around a question -- to say that we still have to study it. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has had years to study that proposal and has had a fair amount of time with this last one, which is the fair share proposal. It's pretty straightforward and easy to deal with. I'd like to get a commitment from the minister that he will be the leader in his cabinet, in his government, to take this proposal forward so that we can get on with trying to provide services to the people of Fort St. John and the other communities that will benefit from this proposal.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's remarks. The assurance I can give him is that I went up there, and I met with the communities. I saw first hand the problems they're talking about. I was presented with a proposal, and I was impressed by it. I said that the work would be done on it to look at everything, that I'm a new minister and that I would be responsible for whatever decisions are taken.

I can tell the member that, yes, the proposal of a few years ago resulted in a change -- I think, a very positive change. I think both of us would agree on that. But I also have to be cognizant in carrying out my duties as minister that any proposal does have impacts and changes in other areas. And I don't have to tell the member -- because he's well aware of this -- that, for example, the energy industry has some very definite opinions. I do want to assure the member. I'll give him the same assurance that I gave the mayor and council of Fort St. John and the community of Dawson Creek.

Look -- oh, there I go; I used that word again. There are unique problems up there around infrastructure. I sat on a council for seven years, and I recognize the importance of good infrastructure. If there's a way that we can achieve more of the resource revenue that is generated in the Peace country staying up there, then I'm willing to look at any proposals. I'm willing to do the work necessary, and I'm willing to be the advocate at the cabinet table to try and do that. But I'm not in a position to stand here and say: "Yes, this particular proposal is the one."

I can give the member the assurance that I do understand the problems up there. I am willing to look at options, and I am willing -- if we can come up with one that people can agree with -- to champion that option.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that commitment from the minister, that he'll champion that through with his cabinet colleagues so that we can get on with doing some things in the northeast that actually, to be honest, should have been done a long time ago. So I appreciate that assurance, and I would concur that we have had discussions privately about the issue. I wanted to get it on the record in the House specifically so that people know that we -- not just me, but you as minister -- are dealing with this issue in a serious way.

I want to reiterate a little bit about the energy industry. Of course they're not going to appreciate a 1 percent tax increase -- not in any way, shape or form. No one likes tax increases. The minister ought to know that by the debate that's gone on around this section, with what's going to happen around the province in all kinds of communities with tax increases. So that's no secret. None of us -- it doesn't matter who it is -- likes tax increases.

But I also want to advise the minister that later on in the same bill we're dealing with, with the tax on natural gas as it relates to compressor fuel. . . . I want to tell the minister that there were no questions asked when your government brought forward that bill and that tax on the energy industry. In fact, just for interesting numbers, it brought the province a $13 million windfall -- a $13-million-a-year windfall for the province of British Columbia was immediately sucked out of the north and brought down here to help out in Victoria. That's what I'm talking about.

The government of the day just went ahead and put it in. There was no talk then about, "Well, we've got to watch out for the energy industry, because they may not like it" -- none whatsoever. It was put in by your government, just like that, because you needed the $13 million. I think you needed a lot more than $13 million, but it grossed you $13 million. And it is in your bill here -- to adjust that again.

So it's nothing new, and I think there are going to be some tough issues dealing with the energy industry -- no doubt about it. They were tough last time, and that's why we ended up where we did: at the bottom end of the pole. But I think that if we are tough and fair and put forward our positions on why we need that taxation and why we need that money for the future, we can come out winners. We just have to use a little of that magic that was used before when you put on the compressor tax. Use that same magic on the energy industry now that you used then, and we'll be away.

With that, I'd like to thank the minister for his comments.

J. van Dongen: I just want to pose a few questions to the minister with respect to this section. My constituency represents half of the city of Abbotsford, the other part of the city of Abbotsford being represented by the constituency of Matsqui. In speaking to the director of finance for the city and the mayor and council, certainly there's a lot of concern about the departure from the understanding that was held between the province and the municipality, the city, under the previous legislation.

I'm wondering how the minister intends to bridge the really large gap between the kind of assurances and the kind of certainty that were provided to local government by the Local Government Grants Act of 1994 and what we see in this section of this bill today. I wonder if the minister could give us some comment about how he intends to bridge that very large gap -- the high level of uncertainty for city financial planners as a result of this bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess I'll repeat answers that I've given to similar questions throughout this debate. In terms of certainty over finances, I think the best assurance for what the municipalities can expect is that if the revenues of the province are such that we're not forced to make cuts to health care and education, that we're able to protect our core areas and there's money for everywhere else, then we may be able to increase the grant. We may be able to leave it the same -- there's money there for the municipalities. In terms of how it's allocated -- and that, to me, is what this bill is about -- I've said that my intention is to sit down with the municipalities through the joint council process and work with them in determining well ahead of time how much money is available and sit down and discuss the allocation process. That's a 

[ Page 3023 ]

commitment I made upon becoming minister. It's one that we've now carried out through three meetings of the joint council process. We've committed to a special meeting on budgetary matters later this year, in the summer. My goal is to find out, as soon as possible, what the financial picture looks like for the coming year and what we can expect, and to let municipalities know well enough ahead of time, so that we can talk about allocation and then discuss ideas about changes to the allocation. I think the fact that both of us are sitting down across a table discussing the way to deal with the problem is going to contribute to certainty and stability.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I should mention that I wasn't here yesterday, because I was down looking at a very serious potential situation for my municipality. It is the Nooksak River and some serious erosion problems there. I just mention that for the minister. We may want to talk to him in the future about it.

I appreciate the answer and the thought towards consultation. I'd like to ask the minister why something wasn't written in the bill, at least about some time frames, some formal commitments to consultation. In changing this legislation, it seems to me that we're going from one extreme to another. Municipalities -- local governments -- actually had a cap on the potential impact to their budgets in any one year, so in terms of planning, that at least gave them something solid. There are no assurances or commitments of any kind that I'm aware of in terms of a consultation process, some form of notice to local governments -- for example, a minimum time frame ahead of time as to what they should be planning for. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Before I begin my comments, just so you know, if you have any issues around the Nooksak River, I'm more than willing to sit down and discuss those with you.

The issue you raised in the second part of your comments regarding consultation is addressed in section 14, which is the one after this one. That commits us to annual consultations with the UBCM.

Having said that, I want to tell the member that I see this consultation process as ongoing, as something that's happening on a regular basis. Since the beginning of the year we've been having regular meetings of the joint council process. What we committed to when we signed that protocol was to sit down with the municipalities and discuss issues of common concern with them, be they legislative, financial or anything else. We've had three meetings. They asked for a specific meeting later this summer to deal with the budget, and we've agreed to that. It's my expectation that at that meeting we'll be addressing the coming year.

I've made it clear to the joint council of the UBCM -- which, as you know, consists of the table officers of the UBCM executive -- that I'm open to changes in the formula and to how the money is allocated. I'm willing to sit down and discuss that with them and make changes that reflect their needs. I think that within the bill there is adequate. . . . It contains the requirement for consultation. I've indicated that that is something I place a great deal of importance on. I think the record of what we've been trying to do so far this year in terms of meeting regularly is taking place. There is a meeting scheduled for the summer. So I think that is meeting the requirements of the municipalities.

[3:00]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Without repeating my previous answer, the best thing I can say to the hon. member is that section 14 of this bill deals specifically with the requirement for the government to annually consult with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on the issue of grants. That is in the next section of the bill. I don't think I can say much more than that.

J. van Dongen: If I could go back to the minister's answer to my first question, I think he said something to the effect that future contributions in the way of grants to local governments by the provincial government would depend to a degree on the needs -- both the revenues and the other needs -- to be met provincially. If we accept that the ongoing demands of ministries such as Health and Education are almost inevitable, is the minister saying that we can expect that the grants to local governments will be phased out over a period of time or reduced as we go along? It's very clear that the demands of the two large ministries are creating some of these pressures and some of the sudden budget reductions we've seen in a lot of other ministries.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I'm saying is that if pulp prices are down and lumber prices are down at the same time, there are revenue shortfalls, and the government has then got to make tough choices. To quote my colleague the member for Delta South: "The government needs to make the cuts it needs to make in order to balance the budget." We've always said that the key areas that have to be protected are health care and education.

If pulp prices are up and lumber prices are up and money is coming into the treasury, not only are health care and education protected but so is everything else. We're able to maybe give increases to different ministries. Likewise -- and you've raised the issue of health care -- we have a federal government that's now promising to give us $1.5 billion in extra money next year. If that's true, and I would hope that it is, that certainly relieves pressures and allows the government greater latitude in the choices it has to make.

I can't predict how much money is available, but I think all of us realize that if we've got a healthy economy and revenues are coming in, it makes things a lot easier. So that's what I can tell you.

J. van Dongen: Despite the minister's comments, if we look at the record for the last six years, the operations of government have been running a deficit for all of those years, despite major increases on the revenue side from taxation and possibly other sources of revenue.

It's one thing to have a sort of seasonal or market fluctuation in revenues out of the forest sector, but it seems to me -- again, to get back to these local government grants -- that given the pressures of the senior ministries, it would be more candid to reflect the fact that there are going to be further cuts 

[ Page 3024 ]

in grants to municipalities. I'm wondering if the minister could comment more precisely on whether or not there is an intent within the government, within his ministry, to reduce these grants over time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may well be cuts in the future; there may well be increases in the future. That's what the future holds, okay? Budgets are determined in the years that they're required. That's down the road.

What I can tell the member right now is that this bill deals with putting in place a formula to allocate resources that are available in terms of grants to municipalities. What I think is important is that municipalities have enough notice, so they know ahead of time what the financial implications of next year's budget are and are able to make decisions based on that. So I come back to the fact that I've said we will sit down -- through the joint council process, which we agreed to when we signed the protocol back in September -- and deal with the issue of finances through a process of consultation at that table.

The evidence that I put to the member, which is taking place, is the fact that we've now had three meetings, we've dealt with substantive issues and we've agreed to hold a special meeting in the summer to deal with finances and budgetary items. I have given my commitment that if the municipalities want to rework the formula, I am open to discussing that, open to making changes. I think that's meeting with some success.

Section 13 of Bill 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Hartley
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Cashore
Ramsey	Sihota	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Doyle
Gillespie	Robertson	Smallwood
Conroy		Janssen
NAYS -- 33
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Plant
Sanders	Stephens	de Jong
Coell	Anderson	Nebbeling
Whittred	van Dongen	Thorpe
Weisgerber	Neufeld	Barisoff
Krueger	McKinnon	Masi
Nettleton	Coleman	Chong
Weisbeck	Jarvis	Abbott
Hawkins	Symons	C. Clark
Hansen	Reitsma	J. Wilson

On section 14.

G. Abbott: I just have a few questions on section 14, and then I'll have a suggestion or two with respect to how this bill might be improved. Again, this theme is, I suspect, getting quite familiar to you at this point. In our considered opinion, this bill is fundamentally and fatally flawed. However, we as a responsible and very positive opposition have been doing everything we possibly can to try to improve this rather unfortunate piece of work.

[3:15]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That particular word the member asks for a definition of relates to the timing and the allocation of the grants.

G. Abbott: Am I to understand, then, that when the term administration is used for the purposes of this act, there is no intention of consulting with respect to the amount of the grants, the size of the grants or. . . ? Their apportionment is not. . . . Well, I guess you said allocation. But the size of the grants is not included or embodied in your definition of administration?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

G. Abbott: I think that's an important point, and it's one that I will attempt to address in a few moments here.

Before I pursue that further, let me ask, in reference to the first phrase in section 14, "At least annually. . . ." I think I know what that means; I think it means at least once a year. But I would like the minister to tell me what that will actually mean in terms of how the consultations with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on this question are to proceed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You're correct: it means annually, at least once a year. I take that to be a minimum, because the way I see things working, the way that I'm trying to get things working and, I believe, the way the UBCM wants things to work is to get us meeting on a regular basis, as I've explained through numerous sections of the bill -- having that joint council process and discussing issues of concern on a regular basis. Right now, I think we're meeting about quarterly to discuss legislative issues and financial issues. They have asked, as I have stated previously, for a specific meeting to deal with financial matters. I have agreed to that. There may, in fact, be others. I think that what's being put in place will set the precedent, if you like, of a regular schedule of meetings between the government members on the joint council: myself, the Minister of Environment, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- the four ministries that deal most with local government -- and our counterparts from the UBCM table officers: the past president, the president, the first vice-president and the second vice-president -- to deal with these issues on a regular and timely basis.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation of what is meant by "at least annually." The further question I have. . . . I appreciate that we have discussed the government's embrace of the concept of the joint council on previous occasions during the discussion of this bill. And, of course, we have recorded on numerous occasions that we're gratified that the government has moved in that particular direction on joint council.

Again I want to put a proposition to the minister that I put to him previously. That is, given the rather object and rather abject failure of consultation between the government 

[ Page 3025 ]

and the municipalities of this province over the past few months, I think it would be very useful, very productive for his ministry -- in the year ahead and, indeed, in the years ahead -- not necessarily to try to engage every municipality in this province in the kind of dialogue that is hopefully going to occur at the joint council, but nevertheless, whether it's in the form of a letter advising of the progress of discussions at the joint council, or advising where the government appears to be going in terms of grants for the coming year, or advising municipalities of what the ministry projects its financial situation to be in the coming year. . .so that the municipalities and regional districts in the province can prepare themselves in some ways for the future -- at least for the coming year, if not for the future.

So I'm asking the minister to comment on that proposition: that it would be useful, in addition to the intensive consultation that will go on at joint council, to develop a program whereby all members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities receive from the province some indication in those areas that I've outlined.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the member raises a good point. As I stated before, the joint council process is basically getting off the ground this year and is starting to evolve into the form that I think both parties would like to see it get to. We discussed earlier in this debate problems around membership and how decisions are communicated. I think one of the things that we will need to address is to ensure that the discussions that are taking place at the joint council are circulated to the municipalities and the executive and that there is a general awareness of what's taking place.

I think that is happening to some extent. I've been doing that, in terms of when I speak to municipalities, I try and make them aware of the importance of the joint council. I think that the activities of the joint council, and some of the issues that have been discussed, will be -- certainly I expect them to be -- a major focus of discussion later on this year at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in October. I will be there, and I'm sure the hon. member will.

I also think that the executive -- the UBCM members of the joint council -- will be addressing this particular issue of making sure that their members are advised of what is taking place. That may mean that we come together and either do some sort of joint news release or a joint newsletter, or they may take it upon themselves. But that's something that I think needs to be developed, and I'm certainly not averse to that. It's something that I'm sure we'll deal with at the next meeting.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the quite positive and quite frank response to that question from the minister.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I think it is a very good idea for the minister to try to do those things; and again, as I did yesterday, I want to salute the minister for the efforts he's undertaken to once again try to bring municipalities back into the loop in terms of understanding what the Minister of Municipal Affairs is thinking. There really was -- and this is a simple statement of fact, not an attempt to embarrass the government -- a terrible lack of consultation that occurred. In the past few months, the relationship between the province and its municipalities deteriorated to what I think was clearly an unacceptable point, and it's going to take some extraordinary efforts on the part of the minister and on the part of the government to try to restore better relations between the province and its municipalities.

I'm not necessarily going to invite the minister to comment on that, unless he wishes to. My object is not particularly to embarrass the government on this one, and so I'm just happy to let that go as an expression of my view of how the minister should proceed on this.

I want to return to the point that I touched on a little bit earlier when I asked the question about administration and what that term implied or embodied from the government's perspective, in the context of Bill 2. The minister advised at that time that administration had to do with the timing of grants. It had to do with the allocation of grants -- and by that I understand the minister to mean that allocation that is determined by the government of British Columbia after, hopefully, extensive consultation with the joint council. The minister, as I understood his response, was saying that the amount of grants would not be included in the definition of administration that was embodied in this act.

I want to move an amendment to section 14. I think it's a straightforward amendment. In fact, I think it is an amendment which will improve this bill in some measure, and I understand from the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the government side may in fact be receptive to this amendment.

