(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 3, 1997
Morning
Volume 6, Number 11
[ Page 5109 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Wilson: I have the great pleasure today of introducing two Members of Parliament who are seated with us on the floor of the Legislative Assembly: Mr. Jim Abbott, who is the member for Kootenay-Columbia; and my own Member of Parliament, Mr. John Reynolds, the former Speaker of this chamber, who now represents West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast. Would the House please make our federal cousins most welcome.
I. Waddell: I'd like to add my welcome. I have a certain affinity with Members of Parliament. Good luck on those long trips.
I would like to introduce to the House some people I recognize in the gallery. In the gallery is Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit. With him is Mr. Colin Braker. I see Peter Baird from the federal government and also Bob Spence of the Nisga'a nation. As I look across, I see my old colleague, another former Member of Parliament -- they're everywhere today -- Lynn Hunter, so I welcome her to the House. I also see Clive Tanner. When he was in the House here, I believe he didn't like introductions, but I'm going to introduce him and ask the House to welcome him. He did a great job on native affairs.
T. Stevenson: Out in the front of the Legislature today is the Vancouver Aquarium's Aquavan. From 12 to one, all of the MLAs are invited to go through the Aquavan. It will be closed to the public then and will just be for MLAs.
There are a number of people who have come over today. I'll introduce a few of them this morning and then, to get maximum exposure, try again at 2 o'clock. The Aquavan team includes Leslie Leader, Chris Zaborowski and David Zink. I hope the House will make them welcome.
Motion approved.
I rise on this occasion to outline the facts that I believe establish that the Minister of Labour has breached my privileges as a member of the assembly, to inform the House of the authorities that may be of assistance to the Chair and to tender a motion for the Chair's consideration, should the Chair find that a prima facie case has been made out.
I preface my submissions by advising the House that I have, in advance of raising this this morning, delivered a copy of my materials to the Minister of Labour and to the Chair.
In preparing these materials, I have endeavoured to be as brief as possible and to avoid argument. Some commentary or explanation could not be avoided, but wherever that occurs it is there to place the facts and the authorities in context. In order to arrive at the issue that concerns me, I will now outline the series of events, but in the reverse order they occurred.
Hansard records that on Wednesday afternoon, June 25, the Minister of Labour introduced in this House Bill 44, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, and it was read a first time. Included in my materials is a copy of the minister's message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, dated June 25, 1997. Prior to its introduction I had not seen Bill 44. The minister had not offered me any opportunity to look at the legislation, nor had he invited me to be briefed as to its content. I cannot tell you if my experience is the same as those of other members, but I have no information that it was different.
During the hour or so immediately prior to the introduction of Bill 44, copies of the bill were distributed to members of the legislative press gallery by means of a lockup arrangement by the minister. Such disclosure to the media is discussed in rulings reported in MacMinn, third edition, pages 278 to 283. As I understand it, the use of lockups as a parliamentary practice operates to ensure that government documents, budgets and legislation are not released to the public prior to their introduction, while giving the reporters the head start they sometimes need in order to report quickly and accurately on what then takes place in the House.
MacMinn makes clear that such disclosures do not constitute a breach of privilege, and I have no quarrel with that practice. I raise it as a matter of fact in this context because it may be relevant in assessing the minister's conduct. I invite the Chair to consider whether the lockup conducted by the minister is evidence that he understood the principle that members of this House should receive copies of bills before they are disclosed to the public.
I come now to the event of Tuesday, June 24, the day before Bill 44 was introduced. On that day, Bill 44 briefings were conducted by the minister's officials at locations in Vancouver. These briefings were given to members of the public who were invited to attend by the ministry or who were given an opportunity to attend after requesting that they be included. The fact that such briefings took place has been confirmed to me by the minister himself. Participants in those briefings have informed me that at least two construction industry associations and one private-practice labour lawyer were briefed that day. I am, however, unable to provide the Chair with a complete list of the people who attended or their number.
Participants in those briefings have informed me that the minister's officials disclosed to them copies of a document entitled "Bill 44 -- 1997: Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997," bearing the notation: "Draft 10, June 19, 1997." I was further informed that they were led through the document line by line and were free to make notes of what they saw but were not given copies to take away. The document disclosed during those briefings was obtained by my staff from the minister's office, and a copy is included in my materials.
I invite the Chair to observe the fact that the document also bears the notation "strictly confidential," and apart from the absence of a cover page and explanatory notes, it otherwise has the appearance and format of Bill 44 as it was introduced in this House. It is, of course, for the Chair to decide whether that disclosure to members of the public on June 24 was the same or essentially the same as that introduced in the House the following day.
The only difference I can identify for the Chair is what appears to be section 1 of the draft bill, a provision that would
[ Page 5110 ]
have amended the Labour Relations Code by adding a definition of the word "construction." That provision does not appear in Bill 44 as it was introduced. The minister's office has advised my staff that the definition contained in the draft was not included in the bill because it was unnecessary to do so, the Labour Relations Board having by precedent established its own definition. The absence of such a definition in the bill did not, we were advised, alter the principles or thrust of the legislation in any way.
I return now to the issue of whether what the minister has done or caused to be done constitutes a breach of my privilege as a member of this House. I invite the Chair to review the disclosures ruling reported in MacMinn, third edition, commencing at page 278, up to and including page 291. These rulings repeatedly caution members that courtesies to assemblies must be maintained. I draw the Chair's attention to the fact that all of these rulings and the observations contained therein came before the introduction of standing order 78(A) in 1985.
I ask the Chair to consider the fact that standing order 78(a) enabled the Minister of Labour to refer Bill 44 to a select standing committee immediately after he had introduced the bill in this House and before it was approved in principle in second reading. Used in this way, standing order 78(A) protects my opportunity to see a bill before it is publicly disclosed and discussed, without impairing a minister's opportunity to consult the public when it is thought desirable or prudent to do so.
The issue I leave with the Chair is this: having regard for the procedure available in standing order 78(A), does it prima facie appear that the Minister of Labour has exhibited contempt for the courtesy to which I was entitled by choosing to disclose Bill 44 to the public before introducing that bill in this House, thus breaching my and every other member's privilege as a member of this assembly?
I now tender my materials and my motion for your consideration and would be grateful for your ruling.
[10:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the member for providing advance copies of his remarks, which I just received.The minister will make it clear that any matters that were discussed with anybody were draft matters and that he will review the process and the tradition of the lockup. But I would ask, hon. Speaker, that the government be able to reserve the right to respond and present the facts from their point of view at a future date.
The Speaker: In keeping with our practice, recently articulated by me, we will indeed give the minister an opportunity to respond. Then, further in keeping with our practice, I will, of course, defer judgment until I've had an opportunity to review all the materials. I do thank the member, however, for presenting his material in compliance with our standing orders.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)
T. Nebbeling: It's a pleasure being back in the House again. Last night, when we finished, we had dealt with the role of the IWA in negotiating with non-union companies, how FRBC money will be going towards these companies, if they desire to apply for funding. Last night we also touched on the jobs advocate role. Although it was very brief, we looked at what that role will be. I understand from the minister's statement that there is not really a comprehensive blueprint available of what the job actually entails and what the elements are. However, there must be a general description of what indeed that role is going to be and how that individual -- whoever becomes the jobs advocate -- will exercise his powers in achieving the objectives that the mandate will give him.
I want to go back to this jobs advocate for a little while, particularly to see, at the end of the day, how his or her role will fit within the other parties' rights as well, and that is the negotiation of participation in objectives of companies that ultimately will have to create more jobs.
On the jobs advocate, can the minister explain: is the direction that the minister believes the jobs advocate role will go one of creating a set of rules that would just apply to all factions or sectors in the forest industry where we hope to see jobs being created? Or is the jobs advocate role more one of individual negotiations with the various companies that are looking for something that qualifies under the jobs and timber accord, be it funding, be it more fibre -- whatever tool is going to be used?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information available at this point is what is contained in the accord. I read that out. This person's job is not actually to create the jobs themselves, not to be involved in individual negotiations about funding. It really is a monitor, and it really is to look at accounting mechanisms which monitor the job creation and to generally be a reporter of the situation.