The Chair: I wonder if you could confirm that you are moving a motion. Is it the one that is standing in your name on the order paper?

G. Abbott: Yes, that's correct. I was just getting to that. I would like to move the motion standing in my name on the order paper, which would amend section 14 to read:

[SECTION 14, to amend Section 14 6 by adding the words in bold print to read:

At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities regarding the amount and the administration of grants under this Act.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We've reviewed the proposed amendment, and we understand the amendment to mean that the government is making a commitment that the minister will consult with the UBCM in general terms about the distribution and allocation of the global amount of grants to local government. If that's also the understanding of the member opposite, then the government will agree to the proposed change to section 14.

G. Abbott: If I understand the minister right, I think we are in agreement. The intention of my motion here is to identify the global amount that will be available for discussion of distribution with a joint council. You would be, presumably, advising the joint council at the earliest possible moment of the likely amount that, with the consultation of that group, the government would be distributing at some point in the following year.

[3:30]

G. Abbott: The minister has precisely and definitively encapsulated all of the things that were intended by my motion.

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3026 ]

On section 14 as amended.

G. Abbott: I thank the government for making what is a very useful and constructive change to this bill. I think it will be a change that is very much welcomed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and indeed by municipalities and regional districts around the province. It will, I think, help them identify earlier and more accurately the kind of situation that they will be facing in terms of provincial transfers to them for the year ahead. So I think that what has occurred here is very useful.

Turning now to the other point I was making. . . . Given that I'm on a roll, perhaps I'll move another motion that I have prepared. This motion is not on the order paper. This is with respect to the issue of consultation, again addressing what I think is a very important point. Local governments need to be reassured -- particularly at this point in time, and, I think, well into the future -- that they will also enjoy some measure of consultation with the province on these issues, perhaps not with the intensity or the level of consultation that will be enjoyed at the joint council level, but nevertheless some consultation to advise of the general situation that is emerging as the government sees it.

Further to that, I would like to move an amendment to Bill 2. I move that section 14(6) be amended by adding the words as follows:

[At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, whose membership includes the city of Armstrong, the township of Spallumcheen, the village of Chase, the city of Enderby, the district of Salmon Arm, the district of Sicamous, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the city of Revelstoke, the city of Kimberley, the village of Radium Hot Springs, the district of Windermere, the town of Golden, and the regional district of East Kootenay, regarding the administration of grants under this act.]

The Chair: Hon. member, can you give the Table a copy please?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that this amendment is out of order in that it involves an expense to the Crown. I would ask that it be treated the same way as the amendments that were moved in the previous section.

The Chair: The minister actually moved a motion, but I think he meant a point of order.

On the point of order, I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I note with interest that the minister is using the same argument as for the amendment that was proposed by the member for Shuswap in the previous section. I would just call the Chair's attention to the actual wording of the amendment, because I think it's crucial. The amendment itself only tends to itemize the actual membership of the UBCM and does not impose an additional duty or obligation upon the minister. In fact, all it does is clarify the membership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. In so doing, it doesn't fall, in my opinion, within the argument made by the minister that it imposes a cost.

Second, I took the liberty. . . . I thank the Table for copies of the various precedents that were given yesterday in this House with regard to amendments or other items that have been ruled out of order in this House. In going through them, I found that in not one of the instances mentioned were any of the examples that were given an amendment to a bill. In fact, if I can go through them. . . .

In the November 30, 1939, Journals, there was a motion on the order paper which required two things. It required a new government policy -- i.e., the establishment of a psychiatric hospital -- and the expenditure of funds which obviously would have involved the expenditure of salaries, which was also clear in the motion. So in both those cases. . . . While I agree with the Journals decision at that time, I don't believe it applies to this case in any way, shape or form.

Second, the Journals from January 23, 1969: again, it was an amendment to a motion that's traditionally passed at the beginning of each legislative session. In this case, in 1969, it was an amendment to create a Hansard -- an actual verbatim recording of the debates in this House, which obviously would have required the hiring of staff. The findings of that were specific. Again, I don't believe it applies in this case in any way, shape or form.

Also, the precedent given on March 29, 1962, was a motion requiring the government to establish a department of commercial fisheries, which obviously would have required the expenditure of funds. Again, it does not apply in this case in any way, shape or form.

In the Journals of March 28, 1966, it is in fact a private member's bill which requires the enumeration of the entire province of British Columbia, which, one can quite clearly see, involves a large expenditure of public funds. Again, it is not significant or relevant to the amendment at hand.

The Journals from January 25, 1968, has another motion, which is similar to the one previously, that requires the printing of Hansard, and again the same argument applies.

The motion on April 3, 1970, is a similar one with regard to Hansard and the hiring of staff. Again, it quite clearly doesn't apply in this case.

There is also a series of examples that were put forward by the Chair in the decision yesterday, one of which was from November 25, 1937, and was ruled out of order because it dictated government policy. I will quote from that ruling from the Chair at that time. It says that to amend the section, the introduction of a bill would be required, and that a member may bring in a bill himself but cannot direct the government to do so. Clearly this amendment requires the government to do no such thing.

Also, in the Journals from March 26, 1965, there was a motion that the Chair found to dictate government policy. It was a motion to have the government abolish the Senate of Canada -- obviously a large and significant policy issue -- which, again, does not apply in this case.

There's also the precedent given by the Table yesterday. A motion from the Journals of March 20, 1964, dictated government policy. It was to create a national park. It clearly doesn't apply in this case.

Further, there was the Journals of March 11, 1919, which had a motion that was ruled out of order because it dealt with the expenditure of government money. It was to bring in policies to provide relief to soldiers returning from the First World War, which would have required the expenditure of large amounts of funds. Again, it does not apply in this case in any way, shape or form.

There's also a series of findings by the Chair from the Journals with regard to motions that required an obligation on the government. The first citation given was March 27, 1963, which required "an obligation on the government to bring in a bill." Clearly this doesn't apply in this case.

[ Page 3027 ]

There is also a precedent from March 27, 1963. Again, it imposed an obligation on the Crown -- the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to look into election financing, which also subsequently would have required the introduction of an amended Election Act. Clearly this doesn't apply in this case.

In another instance, on August 25, 1983, the finding from the Journals says that it imposed an obligation on the Crown. It was a private member's bill to do with industrial development in British Columbia. Clearly it doesn't apply in this case.

Also, there is a last one: a bill in the August 25, 1983, Journals. A private member's bill, Bill M 203, was ruled out of order in this House because it made changes to the Financial Information Act which would have required the Crown to disclose -- clearly an obligation that goes above and beyond anything that's pursued or any sort of idea or recommendation contained in this amendment. So all the precedents given previously for yesterday's ruling, I think, quite clearly, upon examination, do not apply in this case, and therefore the amendment should be ruled in order.

The Chair: Hon. members, I appreciate the contribution that has been made on this. The position is as follows: once the Chair has been advised by the minister that the proposed amendment would involve the expenditure of public funds, the Chair invariably rules the motion out of order. That fits with standing orders 66 and 67.

So on with the debate. Further discussion on section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order. . . .

The Chair: So it rules it out of order.

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would like to ask a question apropos of your remark, your point of order. Just to be absolutely clear, did the Chair understand the minister's point correctly on the original amendment: that it would involve an expenditure?

Hon. M. Farnworth: An increase in expenditure of funds by the Crown.

The Chair: Hon. members, that is sufficient for the Chair at this point. The amendment was moved and the minister replied. The point of order was addressed and a judgment has been made.

I would encourage us to get back to the main point on section 14.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the minister. Can he explain how itemization of the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities -- if one were hypothetically going to do that in this bill. . . ? How in this section would that involve an additional expenditure of funds? Can he tell me what his philosophy is about this consultation and how having a listing of the members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in this legislation would require an additional expenditure of funds by the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: On the first point, I'd have to get people to sit down, go through the act, write it all up again. It involves staff time, which is an increase over staff time that I predicted was required to do the act in the first place. That's an increase in funds that were budgeted to do the act.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that that is a requirement, obviously, if any legislation is amended. Under the comments by the minister, one would conclude, then, that any hypothetical amendment that would be offered by the official opposition or anybody not within the confines of this building. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order.

The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Education, Skills and Training -- on what point?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, with respect, the member opposite is engaging in debate on an amendment which was ruled out of order, and therefore his debate is out of order. I'd ask the Chair to call the House to order, to address the section which we have before us.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is a hypothetical question to understand how this section works. In order to understand how the section works, one has to be able to ask questions of the minister. The question to the minister is: if the act or the section has. . . ?

Interjection.

[3:45]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member from Esquimalt wants to partake in debate, he can stand -- as all members can -- and rise on a point of order. But I would like the minister to perhaps give the opposition some guidance on what sort of amendment he could see being added to this section to improve it that wouldn't involve an expenditure of funds.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The section we're dealing with. . . . I'd like to make this particular point. Look, we're talking about consultation with the UBCM. The UBCM is a corporate body with audited financial statements that exists separately from individual Union of B.C. Municipalities corporations. Consultation with the UBCM means consultation with a corporate body. Consultation with municipal corporations individually is outside the scope of this particular act, and that would impose significant costs.

G. Farrell-Collins: I agree with the minister. If he says that it's going to impose an additional cost to have special consultation with every district in the province, I would tend 

[ Page 3028 ]

to agree with him. But that's not what the opposition is trying to do here. What the opposition is trying to do is itemize the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities so that it's clear. There's no additional cost required. The government continues to consult with exactly the same people. The amendment. . . . All it does is itemize, in more clear terms, the membership of the body with which he has to consult. That's all it does. So clearly there's no additional charge imposed here -- there's no obligation -- merely a clarification of the section. What we're trying to do is get a clarification and make the drafting of the legislation more emphatic so that it's clear exactly who it is the minister has to consult with, not that he has to consult with anyone additionally.

The Chair: Further discussion? Shall section 14 pass?

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I would like to move the following motion. Given the findings of the minister and the explanation given, I wouldn't want him to rise and make a statement that contradicted what he just said. So I would like to move the following motion:

[SECTION 14.6 be amended so that it reads as follows: 14.6 At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, whose membership includes the village of Alert Bay, the village of Gold River, the village of Port Alice, the district of Port Hardy, the town of Port McNeill, the village of Sayward, the village of Tahsis, the village of Zeballos and the Mount Waddington regional district, regarding the administration of grants under this Act.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I say that this is in the same vein as the previous motion that was dealt with. It involves an increased expenditure of funds on the part of the Crown. In my opinion, it changes the intent of the legislation to require me to consult with every individual municipality, as opposed to what the act says, which is to consult with the UBCM. We have signed a joint protocol which commits us to consultation with the UBCM, which is the table officers of the UBCM, which is the corporate body.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think that if the minister's understanding of the amendment were to be correct, then I would have to agree with him. But clearly that's not what the amendment says.

The amendment says: "must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, which includes. . . ." It's merely a clarification of the membership of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and imposes no further requirement on the minister to address individuals over and above the people he named.

Therefore, I think the minister, if he were correct in his understanding and interpretation of the amendment, would be right. But I believe he is not correct in his understanding and reading of the actual amendment, which in fact does not require any consultation over and above that named by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, but merely identifies the membership of that group.

The Chair: As stated previously. . . . I will repeat the same response, and that is: once the Chair has been advised by the minister that the proposed amendment would involve the expenditure of public funds, the Chair invariably rules that the amendment is out of order, and I so rule.

M. de Jong: I think the difficulty that we're having stems from the minister's desire to interpret the amendment in a certain way. I think it's an incorrect interpretation, but there's nothing I or members on this side can do to alter that fact, except perhaps to offer an amendment that will take us where we wish to go and make it even clearer what the intention of the amendment is.

The amendment that I'd like to propose with respect to section 14(6) of Bill 2 reads as follows:

[At least annually, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, whose membership includes the district of Oak Bay, the city of Victoria, the Capital regional district, the city of Colwood, the township of Esquimalt, the district of Metchosin, the district of Langford, the district of Highlands and the town of View Royal, regarding the administration of grants under this act, it being understood that the process of consultation shall impose no additional financial obligation upon the Crown and the right of the province of British Columbia.]

M. Sihota: Point of order, hon. Chair. There are a number of points here to make -- three of them, in fact. First, it's out of order, I believe, because it requires an expenditure of money. Second, the constituency has excellent and very effective representation, and the councils meet regularly with their MLAs. Third, I hope that those comments that I just made are included in the mailout that the hon. member sent out to those municipalities to further their political objectives.

The Chair: The alteration made, ingenious as it may have been, does not alter the fundamental point made in the earlier ruling that I made: that it is indeed out of order.

So, hon. members, section 14 is on the floor -- discussion on section 14. The motions as amended have been ruled out of order; I remind you all of that.

M. de Jong: As I consider the implications of the section and what it means to communities right across the province, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the outlet available -- or I should say formerly available -- to members of this Legislative Assembly to focus and represent the views and defend the rights of those communities has, in the past hour, not just eroded away but essentially disappeared completely.

If you accept. . . . I ask the minister to respond to this: we just passed an amendment to this section, and part of the argument that the minister has provided in refusing to entertain any further amendment suggestions is that there is a cost involved. There is a cost involved in terms of devoting staff to seeing an amendment enacted -- reprinted, as it were. Well, we've already incurred that cost. We incurred it 25 minutes ago when we passed the amendment that the member for Shuswap introduced and that the hon. minister agreed to.

We've suggested amendments that explicitly impose no financial obligation on the Crown -- none. What we've asked is that this government agree to articulate, in the strongest terms possible, its willingness and commitment to consult with communities right across the province. When we have tried to impress upon the minister the importance of that consultative process with communities across the province, he offers an excuse for refusing to do so that I can only describe as being lame. The amendments we have introduced that explicitly, in the latter case, say that there will be no cost involved to the Crown. . . . The minister's only response is: "It's out of order, because it involves a cost accruing to the Crown." It's not the case; we've said so.

[4:00]

[ Page 3029 ]

single statement from the minister that he believes is a certain fact. But when an amendment is tabled that makes clear what its intention is -- in this case, not to have any cost result or accrue to the Crown -- that apparently is not accepted at face value. There is a double standard at work. Maybe the minister could explain why I, as a single member of this Legislative Assembly of 75 members, should be satisfied with the application of that double standard.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only lame thing going on right now is the game being played by the opposition.

We signed a protocol back in September. It was achieved through negotiation with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. If the UBCM wanted the kind of diffuse and unfocused consultation contemplated by the member opposite, they would not have entered into the protocol of recognition. What they want us to do is to sit down with their table officers, who are the corporate body of the UBCM, to consult on changes legislative and on changes financial. This act accomplishes those goals. Section 14 accomplishes those goals.

The hon. member opposite offered an amendment, which we accepted as an improvement. They now want to go ahead and basically take the negotiation process away from the corporate body of the UBCM. To accomplish what? Nothing, hon. Chair. The fact of the matter is that section 14, as it currently stands, delivers all the consultation that the UBCM is asking for, and it delivers it in a way that was recognized when we signed the protocol of recognition.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister doesn't understand the basis for the suspicions that we hold on this side of the House and the suspicions that exist right across the province amongst the membership of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We can go through this town by town -- as I suspect we will -- and explain what the bases for those suspicions are. We can start with Mission, where it wasn't too long ago that that city and the adjoining city of Chilliwack were faced with the prospect of a courthouse closure. In spite of being assured months -- years -- ago by this government that those sorts of decisions wouldn't take place without proper consultation, that decision landed on those people with a thud that was heard right across the Fraser Valley.

I don't know if I was more troubled by that than I was by the response from the member for Mission-Kent, who went. . . . After all of those people rose up, took to the streets, held rallies, signed petitions, wrote letters, there was finally a decision in the case of Chilliwack to give that community a temporary reprieve, albeit at the cost of downloading hundreds of thousands of dollars of court-related costs to the taxpayers of that community. The most interesting aspect of all was the reaction of the member for Mission-Kent, whose headline, strewn across local community papers, was: "I Saved the Courthouse."

The problem is that when you confront the Attorney General with that information during his estimates debate, when you explore that mysterious process that apparently led to those services remaining in that community, the Attorney General doesn't know anything about it. No single member played a definitive role, according to the Attorney General. It's difficult to say and it's difficult to understand how those comments by the member for Mission-Kent can't be interpreted as simply misleading the people of those towns.

When the minister asks us on this side of the House to accept that his notion and his government's notion of consultation represents meaningful consultation that the people in communities like Mission should have any faith in, we're suspicious. And we become increasingly more suspicious when reasonable amendments that involve absolutely nothing in the way of additional cost to the government are rejected out of hand on faint and flimsy arguments. All it really amounts to is an unwillingness on the part of this government to bind itself inextricably to the notion of close and meaningful consultation with the communities that are going to be impacted by this legislation.

This is the minister's chance to say, not just to British Columbians but even to his own constituents -- for whom I know arts-related grants have been cut back; a whole host of services are being impacted in his community -- why an amendment that would compel not just his government, not just him, but future governments to consult in a meaningful way with his community, why that is somehow an unreasonable suggestion, an unreasonable proposal, from these opposition benches.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll deal with the member's comments as they relate to section 14 as amended, which is what I believe we are still on.

We signed a protocol back in September that commits us to consult and negotiate with municipalities through a process called a joint council. He talks about wanting to bind government to some sort of consultation process. That protocol is doing that. That protocol is in place, and it's starting to work. You know, the hon. members opposite seem to feel that the day that agreement was signed, somehow an entire structure came into place overnight. They don't want to recognize that it takes time to evolve. They don't want to recognize that somehow it takes time to put in place. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, do they want to hear the answers or don't they? I listened to them.

We signed a protocol that commits us to sitting down with the municipalities, and that's what we're doing. That's what is binding us to a process of consultation. It has been taking place. It has taken place three times so far this year. . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .on a quarterly basis. I hear one of the members opposite mocking that. Well, you know, this decision to meet when we meet is agreed to jointly -- not imposed by the province, not imposed by the municipalities, but agreed to jointly. The agenda at these meetings is agreed to jointly. It comes through a process of consultation, of us asking them what it is that they want to discuss and them raising issues that they feel we both need to discuss.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again I hear a member opposite going: "Are decisions being made?" The fact is: yes, they are. As each meeting goes along, we are getting more substantive agendas; more issues are being placed on the table. They are issues of concern to the municipalities. They may be different than the issues of concern to the members opposite, but they're the real, substantive issues that we're dealing with. They are issues around legislative change and how to change the Municipal Act. Those have been top priorities for munici-

[ Page 3030 ]

palities for years. The legislative package that's currently working its way through -- and that I hope to introduce to this House -- has come about because it responds to the priorities raised by the municipalities. It will have been achieved through that joint council process that bound us to consult when we signed that protocol. That's what's taking place.

The municipalities have also said they want a change in the Municipal Act, that it's outdated, that it needs to be revamped, that it needs to give them the tools they need to do the job they want to do. That's taking place, not because the province is imposing it but because the province agreed, through the protocol, to sit down with municipalities through the joint council process and address the avenues for change. It's coming about through a process of consultation, and I expect that that will be dealt with overall later on this year at the UBCM convention in October.

Financial issues have also been raised. We've agreed -- as the protocol that we signed binds us to do and the member is very concerned about -- to sit down with the municipalities and consult with them, so that they know, with advance notice, what the grants are going to be and how they're going to be allocated so they can make the decisions they need to make. That's taking place. They asked for a special meeting this summer just on financial issues. So that's taking place.

This bill and this section, section 14, are requiring us to consult. That's taking place, and we are living up to that. So, you know, I can't put it any plainer than that.

M. de Jong: Maybe the hesitation that the minister notes on this side of the House to embrace his assurances of meaningful consultation relates to the litany of broken promises that have occurred and have followed this government almost from the day it took office in 1991.

As I consider what has taken place in my community and the adjoining communities of Mission and Chilliwack, I only have to look at the university college. You know, the government -- the Education minister was here -- loves to tout, for example, its commitment, its agreement pledge to provide for the educational needs of British Columbians. If you look at the college, though, the Hope campus of the University College of the Fraser Valley -- and I'm sure the member for Yale-Lillooet would be interested in this -- is in danger of being closed down. That facility can't provide. . . . In spite of all of the assurances that we've heard from the government benches that the needs of those college and university students will be attended to, the fact of the matter is that the president of that institution says, point blank, that this government has failed to deliver on its promise to provide funding for 458 full-time student places.

[4:15]

I remain perplexed that the minister wouldn't want to strengthen what he says is a commitment of his government. I remain perplexed that he wouldn't afford to the communities right across the province, who are watching this debate with, I think, disgust. . . . There's nothing anyone in this House can say. There's nothing that anyone on either side of this House can say that will lessen the sense of betrayal and disgust that municipal leaders right across this province feel about this bill even being before this House for debate.

Yet there is something this minister could do to lessen the blow somewhat. He could give the people of Agassiz, Mission and Harrison Hot Springs the assurance that they surely deserve, which they apparently won't get from their MLA. He could give them that assurance by allowing this bill to be amended in a way that will, in a meaningful way, strengthen the commitment to consult.

Remember, it's not the government's money; it's not our money. It's money that's earned by taxpayers in these communities. By responding in the way he has, the minister leaves me -- and more importantly, the people watching this debate -- with the unavoidable impression that he and his government continue to regard this as their money to be dispensed as they see fit, when they see fit. And, "Oh, yes, we'll write in a little blurb about consulting," because that's the politically correct thing to do. "Maybe we can ease the heat we're likely to incur as a result of this draconian piece of legislation." But the commitment to that process, in my view, based on what I have heard in this House today, is far from wholehearted.

You ask yourself why there should be any difference today to that phrase we've heard from so many British Columbians over the past year about describing a government that says one thing, does another: says one thing on gambling, does another on gambling; says one thing on funding education, does another on funding education -- exactly the opposite. And they ask themselves this question, and it's the question I asked the minister today: "Why should we believe this time, when he says the consultation will be meaningful, that his government won't do exactly the opposite, as they've done so many times in the past?"

K. Krueger: Just to try to restore the level of debate to its former jovial tone, I'd like to acknowledge that we on this side of the House have tended to regard the minister as a fundamentally decent, good-humoured individual.

I'm keenly interested in this minister's definition of the term "consult," because of course that's integral to this section. At the end of my remarks, if I should move any kind of an amendment, I assure the minister in advance that it will not be one that imposes any financial obligation whatsoever on the Crown.

The term "consult," of course, is a popular term, very much in vogue in the nineties. Organizations use it all the time. Certainly Crown corporations and people consult one another, consult other corporations, other jurisdictions, their own navels. Consultation goes on and on and on. Often the public feels quite cynical about these consultative processes. But this is an important one we're talking about here, and I think my colleagues and I on this side of the House are simply trying to make sure that the municipalities and regional districts that we represent will be included in this consultation process, because sometimes things fall through the cracks. There are a lot of people in municipal governments who feel as though the assurances they thought they had have somehow fallen through the cracks, and the funding just isn't there.

[ Page 3031 ]

When I raise this question of the definition of "consult," I think about the consultation process that has taken place in this province with regard to the potential for no-fault insurance legislation. For example, Mr. Doug Allen travelled around interviewing some people and KPMG did a report as consultants, and in the end, people felt very much as though they weren't consulted at all and that the very expensive report which emerged wasn't the result of a genuine consultation.

Of course, there was the consultation conducted by Mr. Peter Clark with regard to the options for gambling expansion. Somehow that was understood by some people to be a public consultation process, but it fell far short of that. Indeed, the Minister of Employment and Investment did go out of his way to make sure that people understood that this wasn't a matter of consulting the public; it was a matter of consulting others about the options that he had. In the end he attempted to embrace pretty well all options. The Minister of Employment and Investment didn't seem to have had a consultation process with his party membership, with his caucus, with his cabinet, with this Legislative Assembly or certainly with the public before he launched British Columbia on a very dangerous course of gambling expansion.

Now, as we work through the estimates debate of this legislative session, we find minister after minister who really hasn't been consulted or had the benefit of expert opinion or input or reports or reviews as to, for example, how gambling expansion will affect women and youth in this province, how it will affect small business and human resources. It's astonishing that ministers seem to be treated in such contempt by the Premier and by the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Deputy Premier, that they are just completely left out of the process. More astonishing than that is the danger to which the public is subjected by this manner of false consultation. Certainly, we're getting to the point where eventually we're going to hear from this minister what consultation really means to him and what he thinks of an idea I have that I'd like him to include when he does his consultation.

I want to make it clear as well that when I ask this question, I'm speaking not just for myself but for my colleagues the member for Kamloops, the member for Yale-Lillooet and the member for Cariboo South, all of whom seem to be muzzled in this process, none of whom I've heard speaking on behalf of the municipalities and the regional districts that their constituencies include. I feel sorry for them, because they don't seem to have been consulted. They don't seem to have anything to say. It's hard on their constituents that their MLAs are not able to get up and represent them, even when they're in cabinet, of all things. People in those constituencies -- the constituencies of Kamloops, Yale-Lillooet and Cariboo South -- feel as though their interests have not been included in whatever consultations have taken place to date in all those areas I mentioned: gambling expansion, no-fault insurance, now this whole question we've been working through over these last couple of weeks with regard to unconditional grants to municipalities and indeed the whole relationship between the levels of government.

Speaking of that, when you think of the province ordering the B.C. Lottery Corporation to take the city of Vancouver to court over its bylaw on keno machines in pubs and bars, then you realize why people in this province are cynical about whether or not we have any consultation process in effect. I'm looking forward to hearing what the minister will have to say about how this consultation will actually proceed, because it's important to municipalities and municipal taxpayers and those individuals who toil in municipal levels of government in this province that there be stability and certainty and predictability -- these proud and noble words that this government uses when it talks about the kinds of accords it wants to sign and the kinds of relationships it wants to have but doesn't always seem to live up to.

I want to remind the minister that in an earlier response he gave to us, he made it very clear that this section, section 14(6) of Bill 2, has absolutely nothing to do with quantum. That was his answer. It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the grants. It has to do with this subject of consultation, which I've been talking about, and I'm going to ask him for a definition of that. The minister also made it very clear that he didn't think there had been enough notice given to municipalities of the government's intentions. We certainly agree with him, particularly in that this provincial government of ours has been so scandalized by the cutbacks -- that they refer to constantly -- from the federal level of government. But there was ample warning, years of warning, before those cutbacks took effect. Indeed they have actually been reduced in recent announcements, so the province certainly has a considerably larger ray of hope than the municipalities feel that they have.

Municipalities are really hurting over these cuts -- the impact on the city of Kamloops, for example. I can't give the details of the impact on municipalities in the unfortunate constituencies of Yale-Lillooet and Cariboo South and a lot of others, because those are represented by NDP MLAs, and they haven't spoken up in this House and talked about how their municipalities are affected. But Kamloops is probably representative. Kamloops is hurting over this, because Kamloops has been determined not to increase municipal taxation. Of course, people who voted NDP in the provincial election last May were voting for a government that they believed would not increase their taxes. They certainly didn't expect the municipalities to be forced to increase taxes through the back door.

When things like a $2 million cut in funding to Kamloops occur, these are some of the ways that the taxpayer gets hurt in the riding which the member for Kamloops represents and which I also represent as member for Kamloops-North Thompson. There are $600,000 in capital projects deferred. These projects weren't planned lightly. They weren't something that people just came up with off the top of their head; this is long-term planning. The city conducts its business very carefully. Those projects have had to be deferred. Computer system development: deferred to the tune of $170,000, as well.

Cutbacks in the hours that a whole range of municipal facilities will be able to operate. . . . In the arena, for example, this will affect minor hockey and figure skating and youth activities of many kinds, so young people and other generations of users as well will all be hurt by this sudden change on the part of the provincial government, through the lack of effective consultation in the past. There is going to be a major cutback to the swimming pool, where young people learn to swim and where many programs are conducted that are very advantageous to the health of the people of Kamloops.

The museum, of all things. . . . If we have a government that appreciates culture, then why in the world would we want to cut back in an area such as this, where taxpayers' 

[ Page 3032 ]

funds have been spent on building a structure and staffing it? Then it has to sit in mothballs for more hours of the day and the week because the provincial government has abruptly cut back funding to the municipality, and it has had to react in these emergency ways.

Compost-site hours are being reduced. Surely a government that purports to be environmentally conscious would believe in a program such as the city of Kamloops composting program. But that has been negatively affected in that its hours are being reduced.

[4:30]

I think that this government would do well to seriously reconsider the genuineness of its consultative processes and what it means when it says things like it plans to "consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities." The UBCM is pretty central to a lot of what Kamloops does and a lot of what the Thompson-Nicola regional district does, as well. When the city wrote me this letter, it was also delaying filling vacant positions, thereby affecting service levels in Kamloops to the same taxpayers. We constantly try to remind this government that there is really only one taxpayer. In spite of the fact they're hit on by all these different levels of government, there's only one taxpayer. They've got a right to expect some consistency in the services they are provided. But here we have public sector jobs vacant in Kamloops and those taxpayers going begging for the services that those employees -- union employees, I might add -- would have been providing if the funding had been reliably there.

A further $300,000. . . . The city of Kamloops isn't even able to decide how it's going to come up with those savings, but it's considering across-the-board cuts in areas such as grants to the arts, to culture and to sports. Again, the same taxpayer is being thumped over the head repeatedly by the fact that this provincial government cannot be relied on to engage in a meaningful and genuine consultative process.

These are the kinds of things that cause people to be very cynical about government in our day and age and that are going to create a great deal of difficulty for MLAs such as the member for Kamloops and the member for Cariboo South and the member for Yale-Lillooet when it comes to re-election time.

My question, then, for the minister is: would he please define the term "consult"? Exactly how meaningful will that be in this case? How genuine is his intent to consult in such a way that the city of Kamloops and the municipalities in all these constituencies I've been referring to feel as though they won't get any nasty surprises in future from this government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened to the hon. member's remarks quite intently, except for a brief moment, and I find it interesting, because he goes: "What's the genuineness of your proposed consultations? How do you intend to do this? How do we know what you're doing? What do you mean when you say 'consult?' " Well, as far as the city of Kamloops is concerned, the consultation is the process that we committed ourselves to when we signed that protocol back in September. It was a process that was agreed to by the UBCM and the province. It has been taking place since then, and it is evolving through input, negotiation and hard work from both sides. It is working, and it will continue to work.

You know, I tell the member from Kamloops to go talk to his council. He will find that their views and the issues they are concerned about are being raised at that joint council table. Right across this province, we are discussing the issues that are important to municipalities.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I am rising, actually, on a point of order and hope you will entertain my very brief submissions on the point I wish to bring to your attention. I left the chamber momentarily, because I wanted to consider the remarks I want to make to you. They relate to the debate that took place earlier in this chamber. I have to tell you that I am particularly troubled about the manner in which that debate unfolded and, quite frankly -- with the greatest respect -- about the rulings, in particular one of the rulings that was rendered by the Chair and the manner in which it was rendered, hon. Chair.

We engaged in a debate regarding the appropriateness of certain amendments; we heard submissions on two of those proposed amendments from the minister responsible. It matters not that I disagree with the submissions; we heard them. When a third motion to amend, specifically addressing the issues raised by the minister and by the Chair, was proposed, it was dealt with -- in my view and with the greatest respect, hon. Chair -- peremptorily and with a very cavalier attitude.

I am flattered in the extreme that the Chair found the proposed amendment ingenious, but that is not the point. The point is: was the amendment in order pursuant to the rules that we govern ourselves by in this House?