But the jobs advocate can undertake reviews and propose remedial measures if they see fit. In that respect, they do have a role that puts them as part of the team that we have available. The job protection commissioner is one. They work under the Minister of Employment and Investment. But we expect the jobs advocate to really be the person that's monitoring and reporting. It's more that role than it is a role of
T. Nebbeling: That's interesting, because last night we spent a considerable amount of time -- far too much -- trying to find out how the whole jobs and timber accord and all its activities will be monitored. I spent a considerable amount of time focusing on that element. I believe that too many initiatives by the government in the past have not led to getting the result that we would have hoped for, considering the expense or the time it often took to create an initiative.
One of the things I've always been discontented about is the fact that what in the beginning of a new initiative was presented as, "This is what's going to happen," be it in the forest industry or be it anywhere else, be it at the municipal level, be it in social services
[ Page 5111 ]
sented with a good picture of what the objective is, and then when you look back after a while, you see how the objective has not been reached, how the government has failed to come up with a situation that reflects
Last night I was constantly coming back to this element of who will do the monitoring. From time to time the minister took some shots at me, as well, about that particular request of mine to get an answer. Now I find out that the jobs advocate is actually more a monitoring role that will report to government. That surprises me. One of the things the minister said, as well, last night is that in order for a company to take certain steps to reduce staff, for example, four months' notice has to be given to the jobs advocate. Then he or she will look at the request to see if it's justified and if there are other ways to get out of the dilemma a company might find itself in. A company might find that due to the state of a mill -- it's in an old state, it can no longer have a level of productivity that justifies the expense of running it
Last night we clearly got the feeling that the jobs advocate was actually going to be the body that a party would approach and put a proposal in front of. The jobs advocate would then analyze the whole situation and no doubt work with other team members to come up with a conclusion. As the jobs advocate, he or she would grant the request by a company or would deny the application and start negotiating on how they can come to a different route. If this is indeed part of the job of the jobs advocate, then I would say to the minister that there is an element of negotiation or brokering in the job of this jobs advocate. That is a contradiction to what the minister said: that the role is one of monitoring.
Can the minister explain if the jobs advocate will indeed jump into the situation, as the document dictates, when a company wants to make a change and is providing jobs to a community?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The role of the jobs advocate is to advocate for the accord. It's responsible to both parties: government and industry. Those two parties have undertaken not to give over their respective powers to anybody else, but they will be monitored on how they're doing. The advocate is there to advocate for the terms in the accord.
I explained that where there are permanent layoffs and the workers and the company can't come to agreements -- which they often do -- then there may be a role for the jobs advocate to look at alternatives to the proposed measure. That's in the accord. There may be a role as a last measure. It's a resource. People can go to the advocate and ask for ideas ahead of time. Nothing is stopping them from doing that.
I want to bring it back to the fact that it's primarily a monitoring role as opposed to a facilitation role between the parties. There are facilitators anticipated with respect to the part of the accord that moves fibre from the majors to the remanufacturers. That will be done that way.
There are other measures for transition planning. We spoke about the resources jobs commissioners, the forest worker agency. There are a number of other players that have a role to play out here. I think we go back to what is said about the advocate, and that's what I will generally answer. I'm prepared to discuss the meaning of what's in here, but I point you back to the layoff procedures. We do expect a role where there are permanent layoffs.
T. Nebbeling: I know there is a brief statement about the role of the jobs advocate in the accord that I have been given, but obviously what I'm trying to come to is to see if this can work. The impression -- not just mine but of others, as well -- is that the jobs advocate actually has much more than a monitoring role. That's why I was surprised that the minister stated that that is the prime function of that individual's job within the jobs accord.
[10:30]
If that were the case, why would a company have to come to this so-called monitor? If the primary role of the jobs advocate is monitoring whether the jobs accord is actually being acted upon in such a manner that it follows the rules, the guidelines -- and, hopefully, achieves the objectives -- set out in the jobs accord, that's a monitoring role. It means that the actions of other people will have to be monitored, will have to be judged. That's what a monitor does. Reports will have to be written on the activities of other individuals, other groups. To see the minister now saying that that is the primary functionIt's those two different elements of the job that I believe are very much in conflict. That's why I want to talk about this. A little statement of what the job accord represents in the brochure that is sent to everybody may give an indication that a person is going to be hired for that purpose, but I really want to go behind that short statement and find out how that jobs advocate role will, in the long term, be a contributor to the objectives of the jobs and timber accord and moreso how that role will be handled.