We have just come through a debate, and the Chair cited a whole host of precedent-setting decisions from previous debates in this chamber. She read them off, and she read them off in support of a decision that she was rendering. The decision that the Chair has rendered with respect to the third proposed amendment this afternoon dealing with this section becomes part of that body of law that future Chairs will refer back to. And quite frankly, hon. Chair, I am troubled in the extreme, insofar as I read and reviewed the decision that has been rendered by the Chair. I cannot conceive of an amendment coming from these benches that would not fail for similar reasons, based on the decision that the Chair has made and the manner in which the Chair has made it.

So, hon. Chair, I say, with the greatest respect -- the greatest of respect -- that at this point in time I lack the confidence I need to have in the Chair in order for these debates to proceed in an appropriate way, and therefore the motion I am moving is that the Chair do now vacate the chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member should realize that the rulings of the Chair are not debatable and that his comments are clearly out of order. The motion is just. . . . A challenge to the Chair is. . . . We don't do that in this House.

[ Page 3033 ]

[4:45]

YEAS -- 31
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Farrell-Collins	Plant	Sanders
Stephens	de Jong	Coell
Anderson	Nebbeling	Whittred
van Dongen	Thorpe	Weisgerber
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Symons	Hawkins
Abbott	Jarvis	Weisbeck
Chong	Coleman	Nettleton
McKinnon	Krueger	Barisoff
	Neufeld
NAYS -- 35
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Pullinger	Farnworth	Kwan
Waddell	Calendino	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Walsh	Kasper	Hartley
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Cashore
Ramsay	Sihota	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Doyle
Gillespie	Robertson	Smallwood
Conroy		Janssen

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to inform the House of House business.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd just like to inform the members that Committee A will be doing Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, it will be the Ministry of Labour estimates.

On section 14.

G. Abbott: I would like to discuss some concerns of communities within my riding and adjacent to my riding, particularly with respect to section 14 of Bill 2, but also with respect to the bill and the particular context of section 14. Before I do that, I want to make a couple of comments about where we're going here. As the Municipal Affairs critic on this side of the House, I had some role in laying out a direction which I hoped we would follow and which I hoped would lead to a very thorough debate of issues surrounding the Local Government Grants Act.

I'm not going to speak on the wisdom of what has transpired here today. As a relatively new member of this House, I think it would be presumptuous of me to try to speak on that particular issue. However, I can't escape making a personal observation that I think something rather fundamental to a process that we're all involved in here has been lost today. I sense that that something fundamental has been lost because of a concern that somehow we might be, recklessly or with abandon, putting forward motions that were simply intended to embarrass or offend the government. That was not our intention.

I know that the intention on this side of the House was to legitimately highlight the concerns of communities around this province with respect to what is being done in Bill 2 through this process. We've laid out many of our concerns with respect to previous sections, and I propose to lay out my concerns here, particularly with respect to section 14. The important point is that -- at least, from my view -- there is a real value in a democracy like Canada having competing and conflicting views of the world.

I think it was John Stuart Mill that persuasively outlined the view that even a misguided opinion was a valuable opinion, because it served to elevate debate and it served to lead on a path to the truth. I think that the analogy is appropriate for what we do in this House. Whether the motions we put forward on this side of the House are misguided, embarrassing or inappropriate, I think it is up to the House to determine whether the course we are proposing to set through our amendment is correct. The House, presumably after some vigorous debate, would decide on that, and I think we have lost that here. It is disturbing to me, and I think it is disturbing to other members of the House as well.

The joint council, as I've noted ad nauseam in here, is fine. There is no problem with the joint council; it's good. What we are suggesting on this side of the House and what we specifically wanted to point out on this side of the House was that some further consultation with local governments around this province would be useful, appropriate and valuable. If that opinion of mine was wrong, that's fine, and if the majority of the House shared the view that that opinion of mine was wrong, then I would be prepared to accept that. I am not going to belabour it, but I'm most reluctant to accept the view that somehow the opinion should not be placed before the consideration of this assembly. I'm not going to belabour it, but I'm most reluctant to accept the view that somehow the opinion should not be placed before the consideration of this assembly. I'm frustrated and puzzled by the whole thing here.

Again the issue should be one where we look at the communities and decide it is appropriate that these communities be consulted in a manner over and above what might be offered to them through their representatives on the joint council. In my particular case, I would suggest that a number of communities in my riding and the adjoining one have particular reasons to be concerned about Bill 2, and in particular section 14 of Bill 2.

The city of Armstrong, the township of Spallumcheen. . . . Spallumcheen is a township that has recently gone over the 5,000 limit. They are very concerned. They're facing new policing costs because they have reached the 5,000 threshold. They, of course, don't get the full benefit of the small communities protection grant, so they have a number of concerns about the direction of the government with respect to local government transfers.

The point that I am attempting to make -- or I had hoped to make in my amendment but which I am now making in the regular course of committee discussion here -- is that the township of Spallumcheen deserves, from the province, some consultation, some advisement that here is the direction we're going in with respect to policing grants, here is the direction we are going in with respect to the small communities grant, and so on. I don't think that it's misplaced at all that that community should expect some consultation along those lines -- again, not to the level of consultation that obviously is going to be envisaged in the joint council, but consultation which would, nevertheless, be very useful to that community.

The village of Chase. Again, my friend and colleague from Matsqui has rightly pointed out the concerns surrounding courthouses and the absence of consultation on that. The 

[ Page 3034 ]

village of Chase is another classic example of why we need to have the kind of consultation that was envisaged in the motions put forward earlier. The village of Chase learned -- I think via the news media -- that their courthouse was being closed. It's a courthouse that opened just five years ago. It's a courthouse that was built at the instigation of the government. There are five years remaining on a ten-year lease costing over $100,000 a year. The village of Chase, obviously, is very concerned that the provincial government can -- without any kind of notice, without any kind of consultation -- advise them that their courthouse is going to be closed and that they're expected to accept that fait accompli from the province.

I think that that's another example of why -- and I hope this is constructive -- it would be very useful for the province to build in a level of consultation that is more broadly based than that anticipated in the joint council.

Going down the list here: the city of Enderby, the district of Salmon Arm. Just to mention the concerns that the district of Salmon Arm has, the district. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Actually, the district of Salmon Arm is not represented on the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I appreciate the Minister of Transportation and Highways trying to fill me in on how UBCM works. I appreciate that. After 17 years in local government, I think I have a grip on that. If she wants to listen, hon. Chair, to the debate that I am offering here, perhaps she'll find it enlightening as to why I think there should be an additional level of consultation in the province.

Let me just note -- as I was going to before I was so rather rudely interrupted -- that the district of Salmon Arm has a population of 15,000. They are one of the municipalities in the sort of middle range that don't get the benefit of the small communities protection grant but will lose a good deal of the funds which they would have expected to receive under the Local Government Grants Act. In the case of the district of Salmon Arm, they've lost in excess of $300,000 as a consequence of the changes to the Local Government Grants Act. The way that translates into reality is that for every one of those 15,000 or so people in the district of Salmon Arm, every man, woman and child there can anticipate an additional $20 or more in taxes, simply as a consequence of this downloading on the part of the provincial government.

In the case of the district of Salmon Arm, they are looking at a 4 percent increase in their municipal property taxes this year, strictly and directly as a consequence of the changes to the Local Government Grants Act. Do they deserve to get some measure of consultation in this process? The Minister of Transportation and Highways doesn't think so, but I do. I do think it's entirely appropriate that the district of Salmon Arm hear, at points during the year, where the province is going with respect to equalization grants, where they're going with respect to the amount and distribution of local government transfers in the coming year. I think that's entirely appropriate.

[5:00]

Another that I think deserves consultation is the district of Sicamous, my home town, incorporated in 1989. Since incorporation, in some measure some of the provisions that were contained in the incorporation grants and so on have been, not breached, but certainly delayed. So they have concerns, and I think it's entirely appropriate that some level of consultation be extended to them as well.

The Columbia-Shuswap regional district. Again, while regional districts weren't directly affected by the changes contained in the Local Government Grants Act revisions or repeal of section 2, in a number of ways they have been quite affected. For example, the Shuswap emergency preparedness program has lost its provincial grant of $4,060. An $85,000 cut, or 52 percent cut, in the funding for milfoil control has resulted in a huge reduction in the level of service being provided in that regional district. The Shuswap economic development commission has had its grant cut by $27,000. The grant to maintain weed control services in the Columbia-Shuswap regional district has been eliminated, the loss of a $20,000 grant. In a number of ways these moves on the part of the provincial government have left the Columbia-Shuswap regional district very much concerned with where the province is going. Given that, I think they deserve a level of consultation with respect to where the province is going in the whole area of government transfers.

To reiterate this point -- just so the minister and members on the other side have it right -- it's our view that that consultation does not have to be at the level envisioned at the joint council, but at a level which would keep them informed generally of where the province is going on these things and would give them a level of confidence that they're being kept in the loop on these very important issues.

I want to mention some communities in my adjoining riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. I want to note that a number of these communities have contacted me, as the adjoining MLA and as the Municipal Affairs critic, to raise their concerns.

The city of Revelstoke. They have very profound concerns about where the government is going in a range of areas. The city of Revelstoke is not only affected by the changes to the Local Government Grants Act; they are very substantially affected by Bill 55 because of the very considerable railway assessment base that they have in that community. So they have very considerable concerns here. Whether there is a particular good reason for them to be concerned is irrelevant. The fact is that they are concerned. Therefore, from our perspective, they should expect and should deserve a certain level of consultation with respect to these issues.

Other communities I should mention: the city of Kimberley; the village of Radium Hot Springs, another newly incorporated municipality that is very much concerned with where the province is going; the district of Invermere; the town of Golden that's being affected, of course, by Bill 55 as well as this; the regional district of East Kootenay. All of these are communities that -- again, in my view, whether it's ill-advised or otherwise -- deserve to have a level of consultation, an element of consultation with the province that will give them some confidence that they understand where the province is going and can adjust their own course accordingly.

I'll yield the floor to other members on this side of the House who may wish to speak on this section.

[ Page 3035 ]

I. Chong: The other day during the section 12 debate, the minister talked about the protocol agreement signed last September. The minister insisted several times that there was a substantial reluctance on the part of government to sign the agreement, which I find actually quite disturbing. My recollection of the event last year at the UBCM convention was that there was some great applause, even a great appreciation, at the time of the signing by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So if there was such reluctance, I have to ask: why, then, did the minister not make it more known, so that the UBCM representatives were clearly aware of that kind of reluctance? I cannot believe that the UBCM representatives would have been so eager to sign the protocol agreement, because that would have implied that the representatives from UBCM were acting irresponsibly and in fact misleading their members.

It would probably, then, be fair to state or to surmise that the UBCM representatives were in fact not alerted to the minister's intentions at the time of signing. That said, it would then be more reasonable to believe that the minister was the one who acted irresponsibly and in fact misled the UBCM representatives. So I wonder -- as do many of the elected municipal officials throughout the province -- why the protocol agreement was even signed at the time. I hope it wasn't just a photo opportunity. I'm beginning to think so, but I sincerely hope not.

I was -- I am -- extremely concerned that the promises and the actions taken by this government on a number of issues, such as budget surpluses becoming budget deficits, such as off-loading of costs to FRBC, such as the expansion of gaming, such as the potential introduction of no-fault insurance, such as courthouse closures occurring throughout the province. . . . All these items, all these issues have a common thread, a similarity -- and that is, they are or will be a consequence of this government's lack of consultation.

That is why on this side of the House we believe it is so very important that, whenever and wherever possible in legislation, we attempt to make provisions for virtually assured -- not absolutely assured but virtually assured -- consultation. When this government fails to acknowledge the concern that municipalities have regarding the lack of consultation, surely the minister should expect and understand that those of us in opposition would have to speak up for those municipalities.

As I mention, as one of the only two members in opposition who represent the greater Victoria and capital regional district, I am speaking up on behalf of those municipalities. I've spoken to the city of Victoria, which is rather concerned that they are losing a substantial amount of their municipal grant. They've been relatively silent on the issue, perhaps because they have managed to not have a property tax increase, which I applaud them for. But it was not as a result of any kind of consultation that the minister had with the municipality. In fact, I think they've put themselves at a great amount of risk by looking into their contingency funds, the reserves that they'd had. Should any occurrence be there for the ensuing year, I think the city of Victoria will be in a fairly poor fiscal state.

We just heard recently that the other municipalities I represent, such as Saanich and Oak Bay, are also looking at some significant municipal cuts. Saanich has announced a 5 percent property tax increase. That is a direct result of municipal off-loading and therefore a direct result of this government's failure to consult to find some measure of, I guess, a happy medium to allow the municipalities, over a period of time, to deal with the municipal off-loading.

We've heard over the last few days, and the last week especially, that the federal government, when they off-loaded, provided a two-year advance notice. A 30-day advance notice is just not sufficient. That's why the municipalities are feeling that there has been a severe lack of consultation.

As the hon. member for Shuswap mentioned yesterday. . . . He quoted from an article in the paper, and I see it again in Hansard, that the mayor of Quesnel, Mayor Steve Wallace, was quite concerned. They recognized that the province had been given a two-year advance warning, so they had some form of consultation in that sense, I suppose -- but municipalities. . .30 days notice. It was, as Mayor Wallace described, a double standard on their part. If we fail to address those kinds of concerns, then we in the opposition would not be doing our job.

When I take a look at section 14, section 6 is headed up: "Consultation with local governments." Surely the amendments that we had proposed would have only gone to strengthen what is headed here as "Consultation with local governments" -- to identify the municipalities' concern and to speak up on behalf of those municipalities.

But what we've been hearing and what we've been seeing is that this government is looking perhaps to deal with specific representatives and not be engaged in a more inclusive process of consultation. It's very distressing, because we are looking to cooperate with this government to serve the people of this province and especially those who have been elected to serve in a local government at a municipal level, because at that level they provide the most direct service to the constituents. So I'm looking to the minister, who unfortunately is not able to reply at the moment, to see whether he can somehow look in another more substantial way to affirm that consultation with local governments will in fact take place.

When we look at the past record of this government and we look at some of the comments that have been made by other ministers -- and particularly the Minister of Finance, who has stated, and has been quoted in the Province, "I don't expect you to believe me," when he introduced his budget -- that presents a great amount of discomfort with elected officials. When the Minister of Forests continues to expound that governments can do whatever they want, that again reaffirms that the level of consultation municipalities had hoped would occur is not going to be there. So what we are looking for in section 14, in the proposed section 6 in this bill, is to strengthen -- if I can be so bold as to say -- the word of this government, even though certain things have been signed off and have not been followed through in writing. We're concerned that the broken promises we've seen in the past will continue. We are looking for this government to yet again give us some assurance in writing that they will provide the much-needed consultation with local governments.

[5:15]

[ Page 3036 ]

So over the course of the session, when pieces of legislation are introduced and when we find that there is constructive criticism we can offer that will strengthen what the Premier has provided in his throne speech -- other ministers have alluded to the fact that they would like to work with the opposition to ensure that we do in fact serve the people of this province -- we are looking to do so to let the ministers know that we are just doing our job and trying to hold this government to account and represent all people, especially the people in those ridings that are currently held by members in government. I often get calls in my community office from constituents who are not represented by opposition members, who are represented by members throughout the Island. . . .

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear the member opposite, and I'm wondering whether he is pulling comments from the air, just as they do their figures for their budget.

Obviously I know the reason people call opposition offices is because they're not being served by their members in government, because the members in the government are being dictated to by a select few. I feel that the members on the back bench don't have the opportunity to fully represent their constituents. That's a shame, because we all ran for public office to serve our constituents. I don't see that happening when clearly there are some issues at stake which threaten their democracy. When they look to have their voices heard. . . . As we all know when we ran for public office, we said we would represent people and be their voice at the table.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Right now the municipalities are saying: "We need our voices to be heard. We want to know that we're going to be included in consultation processes. We wanted to know at one point that the signed protocol agreement would in fact have some merit and that it would have some integrity." What we've seen unfortunately unfold over the course of the last week is that that particular piece of legislation -- which was, I guess, some hope that municipalities had -- is now gone. And yet when we see Bill 2, sections 12 through 14, taking away that hope, we in opposition must stand up for those people and must ensure that their voices are heard once more. I implore the minister to work with us to find some way to ensure that the word "consultation" in fact becomes more meaningful than just a word. I'm hopeful that other members who are wanting to speak on this can make the argument even stronger. I know we have, and I'm hopeful that if we are able to proceed with amendments over the course of the next few days -- if we continue with this debate -- the member will see that we are not trying to challenge the scope of the section but merely attempting to strengthen it on behalf of the municipalities and on behalf of all the people in the province.

R. Coleman: I'd like to go back to this section for a minute. I have a question for the minister. The first question I have is: what definition of "representatives" are you applying to this section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, we've been debating this for quite some time now, and for the member's edification I'll make it clear. Consultations are taking place through the joint council process which consists of four members of cabinet. They are myself as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Attorney General -- the four ministries that most often deal with local government.

The other side of the joint council is composed of the table officers of the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They include the president, Gillian Trumper; the first vice-president, Steve Wallace; the second vice-president, Steve Thorlakson; the third vice-president, John Ranta; and, I think, the past president as well, Joanne Monaghan. Those are the people with whom we will be discussing changes in delivery of grants, and they are the representatives of the UBCM. They may change in September or in October when the UBCM has its annual convention and elects a new executive and new table officers, and at that time those new table officers will, in fact, become the representatives of the UBCM on the joint council.

R. Coleman: My question was: what definition of "representatives" are you applying to section 14, which is repealing section 6? What definition of representatives are you applying to this section, and where is it in the act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's not defined in the act, but that is in reality who the representatives are, and so my previous answer stands.

R. Coleman: I would submit to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that when you are dealing with a section of any act, that should define who those representatives are. If you use the Concise Oxford Dictionary to identify what a representative is, it would be that elected representatives are members of municipalities -- if you want to paraphrase -- but the way it says it is "consisting of elected deputies . . . based on representation of a nation, etc. . . ." Hon. Chair, given that definition, which is a pure definition of "representative," I'd like to move the following amendment by adding the words in bold print as follows:

[At least annually, given no additional costs by pure definition, the minister must consult with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, whose membership includes the district of Pitt Meadows, the district of Maple Ridge and the township of Langley, regarding the administration of grants under this act, it being understood the process of the consultations shall impose no additional financial obligation upon the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia.]

[5:30]

The Chair: The minister has indicated that the amendment would involve the expenditure of public funds; therefore, as has been done previously, I rule this amendment out of order. We will go back to section 14 as amended.

R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, it's obvious. . . . I don't know whether I'm allowed to take exception to the comments of the minister, but I'm going to anyway. He made the comment that there was one word changed in the amendment that I put forward. It was not one word; it was an insertion of a number of words into the beginning of the text of the amendment. To make that comment and then say that there's an additional cost. . . . I don't think he's basing it on the information he has in front of him. Yet the Chair has accepted that.

[ Page 3037 ]

The Chair: The amendment has been ruled out of order, so go back to the section, please.

R. Coleman: Okay, we'll move back to the section. I will go back to my question to the minister. Where in this act do I find the definition of "representative"?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I've already answered that question.

R. Coleman: The minister did not answer the question. In an act, there are definitions of words, and in this particular act. . . . I can find nowhere in this act where it defines what a representative is, so I have to go to the dictionary to do so.

I would ask the minister, then, when he was serving as a councillor on the council of Port Coquitlam whether he considered himself to be a representative of that community.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Of course.

Some Hon. Members: We didn't hear you.

The Chair: They did not hear you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I considered myself to be a city councillor -- actually, at the time, an alderman, and then later a city councillor -- of the city of Port Coquitlam.

R. Coleman: I wonder if I could get the first answer repeated, because the first answer was two words and not a sentence. Could I get what the first answer was, the one that I couldn't hear?

Interjection.

R. Coleman: If I'm guessing, I think what the minister said was: "Of course." Of course he was a representative of the city of Port Coquitlam when he served on council, just like any member of any council in British Columbia would be considered representative of his or her community.

Does the minister consider the mayors and councillors of the following areas to be representatives of their communities? Abbotsford, Armstrong, Burnaby, Castlegar, Colwood, Coquitlam, Courtenay, Cranbrook, Dawson Creek, Duncan, Enderby, Fernie, Fort St. John, Grand Forks, Greenwood, Kamloops, Kelowna, Merritt, New Westminster, Kimberley, Nanaimo, North Vancouver, Langley, Nelson, Parksville, Penticton, Port Moody, Prince Rupert, Port Alberni, Quesnel, Revelstoke, Prince George, Port Coquitlam, Richmond, Rossland, Surrey, Terrace, Trail, Vancouver, Vernon, Victoria, White Rock, Central Saanich, Coldstream, Williams Lake, Chetwynd, Delta, Campbell River, Elkford, Esquimalt, Hope, Invermere, Fort St. James, Highlands, Hudson's Hope, Kent, Kitimat, Lake Country, Langford, Logan Lake, Mission, Langley, Mackenzie, New Hazelton, North Cowichan, Lillooet, Metchosin, North Saanich, 100 Mile House, Port Hardy, Powell River, Peachland, Oak Bay, Pitt Meadows, Saanich, Port Edward, Salmon Arm, Sicamous, Stewart, Sechelt, Spallumcheen, Summerland, Sparwood, Taylor, Squamish, Tofino, Tumbler Ridge, Comox, Gibsons, Golden, Creston, West Vancouver, Fort Nelson, Ladysmith, Oliver, Whistler, Osoyoos, Sidney, Anmore, Ashcroft, Smithers, Port McNeill, Princeton, View Royal, Burns Lake, Alert Bay, Qualicum Beach, Cache Creek, Fraser Lake, Harrison Hot Springs, Hazelton, Fruitvale, Chase, Clinton, Gold River, Kaslo, Cumberland, Granisle, Keremeos, Lake Cowichan, Masset, Nakusp, New Denver, McBride, Lions Bay, Lumby, Midway, Pemberton, Lytton, Montrose, Port Alice, Port Clements, Sayward, Telkwa, Pouce Coupe, Silverton, Ucluelet, Radium Hot Springs, Slocan, Valemount, Salmo, Tahsis, Warfield, Zeballos, Cariboo, Central Okanagan, Columbia-Shuswap, Alberni-Clayoquot, Bulkley-Nechako, Central Coast, Comox-Strathcona, Central Kootenay, Capital, Cowichan Valley, Fraser Valley, Mount Waddington, Nanaimo, Greater Vancouver, East Kootenay, Kitimat-Stikine, North Okanagan, Kootenay-Boundary, Fort Nelson, Fraser-Fort George, Okanagan-Similkameen, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Islands, Islands Trust, Sunshine Coast, Peace River, Powell River, Thompson-Nicola.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I must say that I am impressed by the fact that the hon. member can read. I'd have been even more impressed if he could have said that without notes, and perhaps he'll be able to demonstrate that without notes in a few minutes. But I'll tell him: yeah, they're all representatives. I know the point he's getting at, but let's be clear here. In the same way that he is a representative of the Liberal Party, he is also not the executive of the Liberal Party. In the same way that all those councillors and mayors are representatives of their communities, they are members of the UBCM. As members of the UBCM, they come together each fall and select an executive that speaks on their behalf.

Unfortunately, what he doesn't seem to realize -- or maybe he does. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is also making the same comments. They're saying: "Well, put it in there." It's incredibly presumptuous for us to say who their representatives will be. Their representatives are chosen by their members at their convention in the fall.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The consultation that's taking place in section 14 is going to take place in the same way it's been taking place since the beginning of the year, and that is through the joint council process. What is the joint council? They don't seem to get it, and I'll explain it again: the joint council came out of a protocol that was signed in September of last year that commits the province to sitting down with the municipalities to discuss issues of joint concern, issues that are legislative or financial. It's a process so that we can resolve concerns of local municipalities. At the same time, having said that, we also consult with municipalities on a day-to-day basis on every conceivable issue under the sun.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member says: "I don't think so." Well, you know what? In fact, last week. . . . Let's see -- who've I met with recently? We've met with Sicamous; we've met with Salmon Arm; we've met with Revelstoke. I've met with Mackenzie, I've met with Stewart and I was going to meet with the area of South Cowichan yesterday. Unfortunately, this scintillating debate was taking place so we weren't able to, but it is being rescheduled.

They meet with me, on a ministerial basis, on a regular basis to talk about issues of local concern to them and provincial concern. Not only that. . . .

S. Hawkins: It's nice and warm and fuzzy.

[ Page 3038 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member for Okanagan West says: "It's nice and warm and fuzzy." Well, the only fuzzy thing is the thinking on the other side of the House that seems to say that the only level of consultation that the government seems to be interested in, or talking about, is the joint council process.

Well, the fact is that consultation takes place on a regular basis, on a ministerial basis, with my meeting with individual municipalities here in Victoria, or increasingly, my going out . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

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

. . . to different communities in different parts of the province, meeting with them on their own turf and in their own regions and finding out local concerns, regional concerns and provincial concerns from their perspective on the issues of the day.

We've got two levels of consultation taking place. We've got the joint council process and we've got ministerial, where I'm meeting with them, talking to them about issues and looking at solutions proposed by them, and saying: "Well, perhaps we do this," and asking my staff to look at problems.

That brings us to the third level of consultation or interactivity, if you like, and that is between my ministry staff and local government. Everyday there are hundreds, if not thousands, of transactions back and forth, phone calls back and forth between the staff in my ministry, who work extremely hard on behalf of local governments, and their counterparts in local government, wanting to make things work. You know, that hasn't been acknowledged by the members opposite. All those things are taking place.

But you know what? When the protocol was signed, it came about because what the UBCM and the municipalities said they wanted was a more focused way of dealing with concerns. They wanted a focused way of dealing with issues on a provincewide basis, issues that can deal with provincial concerns, that can deal with regional concerns, that can deal in a very focused way and in a focused format that everybody's aware of -- so that everybody knows what's going on -- that is scheduled, that is regular and that involves consultation and dialogue on a meaningful basis to achieve solutions.

Do you know what? That resulted in a protocol being signed last September which committed this government to a process of negotiation.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I hear the heckles and the howls and the cries of indignation from members opposite, and I can understand that.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. The member for Peace River North just hit the nail on the head when he said: "We'd be saying the same thing if we were sitting on that side." Do you know what, hon. Chair? He's right, because basically they've got nothing better to do than complain. That's what's going on. There's no recognition of the fact that since the beginning of the year the protocol has been evolving in the way that both the municipalities and the province envisioned it would go. We saw that what was needed was to have regular, scheduled meetings. I'm so appreciative of the member for Peace River North, because he recognizes the humour in all of this. He recognizes what's going on on that side of the House. I'm sure he'll appreciate that when the joint council meets on a regular basis, and we discuss important issues. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll deal with that comment in a second.

There are important issues of concern to the municipalities being raised and discussed, with a view to practical solutions being found.

Do you know what? One of those issues that has been discussed, and one of those issues that I intend to raise, is the very one the member for Peace River North was talking about this afternoon; that is, some of the inequities that exist within regions. That's an example of how the joint council process is working.

[5:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who's heckling me right now. . . . I would now like to address his comment in which he says: "Behind closed doors." We hold discussions on important issues, and then with those discussions and decisions reached and ideas put forward. . . . Do you know what happens then? The executive -- the UBCM, the members of the joint council from the municipalities -- go back and talk to their municipalities; they go back and talk to their communities. These issues are so secretive, so totally closed-door, and so completely hidden from the public and from their membership, that I read about them the next day, or the next couple of days, in the Vancouver Sun and in the Province, and I hear them on the radio. I hear comments, like the mayor from Quesnel saying: "Gee, you know what? We met with the Premier at our joint council meeting. And do you know what he indicated? That he's prepared to be flexible, and that he's prepared to look at changes to the Municipal Act, and he's prepared to look at the priorities that we want implemented so that we can make changes."

That doesn't sound like closed-door to me. That doesn't sound secretive. That doesn't sound like it's being done in some back room, with only selected people invited. No. What it's showing me, what it's showing the municipalities and what it's showing the public is that the joint council process is working. We are so intransigent on this side of the House that earlier in debate, when the member for Shuswap asked whether I consider that we could make the process somehow better by communicating with the municipalities that know the issues that were talked about and the decisions that were reached, and the activities of the joint council. . . . Could we find a way of improving that? This side is so intransigent and as a minister I am so intransigent. You know what? I said yes. I said I thought that was a good idea. And do you know what? I can tell you that at each meeting of the joint council, as we're moving issues along and getting decisions made, we're seeing an increasing awareness by the municipalities of the importance of the joint council. We're seeing the executive that comprises the joint council talking to their members, making them aware. And what I'm really looking forward to, and I 

[ Page 3039 ]

know is going to be exciting this October, is that as the joint council really starts to evolve into something, we'll be debating and we'll be discussing at the UBCM its activities over the course of the year -- including, no doubt, resolution on many issues that have been raised on the topics discussed -- and we'll get a real sense of how this joint council process is working.

You know what? That will show how truly representative a body the UBCM is. That will truly show the measure of consultation that has taken place over this year and in fact will point the way as to how the relationship has evolved and how it will continue over the coming year.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the privileges of being minister, hon. member, is that I now have the opportunity to end debate this evening, to have the last word, and to ask the House that the committee rise, report scintillating progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

The Speaker: Hon. members, before I call the Government House Leader to adjourn debate today, I want to make a brief statement on question period -- the generic question period.

Somewhere, hon. members, we seem to have lost track of standing order 47 (A) which provides us with guidelines for oral question period. Please note I am mindful that that "we" includes the Chair. I am certainly prepared to accept my share of the responsibility. I believe that every person who has served as Speaker in this chamber has taken time to remind members of the rules governing question period, and that seems to me to be a good tradition to uphold.

Let me quote from the Journals of 1977 in which the Speaker of the day noted that: ". . . very great latitude has been taken by hon. members, both in the posing of questions and in the answers given thereto." He then went on to ask for "the cooperation and adherence of hon. members to the numerous but explicit rules relating to oral question period."

Five years later, in 1982, the Speaker noted that the "strict and meticulous application" of the rules during question period would:

". . . preclude the Chair from allowing the vast majority of questions and answers advanced in this House. Therefore, without some degree of latitude, constant intervention by the Chair would, in the absence of greater precision in framing questions and answers, lead to the total impoverishment of question period."

Clearly there must be rules governing question period, and those rules must be adhered to by those who pose questions as well as by those who respond to questions. But clearly there must also be a balance between a too strict and meticulous application of the rules and too much latitude in their application. In that spirit, let me remind members of the key provisions of standing order 47A: ". . .(a) only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted; (b) questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion."

Further assistance in interpreting our standing orders may be found on pages 110 and 111 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, notably the two citations from Erskine May that (1) the questions should be brief, and (2) the answers should be confined to the points contained in the questions with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible.

Briefly, it seems to me as your Speaker that this is the heart of the matter. Unless I hear from all sides of the House that they do not wish to be bound by these rules, I shall endeavour, with your assistance, to enforce them. If it is the will of the House to change these rules, a motion to amend is available.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS
AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)

R. Thorpe: In looking at parts of the business plan, I'd like to start first by asking the liquor control and licensing branch if they too adhere -- or if they adhere, because the other ones didn't -- to the accountability information matrix that has been published by the AG and recommended to all sectors of government. Can the Attorney please respond?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, for last year and for this year.

R. Thorpe: I'm encouraged that part of the liquor responsibilities appear to be moving in this direction. I applaud the organization for doing that, and I encourage the other parts to do it.

Looking very quickly at the strategic goals of the branch, it appears to me that one of the strategic goals from the previous year has been dropped for this year. That goal was: ". . .to achieve a well-performing liquor manufacturing and 

[ Page 3040 ]

hospitality industry." Can the Attorney confirm that this strategic goal has in fact been dropped from the business plan that is moving forward?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the hon. member is correct, in that literally, that particular goal isn't mentioned. But that goal is implicit in everything the branch does. If we didn't have a healthy industry, the LDB or the other branch wouldn't be able to do its job. Obviously these goals simply have been restated. But in the restating of them, if the appearance is that something central has been abandoned, I want to dispel that notion.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, Attorney. I think it's important, because as people read these documents they too may ask themselves the question that I've asked myself. I don't think we should be assuming these things, especially when it appears that we have increasing media activity with respect to licensing and regulation. I think we should all be very, very clear in our strategic goals, and perhaps in the coming months we could ask that that position be clarified. But I do accept the answer.

With reference to goal No. 3, which is to diminish the impact of the sale of beverage alcohol on the justice, health and social welfare systems, could the Attorney please share some details -- obviously not all of the details -- of the programs to achieve these objectives and goals, and the form of measurement he uses to monitor the programs and the success of those programs?

[2:45]

R. Thorpe: Thank you for that answer. I would just like to say that there are probably many extensive programs. I would not canvass them all here but would ask that I have the reassurance of the Attorney, as I had in other estimates, to get together with the general manager and staff and go through those in detail. I'd appreciate that.

Goal No. 4. At first I wasn't going to ask a question on this, but I was sort of forced to by what we found out about some staffing. Goal No. 4 is to safeguard the revenues that are due to government from the manufacture and resale of alcoholic beverages. Obviously we think there's a problem, or we wouldn't have that as a strategic goal. We didn't want to speculate to what degree, but we must have some significant figures, because we're part of a task force.

I just wonder, again. . . . I think this is important, especially to the regulated people -- the people that abide by all the laws, whether it's on the retail or the manufacturing side, because most British Columbians do abide by the law. Given the fact that human resources have been cut and were recommended, how are we going to achieve this goal? How are we going to measure that we're achieving what we set out to achieve?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This obviously does refer to some of the issues that we discussed earlier. But it also relates generally to making sure that this industry is healthy, that the way we do business is healthy, and that government -- while keeping some of the other goals in mind around justice and health -- continues to make revenues and, of course, then pours money back into health and justice issues, as well. This is sort of an overall issue. I don't think one could argue that this relates purely to that one aspect. But that one aspect we discussed earlier with respect to illegal liquor does relate to this.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Illicit liquor. I think it has the same meaning in simple language, but I'll use the term "illicit."

I have given the hon. member the understanding that we're going to be working on this issue, and I can assure him that within the next few months we will have an addition to the existing machinery. We will have reinvigorated inspections and investigations with respect to this matter.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that, and I look forward to the oiling of the machinery so it can move forward.

Looking at the objectives -- just in a very broad sense, again -- one of the objectives is to streamline the licensing and approval process. I'm sure that many members of this House have had concerns expressed to them about the licensing and approval process. What specifics has the branch laid out? What timetable does it have for streamlining and licensing the approval process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the branch is working with the wineries on this issue and is also working on a re-engineering process, so that some of the unnecessary burdens that are placed on the current process are eased and removed.

R. Thorpe: I wasn't asking that specifically for wineries, but thank you for the comments. I guess what I've heard from so many people in the industry is that there seems to be a bureaucratic, time-consuming exercise. Again, I would very much like the opportunity to review with staff the streamlining of this licensing proposal, and I look forward to doing that.

Moving along, because I know time is important to all of us today. . . . Recoveries. This branch is a self-funding branch. It gets all of its income from fees. The branch has supplied me with a detailed listing of fees. I guess my question is: will there be any new fees? Will there be any fee increases this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no to both of those questions, both on new fees and fee increases, unless, of course, some matters happen in terms of future policy in areas that aren't regulated. If they are regulated, obviously there would have to be new fees in those areas.

R. Thorpe: Yes. Of course, one wouldn't want to speculate what those may or may not be. One could conclude several things, I'm sure, but I wouldn't want to conclude that the Attorney may be talking about the regulation of U-brews or U-vins, as recommended in the Enemark report. But that does ask an interesting question: in the $5.8 million or whatever the revenue projection is, are there any fees anticipated in there for licences to U-brews or U-vins?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

R. Thorpe: I guess we have a couple of minutes yet. I want to ask a question on behalf of the hon. member for 

[ Page 3041 ]

Shuswap; he's tied up in the other House. It's also a question that's been asked of me and many MLAs, I'm sure, on both sides of the House, by service clubs and other organizations in their particular areas that, it's my understanding, have to apply through liquor licensing to get the published price that they can sell drinks for at events or whatever. Many of these organizations, which do unbelievable community work in our communities around British Columbia, have complained to us that they are having great difficulty in being able to adjust their prices to meet rising costs, etc.

Can the Attorney make any comment on that? Does the branch propose any changes which would facilitate these clubs to have some of the red tape cut away from them and, more importantly, serve the many voluntary activities they fund in their own communities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the branch has been working on that issue. There has been some consultation. They have a new schedule of drink prices that will come into effect soon, as soon as they can get the Queen's Printer to print the appropriate material.

R. Thorpe: I was going to say, hon. Chair, to the Attorney, thank you. But before I pass that thank-you through. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You want to know what it is.

R. Thorpe: Is it possible. . . ? I know you're probably not going to share the figures with me at this point in time, but what I'd like to make sure of is that these volunteer groups that are working so hard with people in their community have been really canvassed and consulted in this and that they are not going to come back and be angry at all of us. If we are making a change, then let us make sure that it's going to work for all the volunteers in all of our communities.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Even if I was able to share this information, I'm certain that neither the member nor those groups would be happy with the prices, because we always want as large a return as possible. But I'm told that charitable organizations can apply for an exemption from that requirement if the proceeds are going to charity.

The committee recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: With respect to the increase in prices, which I've been advised is now awaiting a printing time from the Queen's Printer, do we have a date that we're targeting to have that information released?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's anticipated that it would be in place by the end of June.

R. Thorpe: This question isn't specifically designed for the liquor control and licensing branch; I should have also asked about the LDB today. So I wouldn't want anybody, hon. Chair, to misinterpret this question as being directed at one group versus the other one. But since I forgot to ask it this morning, I'll ask it now.

From time to time, I hear and I receive representations from the industry and various stakeholders that there does not seem to be quite as coordinated an approach for the industry to work with both arms of the liquor branches in British Columbia. From this particular branch's perspective, I just wonder what efforts are being made to ensure that both branches are working hand in hand as a cohesive unit -- but, more importantly, to project that out to the various stakeholders in the industry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the operational functions, both of these branches are independent of each other, for obvious reasons. However, I understand that they do consult quite regularly, and the consultations are becoming more frequent.

R. Thorpe: I just have some quick operational questions, if I could. Within your total budget, what is your budget for examining the impacts of alcohol on communities in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no budget in this branch or even in the LDB. That may be a function in the Ministry of Health.

R. Thorpe: Just another question, hon. Chair, from a member that has asked me to ask this question. I believe I know the answer, but I just want to get it on the record for them. I don't believe that drinking-driving CounterAttack is funded out of either one of these areas. Does that come through ICBC? I believe it's ICBC, isn't it? No?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government doesn't pay any of that cost with respect to CounterAttack. CounterAttack and traffic safety initiatives generally are being funded by ICBC, and the advertising is paid out of the 15 percent portion of the total promotion that the broadcasting industry does on liquor. So 15 percent of that is then funding the advertising.

R. Thorpe: One of the things, in looking back through the mandate, was developing public relations programs with various stakeholders. Can the Attorney advise of any new programs or campaigns that the branch is going to bring forward in dealing with industry organizations or law enforcement agencies in the coming year? Is there anything new, or is it basically the status quo in your public relations development and communications?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The branch has prepared a major document with respect to the role of municipal governments in licensing. Also, there is a major review of advertising going on that will have major significance with respect to the industry. I'm sure that as part of that review, industry would be consulted.

R. Thorpe: I'll just follow up on part of that answer, if I could. A major review of advertising. . . . Is this an advertising program that government is going to do, or is this advertising that is placed by the industry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the approval process as well as the code that would apply to the advertisers of their products.

R. Thorpe: With respect to that, how many people in the branch do we have involved in that line of work right now?

[3:45]

[ Page 3042 ]

R. Thorpe: The Attorney has indicated that there is a review being done, or that is going to be done, in this particular area. Could you please advise us of the time frame of that review and when we would expect it to be concluded?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the terms of reference, which the branch calls the "scope document," have been prepared, but the review hasn't gotten underway yet.

R. Thorpe: The scope document -- new words all the time. . . . Has the industry been involved and in consultation in the development of this document, or is it being prepared from within the branch and then going to be given to the industry for their input?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The concerns of the industry have been incorporated into the terms of reference.

R. Thorpe: Just so I have a better thought of exactly what we're scoping here, is this a process that will potentially end up in an industry that is self-regulating with respect to advertising?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're getting into dangerous territory. I don't know what the results of the review are going to be. That may be one of the options that the review results in. Currently, there is simply the terms of reference of the review, and the review could have many recommendations.

R. Thorpe: Of course, we would never want to get on dangerous ground. I don't believe the possibility of self-regulation and of industry funding its own regulation is a new concept. Can the Attorney advise if in fact we are now the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have industry-funded regulation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. I think we are in Ontario's company on this one.

R. Thorpe: As we've seen in documents put forward, commonly known now as the Enemark report, in one particular area we see a recommendation of seriously considering organizations that want to self-regulate -- to bring forward self-regulation. In the broadest sense, is it the Attorney's and the branch's philosophy, in providing the necessary overall principal policy positions, that it's most advantageous if an industry can police itself rather than the high, heavy cost of government enforcing those regulations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're getting into hypotheticals. No, that's not being considered at this time. Yes, there's a review. That may be one of the recommendations, and then obviously we can engage in that debate.

R. Thorpe: Just so I've got it clear in my mind now, we have this scope document being prepared, soon to be released. Within the branch, have we set a timetable for which we want to release a document, have consultation, make amendments and reach a decision? Do we know when we're going to have a decision on the completion of this project?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm hoping that the branch will be able to complete the review by the end of this fiscal year. Then, of course, depending on what the recommendations are, new time lines might emerge.

R. Thorpe: In your previous answer you mentioned consultation. You have generously offered us involvement in the ongoing processes of the LDB and liquor licensing and control. I would just like to ask if in fact the opposition would also have the opportunity to review these documents and have any inputs that it may.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: To review what documents?

R. Thorpe: I believe we were talking about the scope document and the advertising regulations, or whatever they may be.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm assuming that once it's prepared and concluded, the scope document would be a public document. I'm sure that the opposition, including the hon. member, would be able to make submissions.

R. Thorpe: I think I'll move on, but I must just remind the Attorney that I didn't know anything about this review until you brought it up in your answer. That's where we just took our little line of questioning.

How many J licences are in British Columbia today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Four in place, three in progress.

R. Thorpe: How many new J licences did we add this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One in fiscal '96-97.

R. Thorpe: The three that are in. . . .

Excuse me, for the one that was approved, what was the length of time that it took from start to finish?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The officials are giving me a rough estimate of five to six months, but better information is accessible to the hon. member from them later on.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the three that are in progress, I assume that more detailed information will also be available, without going through this exercise right now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can tell the hon. member that the three applications that are in progress. . . . The branch is waiting for the applicants to take the next steps; it's not the other way around.

I just want to place a caution on the record. Obviously the branch would provide any information that's available to the hon. member, with the proviso that there might be some information that might not be accessible to the hon. member, depending on what happens to these J licences. I don't personally know the entire process.

R. Thorpe: Thank you for those words. I guess the real reason for asking these questions, hon. Chair, is. . . . As you know, I do live in an area that has a significant number of wineries. I also have a personal background of being in the industry and helping the industry develop. In canvassing questions for estimates, as every year, we talk to a variety of stakeholders.

We continue to hear that the red tape from start to finish is just horrendous, and it's causing people all kinds of problems. People, when they have to deal with government. . . . It's just government; it's just this big thing that eats up all this paper and all these questions. I was just wondering what this 

[ Page 3043 ]

particular branch has done to attempt -- because I believe it was an overall mandate of the government to attempt -- to reduce red tape and process times. Has the branch established a process benchmark, so it can measure itself to see if in fact it is achieving its own internal goals? Secondly, have they cut out any of the red tape that they themselves may have deemed to be part of the process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The kinds of concerns cited by the member are the reasons why there is a major re-engineering process going on in the branch. The red tape that the hon. member may be referring to may appropriately belong in the areas of land use, health and the like. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's more acceptable. However, sometimes it is not within the control of this branch to deal with those issues.

R. Thorpe: I understand that. I look forward to seeing the re-engineering documentation and how it's going to work. But as the Attorney knows in dealing with his own constituents -- whoever they may be, whatever department it may be -- someone in government has to be the champion of certain issues to get change to take place because everyone can hide behind: "It's somebody else's fault."

In recent time on particular issues, this branch has shown some initiative in working with certain stakeholders. I would really like at another time to perhaps meet with the senior staff there and see if in fact this group can become the champions of removing some of the red tape, with respect to dealing with government with respect to this issue. I think it would serve everyone in British Columbia very well.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is of course always the possibility of the hon. member meeting with the branch and giving them suggestions, and that would be fine.

R. Thorpe: I know we don't want to get into areas of great speculation and hypothetical situations, but somehow we have to attempt to be a little bit practical about our future. One of the major items before the government is the Enemark report. One of the things we've talked about is revamping inspectors and the way they operate, and I'm looking forward to seeing that document.

I'm just wondering. In anticipation of what may or may not happen with anywhere from -- who knows? -- 300 to 350 U-brew and U-vin operations, depending on whose figures you look to and who you're talking to, is the branch giving any thought to how it would look at inspection services in those areas if and when it becomes either regulated by the government or self-regulated?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That kind of decision obviously can't be made until the government makes a decision to actually regulate U-vins and U-brews, and no decision has been made.

R. Thorpe: So from time to time, then, people within the branch do not work on what-if scenarios: what would we do, what would they do, how would we do it, how would we cover it, etc.? Is this a particular case where the branch would not do that kind of work?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The branch would not engage in any speculative work; they have enough work to do. If I or someone in my ministry required them to do that, obviously they would do that. No decision at this time has been made to regulate U-vins or U-brews.

[4:00]

One of the things I see in this press release -- and if you don't have a copy, I'll be pleased to provide you with one -- is a recommendation to try to get all hospitality industry stakeholders together to find common solutions to some licensing issues.

Now, you and I know, having dealt with the industry, that sometimes it's very difficult to find common ground. But I guess my real question is: when can industry -- no matter what the regulation is, because when you make new regulations, you're not going to make everyone in the world happy -- expect that some of these licensing issues, perhaps those that were talked about in the Enemark report, will be addressed by the government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Without really going into the details of any particular case, I am advised that these people have been dealt with under the current regime. I have been advised that until the government makes any changes, that's the final result.

R. Thorpe: Just to confirm once again, have the government or you and your staff established a date that this review may be completed, so that people in the industry know approximately when they can expect some kind of direction, policy changes or alterations from government?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

R. Thorpe: A section of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, I think it is section 84(2)(p), has not yet been proclaimed. When do we anticipate that that will be proclaimed, or do we anticipate that that will be proclaimed in the very near future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from the branch that it is their intent that when they're ready to proceed with the winery regulations, they would then seek a cabinet order to proclaim this. But they may or may not get it.

R. Thorpe: I don't know why they had put the word "winery" in there, but it just raises a question: why were you winery-specific?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The branch has been actively working on the winery conditions and terms for licences and has not worked on the brewery terms and conditions as yet. That's why it was winery-specific. When I said they may not get the proclamation from cabinet, I have no knowledge; it just may or may not happen. Such is life.

R. Thorpe: That's what people say about government: sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

[ Page 3044 ]

The branch used to issue an enforcement report, and when I called over and asked for the last one, it covered the periods '91-92 and '92 through '93. Does the branch no longer issue annual enforcement reports, and if that's the case, why?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that some raw statistics are continuing to be included in the Attorney General's annual report. The rest of the data isn't, and the branch believes that they're not even sure whether some of this data should be in reports.

R. Thorpe: Moving into the last lap, hon. Chair, just a quick. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's nice to know.

R. Thorpe: We don't know how long the lap is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought you were a sprinter.

R. Thorpe: Sprinters never win marathons.

Trying to shift gears back into the financial mode, because we have to be very, very serious here. . . . Looking at salaries, I note that we're looking at a 9 percent increase in salaries this year. Why would we be doing that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the confusion probably is that the hon. member got the figures that were inflated by inclusion of the five FTEs that were turned down. The five FTEs were turned down by Treasury Board; therefore that money was never actually spent. Does that make sense?

R. Thorpe: I assume you're asking your staff whether or not it makes sense.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, no, no.

R. Thorpe: Actually, no, it doesn't make sense. If the Attorney is saying. . . . What I'm comparing here. . . . This, in fact, is a document that I did get from staff. It says $3.5 million versus $3.2 million. That is a 9 percent increase.

Now, is the Attorney saying that that number includes five FTEs, bringing it up to 80, and subsequent to these numbers they have now been cancelled? If so, what is the new number?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The actual expenditures were $3.2 million in '96-97. The actual expenditures in '97-98 would be $3.2 unless there is the approval of five FTEs.

R. Thorpe: So on a comparable basis, with the five out, there is no allowance for any salary increases going forward into this fiscal year. Is that correct? Is that my understanding?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're talking with rough figures here, but there has to be a 1 percent increase in salaries this November as a result of the collective agreement.

R. Thorpe: This may compare to some of the other numbers. If it does, what I would do is. . . . I'd ask this anyhow: could I be provided with a financial schedule that removes the costs related to those five FTEs, just so I have it on my files? If, in fact, they do come back in, then we'll know what the other numbers are. So I'd appreciate that, if we could just run that down through the whole total, but that can be provided later. I would assume, then, that the fringe benefits being up 9.7 percent would be the same.

My other area of concern would be the travel expenses. It's up substantially, especially in fact if a. . . . Well, I don't know if the freeze is still on for all government. The enforcement travel. . . . When do we anticipate that that enforcement plan is going to start? Has it been also delayed by the fact that five FTEs have not been hired?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Rejection of five FTEs would have an impact on that figure as well.

R. Thorpe: Taking that into account, the re-engineering or the re-jigging of the existing enforcement inspection force is. . . . What increased travel do we anticipate from that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's difficult to substantiate. One voice from officials is telling me that it could be $3,000 to $4,000.

R. Thorpe: In the interest of time, perhaps staff could follow up with me on that later; that would be great for me.

Looking at professional fees, could we just. . . ? It's $178,000. Could we perhaps just highlight the two or three areas, in nearest thousands of dollars, what those fees are for?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the '97-98 fiscal year, the indications are: the compliance strategy, and that includes a new fines strategy, a new schedule of standard suspension period for various infractions, a compliance manual and an inspectors' handbook; then the advertising policy review, and that includes a review of preapproval process, new policy, for example, addressing youth focus advertising review process; then operational contracts to redesign forms and the like; and then business process review. Those figures are, in that order: $35,000, $50,000, $30,000 and $63,000.

R. Thorpe: I assume that these are all outside consultants and outside contractors. If that's the case, will those be open and public tenders for those contracts?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there would be compliance with the policy, which would require several of these to be tendered, yes.

R. Thorpe: I see here a 39.4 percent increase in office and business expenses, up to $161,000. Although that's up 39 percent over the actual for last year, it's fairly close to the budget for the previous year, so was there some major project or something that didn't take place that you're now planning to do this year?

[4:15]

R. Thorpe: It sure looks like we're going to have a lot of new manuals this year, and I hope we've. . . . Anyway, I won't say that. I hope that in publishing all these new manuals and procedures, we have taken into account our commitment to reduce red tape and regulation, so that they work easily for the people out there who are going to have to use them all.

[ Page 3045 ]

We're moving, here, to the end. With respect to quite a large increase in vehicle operation, was that to cover the five FTE inspectors that were not hired?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Basically, yes. Basically it relates to those five. Four out of those five were to be inspectors and would have required vehicles.

R. Thorpe: Systems development. It's the same kind of question: $143,000 versus a spending last year of $78,700. What are we planning to do this year that requires that additional funding?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some of those figures were related to not hiring all of the staff they wanted to hire and not equipping them properly. That's the difference between the two.

R. Thorpe: With the Attorney's permission, I would ask not for more details now, but for more details outside, because these people are obviously going to be very well equipped -- if that was the answer.

It will be two years in a row now that Treasury Board has refused additional inspection staff to the liquor control and the liquor branch. Since many people in the industry, many people in the ministry's own organization, being one of the pillars of your strategic plan. . . . I just wonder what strategies and actions the Attorney and the senior staff are going to embark upon to highlight to Treasury Board how important the stakeholders, the industry, the branch. What are you going to do to be the champion, to make sure that some of these things can go forward and that we're not going to be trapped. . . ? A term I was going to use earlier today. . . . Obviously this is a chicken-and-egg situation: "Show me you can do it. I can't give you the resources; I can't do it until you show me." I'm just wondering how somebody is going to break this circle and be a champion of this project.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this year the Treasury Board may be quite receptive to this issue, and we're hoping to get the five FTEs to deal with the issue. Of course, one can't guarantee anything. But I can assure the hon. member that we will do our best, because I think it's an important issue. Illicit liquor is something that's not acceptable, as it's being used, and we'll deal with it.

R. Thorpe: I wish you well in pursuing those activities. If in fact those activities do not materialize, based on your historical performance, you should then have in excess of $600,000 to $700,000 in this budget. Since this is to be a self-funding organization, would it be the intention of this branch to prorate that back through to the licensees who have contributed the money into this fund, or will that go into general revenue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a rhetorical question. The hon. member isn't expecting me to engage in a rhetorical answer to that. That's a concern on his part. It's a concern on my part that illicit liquor be dealt with, and we'll deal with it.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the strategic plan this year, on-premise inspections in 1995-96 achieved a level of 40 percent. You anticipated achieving 36 percent this year. In building your plan for the year 1997-98, what is your target inspection rate?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The business plan for the branch for 1997-98 isn't complete. That would be forecast at that time, and I'm sure the hon. member would have access to that once the business plan has been approved.

R. Thorpe: I hope that the business plan in this coming year is approved in a process a little speedier than it was with respect to the last fiscal year. There were only six days left in the fiscal year when it was approved this past year. So I do look forward to receiving that at the earliest convenience.

One other question I have with respect to setting benchmarks is advertising approvals. I note that it's increased up to 2,614 in 1996-97, and I just wonder if the branch does have an internal turnaround time that it tries to measure its success against in processing those approvals.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is constant monitoring of that. I understand that the branch tries to do a turnaround of seven days, including the day of the receipt of the application.

R. Thorpe: I'm glad to hear that there is a benchmark, and I'm just wondering if you could tell me what your success rate is in achieving that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it's in fact one of the areas that's the focus of the re-engineering process. I understand that the benchmark isn't being met often.

R. Thorpe: Thank you to the Attorney and staff for their candid answers. I appreciate it -- sometimes just a little bit more candid than others. Attorney, I'd like to thank you and the staff for providing us for the most part with timely documentation this year, as opposed to previous years. Based on your comments earlier in the day, I look forward to us having an increasing flow of timely information, so that it doesn't become just a process once at the end of the year, but that we can work hand in hand to make the process better for everyone. So in that regard, thank you very much. That's the end of it. There, it's 4:30, and we picked up the time.

Vote 16 approved.

Vote 17: ministry operations, $786,188,000 -- approved.

Vote 18: statutory services, $51,856,000 -- approved.

[4:30]

Vote 66: office of the police complaints commissioner, $500,000 -- approved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.

The committee met at 4:59 p.m.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

[ Page 3046 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm happy to take my place for the first time as Minister of Labour. I'd like to acknowledge in the room the most recent Minister of Labour, my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- and also recognize that he has twice been the Minister of Labour and therefore is a very valued colleague in terms of me getting up to speed on issues that I need to be able to be up to speed on -- and, of course, the officials who are with me in the room. I know that the value of Margaret Arthur, our deputy minister, and assistant deputy ministers Don Cott and Gary Martin is very well recognized, as I've heard from many of the members of the opposition who attended a briefing. I do feel very well supported by the staff in the ministry.

[5:00]

It has been a year of change. I'd like to take a few minutes to acknowledge all of the people who work in the ministry, who have had to deal with that context of change. Like all ministries across government, Labour has had to face difficult choices to ensure that services are maintained within a framework of fiscal responsibility. I think everyone in this ministry deserves congratulations on having worked together to manage.

The ministry is responsible for the good administration of legislation aimed at fairness, cooperation and good relations in the workplace. I am pleased to note that people in this ministry worked very hard to put words into action when it came to dealing with change. Our senior staff worked closely with our employees and their representatives to manage budget and staff reductions, and they stressed and maintained open and honest communications throughout. As professional public servants, they never lost sight that the role of the public service is to serve the public. For that, I express the appreciation of all members of the House.

The Ministry of Labour's job is to contribute to the development of a stable and prosperous province by promoting harmonious relationships between employers and workers; ensuring that all workers enjoy basic standards of compensation, working conditions and workplace health and safety; ensuring that employment pension plans meet basic standards; and promoting workplace-based apprenticeship training.

Stable labour relations are a key factor in the health of the provincial economy, both in maintaining our competitive economic base and in attracting new industry. With the assistance of the Labour Relations Board and the collective agreement arbitration bureau, employers and union members are settling their differences faster and with fewer work stoppages. Since the Labour Relations Code was introduced in 1993, the average number of worker days lost each year to labour disputes has fallen by half.

That the LRB and the CAAB are viewed positively in the labour relations community is reflected in how the services are being used. About 95 percent of the collective agreement mediation in the province is now being done by the LRB's professional staff, a process that leads to a high rate of settlements. The labour relations community's response to the establishment of the collective agreement arbitration bureau has also been very encouraging. The bureau assists parties to collective agreements to resolve mid-contract disputes. Two-thirds of the applications received are for expedited arbitration. People want to resolve differences quickly, and they see this as something that works. It's not just unions that benefit; nearly half of the applications for expedited arbitration last year came from bargaining units with less than 100 members.

The bottom line is that free collective bargaining works. We will continue to pursue the philosophy that most differences can be resolved and that government should only intervene in collective bargaining when parties need outside assistance to settle those differences.

Just one example of how positive labour relations can have an impact on a provincial economy is in the film and television industry, which brings an estimated half a billion dollars a year into this province. This ministry supported the creation of a B.C. Council of Film Unions and the signing of a single consolidated collective agreement for the industry in B.C. That agreement brought stability to the industry and created opportunities for growth. I am pleased to announce that a tentative agreement has been reached to renew the master collective agreement for another three years.

Government initiatives to simplify the collective bargaining structure in the health care sector will eventually result in a significant reduction in the number of bargaining units and collective agreements in the health care sector. That represents a tremendous potential public saving in terms of the costs of negotiating collective agreements. It also brings a level of stability in labour relations long sought by both workers and employers in the health sector. The real winner is our health care system, because more resources can be freed up to provide the kind of high-quality health care British Columbians both expect and deserve.

A new Employment Standards Act, introduced in 1995, expanded and improved protection in a number of areas. It also established the Employment Standards Tribunal as a mechanism for bringing forward recommendations on how the act and regulations should apply to specific classes of workers. Over the past year the Employment Standards Tribunal held public hearings and received submissions from workers and employers in a number of economic sectors and industries. In this process we were able to hear from employers and from employees -- not just from lawyers in Vancouver and Victoria, but from people who live, work and do business in communities all over the province. The tribunal's well-considered recommendations have been the basis for challenging decisions, many of which will have a far-reaching impact on the lives of working people.

Concurrent with these processes, the employment standards branch has undertaken some very proactive initiatives to assist different industries and sectors to comply with the act, including the development of appropriate variances to reflect unique circumstances and the expressed wishes of employees and their employers.

[ Page 3047 ]

As minister responsible for bringing forward legislation having to do with workers compensation, improving safety in the workplace, supporting fair treatment for injured workers and ensuring the ongoing financial health of the workers compensation system are vital concerns. Working in cooperation with workers and employers to prevent occupational injury and disease is the Workers Compensation Board's primary mission, and there are encouraging signs that this mission is succeeding. For the second year in a row the injury rate of workers dropped to its lowest level in B.C. history. Although B.C. had the lowest injury rate in its history in 1996, WCB recognizes that there is room for improvement and has set a goal of further significant reductions by the year 2000.

Also in 1996, the government took action to correct inequities with respect to administration of WCB widows pensions. The workers' and employers' advisers continue to address a high volume of work, assisting employers and employees in dealing with the workers compensation system, both in assisting with appeals and through education programs, and steps have been taken to improve the performance of the Workers Compensation Review Board by increasing the number of vice-chairs. This will help reduce the appeal backlog and address some of the frustration expressed by those who are appealing WCB decisions.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

So there has been some significant progress, but there are still some aspects of the workers compensation system which need to be reviewed. People from around the province have told us that the workers compensation system needs to be reviewed and that any review has to be completely independent of government. That is why, last year, the government appointed a royal commission as the first comprehensive external review in more than 30 years. During the time the royal commission is operating, the WCB is continuing to function under the direction of a panel of administrators and to make improvements.

The process of reviewing and revising the occupational health and safety regulations is going ahead. In 1996 the WCB launched its five-year injury and disease reduction plan under the banner WorkSafe, which focuses the board's efforts and resources on companies and employers in industries and sectors that need the most help. The WCB also invested heavily in research to community organizations to investigate hazards, to develop rehabilitation strategies and to provide education. In 1996 the WCB invested more than $1.9 million to support research.

Another area of responsibility for this ministry is protecting the interests of B.C. pension plan members by reviewing private pension plans and working to ensure that all pension plan members are adequately protected. In addition, working in consultation with an advisory council, the pension benefits standards branch will soon begin working to increase awareness of the importance of retirement income planning.

One piece of legislation that is very important in this ministry is the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act. This act, introduced in 1994, ensures skills development training in the construction industry, ensures high-quality work standards on publicly funded construction projects by requiring that employees have the qualifications to do the job, and ensures that employees receive fair wages for work performed on publicly funded construction projects. The Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, along with apprenticeship revitalization, is a cornerstone of this government's goal of ensuring we have a workforce adequate to the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Since the introduction of the act and the fair-wage policy that preceded it, the number of registered apprentices in construction has increased by 15 percent. The number of tradespeople seeking provincial certification has jumped by more than 60 percent. That increase in training and skill levels pays off in everything from reduced injuries to long-term savings that we get from building it right the first time with well-trained and fairly paid workers.

B.C. has one of the strongest economies in the country. That presents us with many opportunities, but it also challenges us to make sure we have a workforce that will meet the needs of our growing and changing economy.

In the past year this ministry, in close cooperation with the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, has undertaken to review and revitalize the province's 60-year-old apprenticeship system. Through a series of public forums and with the input of a ministers' committee on entry-level trades-training and apprenticeship, which was appointed by the former minister, it has been established that the first priority must be to develop a new governance structure for industry training and apprenticeship. That structure -- which has the full and unanimous support of business, labour, learners and trade providers -- will be called ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. ITAC will provide and promote a vision of industry training and apprenticeship for the twenty-first century that is attractive to workers, learners and industry and is consistent with the social and economic development needs of the province.

ITAC will not simply be an advisory board. It will have broad decision-making authority with respect to industry training and apprenticeship, including allocation of resources, establishment of credentials and standards, and coordination of delivery of apprentice technical training and entry-level trades training. It will also put curriculum standards and credentialling for entry-level trades training and apprenticeship under one administrative body for the first time. It will have a very specific mandate to create a new industry training and apprenticeship system that has the capacity to increase the number of trained people and the contribution of all partners to the system; to strengthen and enhance industry training and improve linkages between entry-level trades training and apprenticeship; to establish, implement and monitor accountability mechanisms to ensure that training being delivered meets provincial standards and credentialling criteria; and to develop both annual and long-term plans based on industry needs and priorities.

We need to recognize and build on the strengths of the apprenticeship system and look for opportunities for growth and expansion, particularly in the new and emerging knowledge and technology fields. At the same time, we will need to find efficiencies within the existing system to meet our current fiscal targets. I am convinced that apprenticeship will continue to play a major role in our society, and it's very important that apprenticeship be able to adapt to the needs of a changing workplace and a changing workforce.

The Ministry of Labour is playing an important role in the growth of our province's economy and improving the lives of many British Columbians. Over the past year we have formed many close and valuable partnerships with the business, labour and education communities as well as with other levels of government. We look forward to these partnerships continuing in the future, and I look forward to discussing our plans and accomplishments.

[5:15]

[ Page 3048 ]

the AG estimates would end. Even though -- I might just say as an aside -- we did keep asking the Government House Leader and her assistant as to when we might expect this, nobody could really give us a satisfactory answer. But we did manage to get together, even at this late hour on a Thursday afternoon.

Before I make some response to the minister's opening remarks and give an outline of what he and his officials might expect from this side, I would, as he has done, like to acknowledge the presence and the assistance of his officials: the deputy minister and the assistant deputies. I do thank them for the package and the briefing, which I and my colleagues who had an opportunity to attend the meeting -- and some who've seen the package afterward -- say is a good outline, a good way to approach the organization of the ministry. We might perhaps suggest to the minister that he might like to share that example with some of his colleagues, who don't necessarily always follow the same format. That doesn't apply to all, of course.

I would also like, as the minister has done, to acknowledge the presence of the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who, as the minister reminded us, has twice been Minister of Labour -- sometimes with other portfolios attached. Perhaps indirectly, if not directly, we can get him involved in the discussion as well.

I think that we must of course deal with some obvious issues, as I'll outline in a minute. Maybe it's not coincidental that today is May Day, May 1; maybe it is appropriate that the Labour estimates start on this day. I just want to make a few responses to some of the remarks that the minister covered and, as you might anticipate, that we'll be questioning in these estimates.

Labour Relations Board. I would agree in a general sense; I think the LRB is functioning well. Maybe sometimes it has work put in its lap that we from this side would prefer it not have. I'll just cite a particular example that struck quite close to home -- no pun intended -- in my case . My school district was shut down for one day this spring -- or late winter, I guess. An arbitrator or mediator, or whatever, was appointed, but fortunately they didn't actually need the services of that person. The provincial employers association, the local school district and the non-teaching staff -- there was a CUPE local -- were able to work out a deal. So we only had a one-day shutdown.

I just cite that as an example because it comes to mind that not infrequently, in certainly the previous parliament, we have had to come together in emergency sessions dealing particularly with education labour disputes. I think we all have to be reminded that there are many support staff agreements in school districts that are looming out there that hopefully will avoid such an experience as my children and I had one day earlier this year in North Vancouver. Because we don't want to be tangled up in the labour relations issues of public education, I would say -- given that there's enough controversy on that subject anyway, without undue labour disruption. So hopefully we'll avoid that experience in the future.

The Workers Compensation Board, as the minister commented. . . . And, of course, there is a commission going around the province at this moment. Some of my colleagues -- the member for Richmond East in particular -- will be addressing that topic, and I know others certainly have an interest in that subject.

The minister made reference to ITAC, the new agency that will be formed to deal with apprenticeships. We're looking forward to some detailed discussion in that area because we want to know, for example, where the fit comes in between the Ministry of Education and the Labour ministry and the role, for example, of the Ministry of Employment and Investment and perhaps other ministries. It goes without saying that apprenticeship is a very important aspect of post-secondary education in whatever format, and, of course, it has labour implications as well.

On a more personal note just on that subject, my wife and I are hoping that our son, who's graduating from high school this spring, will be in a position to get into an apprenticeship program. We certainly recognize first hand the worth of that. I don't think I will be telling anything out of school -- so-called -- but my son is not an academically inclined student. I think we all have to recognize that there are many people like that out there, who are very eager to take post-secondary opportunities other than the traditional college/university. That's when the apprenticeship initiatives are extremely important. So we're looking forward to some discussion of ITAC, and I understand some legislation will be expected this spring to deal with that topic.

I'll just give an indication, before we get into a line of questioning, of some of the topics that we anticipate covering, and I won't necessarily guarantee that they will be covered in the order that I outline now. But I'll just give a snapshot of where things may hit next week, and then -- as the minister and I were discussing informally before we started today -- we can certainly meet in the hallway afterwards and try to map it out, so that you don't have to have officials coming back and forth.

Workers' compensation is, of course, one subject in particular. Naturally, I think it's fair that we try and assign some specific time for that, so that we have the right officials here and to allow all members from both sides of the House -- because there's a keen interest in the subject, needless to say -- the opportunity to deal with that one in more detail.

Some of the things that I as critic anticipate asking and commenting on are: minimum wage -- and I'm sure the former Labour minister is one who might even want to get to his feet and make some comments on that subject. . . . There is the construction industry review panel. I have it with me, and there are several issues that come out of that, which I think are certainly worthy of getting some information on.

The Island Highway agreement is causing some interesting discussion. In fact, just today on CKNW Radio. . . . I don't know whether the minister or his officials had the opportunity to listen, but I was certainly paying full attention when the president of B.C. Road Builders and Blair Redlin, the CEO of the Transportation Financing Authority, were dealing with some issues of both the Island Highway and the so-called exporting of the Island Highway agreement to other projects in the province. So that's one that we would like to cover.

Employment standards, obviously, is a subject. Fair wage. . . . I've mentioned apprenticeship. I would think that probably our Health critic would like to get involved at some time in dealing with health accord issues, so there's a variety of things that will be coming out of our discussion.

If I may, hon. Chair, let me start by making some references to the briefing documents that we received the other day. There's one thing I would like to ask of the minister. There's two or three references in the document to the management plan. If I recall correctly, I believe one of the officials said the other day that we don't have a business plan, but I do see some discussion in these documents of the management 

[ Page 3049 ]

plan. Perhaps I am wrong, and the minister can assist. For example, on page 2 of the briefing documents dealing with the FTE reconciliations, there is a note at the bottom about management plan reductions.

In fact, let's start with this question, because I think it's important that we know where this former board has gone. The Labour Force Development Board, of course, has been eliminated from the ministry. So can the minister assist us as to what has happened with the mandate and some of the documentation of that board? For example, they produced what I thought was a very good paper, "Training for What?" In a future document they promised: "Training for Whom?" I guess "Training for Whom?" has disappeared along with the board. Could the minister assist us on the future of that initiative that was undertaken by the ex-board?

Hon. J. Cashore: The management plan that the member refers to is the budget reduction plan, which was referred to Treasury Board.

With regard to the Labour Force Development Board, this information is a responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

J. Dalton: So then, of course, we'll have the opportunity when the Education estimates come up to revisit that.

The minister has answered what I assumed was the answer to the question: what is the management plan? Of course, it's the budget reduction plan. Well, some cynics might think that it's rather a euphemistic phrase to dress it up as a management plan when in fact it's dealing with most of the ministries -- in some cases, some fairly significant reductions in their budgets. Of course, it wouldn't make any reference at this time to any sideways shifts in budgeting, either. Perhaps we can deal with that in the Forests estimates, given that it was the Forests minister who coined that phrase, which is becoming somewhat. . . . I wouldn't say famous, but it's certainly one that many members make reference to.

So the management plan, while we see a reference to it on page 2, which we dealt with, is also referred to on page 8 in the same briefing documents. But I don't need to come back to that, because, of course, it's all part of this budget reduction exercise.

I might just ask, though, perhaps before we skip away from the ex-Labour Force Development Board. . . . The minister has answered that it is now in the Ministry of Education,even though, as I've indicated, we will be dealing with apprenticeship in more detail. I think I should ask now to get it on the record as to where the fit. . . .

Maybe I'll ask it this way, because I wanted to ask this next, anyway. How does the minister see his role vis-�-vis apprenticeship in particular, given that at one time it was housed with Education and then it got shifted? Then the former minister, who is with us today, was also the Minister of Education. I always thought that made sense. That was a fit, whereas apprenticeship and other things move in a natural flow from K to 12 to Skills and Training and post-secondary.

But now, of course, we have a minister who has a dual portfolio, which is Aboriginal Affairs. I'm not suggesting that the two ministries cannot be dealt with together. But if the minister could assist us as to things such as the former Labour Force Development Board, if he tells us that those have gone back to Education, how do the other issues of apprenticeship which are still in his jurisdiction fit within the general jurisdiction and mandate that he sees his ministry undertaking?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think you'll always have these different reflections on the relationship between the part that sits and fits naturally with the Ministry of Education and the part that fits naturally with Labour. The member is right, there is a natural linkage there. As a stand-alone ministry, I think the fact is that in relation to the issue of apprenticeship, the history and tradition of apprenticeship within labour relations is very well known. Therefore it's a very logical fit within the Ministry of Labour.

I think the member makes a good point that we should not lose the good linkage in terms of K-to-12 education. That's a responsibility that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour together share, to make sure that this creative relationship is maintained. I believe that will be the case. I believe that later on in estimates, as we get into the discussion about ITAC, it will become apparent that it is, I think, a very good relationship and a good fit.

[5:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that the assistant deputy minister reports to the minister, and this is a very logical and sensible avoidance of duplication. It saves dollars and at the same time ensures that the accountability in the function that our assistant deputy minister is responsible for, in the process of reporting to the minister, is effective.

J. Dalton: Certainly we on this side applaud the saving of dollars, as long as there are efficiencies that go with it so that we might not end up wasting some dollars. If this model works, whereby one ministry is providing these management services to another, then maybe we could model that and encourage others to do likewise.

I want to ask a few things that came out of last year's estimates. Again, I guess it's appropriate that we have the minister of the time here. One thing that we did ask about, last summer when we got around to the Labour estimates, was the issue of the minimum wage. The then minister, in response to one question that I raised, said there was in the ministry a minimum wage "commitment." Can the minister tell us what this commitment might be and what the future of the minimum wage is as far as rates, when we might anticipate an increase?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, there definitely is a minimum wage commitment. Our government believes very strongly in the importance of setting the minimum wage at appropriate levels. The general criterion is based on the CPI. Therefore we are monitoring that, and that is a factor in determining what our eventual decision will be in that regard.

[ Page 3050 ]

J. Dalton: Would I take it, then, from that response that there's no specific commitment at this time to increase the minimum wage? Of course, as the minister said, they have to look at the economic aspects.

I would also like to ask what consultation is taking place with small business in particular, which of course has some concerns about minimum wage and the impact on it. It's certainly a concern to students and people who want job entry opportunities. It's that sort of thing, as well, that I would. . . . If the minister would care to comment on those aspects. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: There is a specific commitment. The current specific commitment is to maintain the minimum wage as it now stands. The continuing commitment is to monitor the change in the CPI, with a view to making further adjustments when government deems that to be appropriate based on all of its considerations.

With regard to the consultation, yes, I can assure the member that the minister himself consults with small business. One of the first things that I did within weeks of being appointed minister was meet with the small business organization. A group of about 25 to 30 of their representatives were present at that meeting. As time permits, I try to maintain as open-door a policy as possible. Therefore I am hearing from them on these issues. Not only that, there have been several instances within the last few weeks when senior officials in this ministry have met with representatives of small business.

J. Dalton: I'm certainly glad to hear that the consultation process is alive and well in your ministry. I won't comment at this time about some concerns that municipalities and other segments of our provincial society have about consultation. Maybe this is not the place or the time for that. We've got it on record, and that's great, because I'm sure I don't need to tell the minister and his officials that the small and medium-sized business communities in particular have some thoughts on minimum wage and other related issues. I think it's very important that we always keep them in mind in that regard.

Another question that came up last year. . . . I did ask the ministry's officials and got a very definitive answer, so I don't want to catch the minister out. They said no, so he'll know what the answer is before I ask the question. The previous minister did comment that under his portfolio -- but, of course, he's no longer in the ministry -- he would be contemplating conducting a review of the Labour Relations Code, under section 3. The other day, officials said there is no such review underway. Is there any such review being contemplated?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's no section 3 committee in existence at this time. If and when a decision is made to appoint that committee, I'll be discussing that with business and labour, and discussing such issues as the terms of reference and the appropriate time.

J. Dalton: Of course, in the same spirit of consultation as we heard on the minimum wage issue, we naturally anticipate that the ministry will -- when and if. And I encourage the minister to think of not if but certainly when. I think it's certainly long overdue that a section 3 review be invoked so that we can all have a clear, objective review and a reflection upon the Labour Relations Code -- which, of course, has only been with us since the fall of 1992. I also asked the previous minister last year about the Employment Standards Act -- whether there was any similar contemplation for that. But I know that he -- I think, understandably -- at that time said no, that was not contemplated. Perhaps later, when we get to employment standards, we can revisit possibilities in that area as well. I certainly don't need to tell the minister and his officials that many businesses have all sorts of concerns and issues coming out of employment standards.

Now, that will take us to the next thing I want to bring up, and that's the construction industry review panel. I see by the time that we're not going to have too many minutes. Perhaps I can just set the scene, set the table for some issues coming out of the review panel that I believe we should touch upon. Because the report is headed "First Interim Report," the first question I would like to ask. . . . We have to go back to a yet previous Minister of Labour -- the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, the member from Prince Rupert, who was wearing that title at that time. Given that this is a first interim report, are there any further reports that may be a follow-up to this? And what was the price tag for this report?

Hon. J. Cashore: As far as the follow-up report, that's under consideration. With regard to the cost on that, we will get that and bring that back and report it in for the record.

I just want to say a word about the issue of consultation. I think that consultation processes happen informally and formally and in a variety of ways. Consultation doesn't mean total agreement. I think the hon. member is aware that there are a number of factors out there that have just and legitimate need to have input. I have a responsibility to take that input and to think it through and to give the best advice I can with regard to any changes.

With regard to some of the questions, they tend to border on future policy. At the same time I'm willing to engage in some of that, because I think there's an attempt here to have a very honest and open dialogue. I think it goes without saying that in my role as a minister I'm always, in a sense, contemplating changes that might happen at some future date in virtually all legislation that I'm responsible for. That's the other side of being willing to hear input from people. I wouldn't want it to ever be misconstrued that something is about to happen, because that's certainly not the case.

I would reiterate that I think the labour legislation my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin brought in is extremely significant in terms of the very good labour relations climate between management and labour that exists in this province -- and cold, hard data bears that out. I, for one, am very grateful to be able to inherit that legacy.

J. Dalton: I hope the minister wasn't misconstruing my comments about consultation. I wasn't trying to suggest that consultation meant that whoever came to consult had to get their way. Naturally, that's not the case. Consultation is like collective bargaining: you sit down at the table face to face. But the concern that some people have expressed to me and my colleagues is that consultation in some ministries and departments of government has been sort of after the fact or. . . . I think, for example -- and I may just conclude on this, and then I guess we should be contemplating adjournment. . . .

I think of the comments that the Attorney General made, sitting in that very chair where the Labour minister is now 

[ Page 3051 ]

sitting, during his estimates. He admitted, and it's on record, that on the courthouse closures -- the initial closures of Langley, West Vancouver and Richmond -- he did not consult with any of those affected municipalities -- period. He sort of apologized for it, and he said that in the future there would be consultation. And I know that in West Vancouver, which is part of my riding, they are still slightly ticked off about the fact that they just sort of got the phone call one day: "By the way, your courthouse is closing next year. We'll see you later."

That's not the kind of consultation or information process that anyone wants to see. We have to avoid that sort of thing, because all it does is inflame the issue, which is tough enough as it is without people having to then rush to telephones and fax machines to try and right the ship. So I just put that comment on the record.

I would suggest, given that it is dead-on quarter to six, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

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