Right now, I see a conflict. On the one hand, it's monitoring, and then when things are going wrong, it's also being the guy who has to come in and save the bacon, if I can use that term. Before the minister jumps up for me using "save the bacon
Can the minister once more specify for me how he sees the monitor of the whole process also being the first party that somebody goes to when they need to make some changes in the corporate structure, including potential layoffs? How is that person the same person who is responsible for judging, at the end of the day, if everybody has worked according to the plan? It's confusing to me.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me back up and say that the responsibility for creating the jobs lies with the industry, and government has to do its part. So that's where the responsibilities are. Those two parties are accountable to the public. There is a reporting-out procedure, and that's what the advocate will do: they'll report them out. In order for the advocate to know what's happening where there are permanent reductions -- more than 25 workers -- somebody will have to report to them. They can't be expected to discover it or hear about it in the newspaper and run in. Being accountable to the public means telling the public through the jobs advocate what you intend to do in terms of layoffs.
[ Page 5112 ]
In that case, there may be suggestions. The advocate may know that another company is creating more jobs somewhere else, and there may be an opportunity to get those parties together to ease the transition, for example, for the workers. That's a possibility. The advocate may know that the same company is starting a plant somewhere at the same time they want to shut one down somewhere else. They may be able to make suggestions or come up with something that hasn't been thought of. But the main role is one of monitoring.
There is no decision-making power here that we know of. There is no new authority. The authority of government is still the authority under the Forest Act. The companies are bound to the terms and conditions of their licences.
Yes, there is a brokering role in the general sense of that. There is no judging role that I can read into this anywhere. They may give opinions about things to either of the parties, but it's not a judge role, as you suggested. It's primarily a role of accounting and having the information to be able to make an accounting for what has gone on in job creation, job protection and restructuring in the industry, for example, to give us a fair means of accounting for what's going on.
T. Nebbeling: First of all, to make sure that we don't have a misunderstanding here, I do not know what the role of the advocate is. I thought I had an idea, but I don't know. So I'm not suggesting anything. All I'm doing is asking what components make up the job description of what I believe is going to be a very important role. That role will be played by a person who is very important as far as making sure that the objective that the jobs and timber accord has set out to achieve is going to be met, which is creating 21,000 jobs.
The reason that I put a lot of weight on this particular role is the fact that there's about $1.5 billion going directly towards achieving many of these objectives. Forest Renewal B.C. money: $300 million a year for five years in a row, and what goes on beyond the five years we don't know. That's a commitment made by government: $1.5 billion, just in that area alone. So I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that somebody is there to monitor all the time. That's why I was so persistent yesterday to constantly come back to this: who is going to do the monitoring, how are we going to go, and how is it going to be reported by a party to see -- when they spend $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money on achieving the goal of creating 21,000 jobs -- that that money is indeed used as effectively and as efficiently as possible?
That's why I keep asking questions. I'm not suggesting at this point what the role is, because I really don't know. We heard that monitoring was the main component of the job. Then monitoring the affairs between industry and government is part of the job.
I see the Minister of Human Resources making circles in the air, then making little planes and throwing them in the air, as he usually does.
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: That's good. You should listen and learn. If you had learned from listening, you would have done a lot better in your career than you have done up to now.
Anyhow, we're speaking to vote 37. I'm still talking about the jobs advocate. If the jobs accord elements and the various initiatives by government to create jobs in partnership with industry participants
Why does this four months' notice have to be given to the jobs advocate and not to the government? Why should the government, as the party being partnered with industry, not be the party to receive that information first of all, and the jobs advocate get a referral so that he knows what is going on -- which, as the minister said, is important in order to monitor? That's fine with me, but I do not understand why, when things go wrong in a particular company, the emphasis is more on how the jobs advocate is going to deal with that issue than on the party that made the deal in the first place, which is the government.
Can the minister explain, if the jobs advocate is not there to create jobs together with companies, why that is the party that gets the request first that the company may have to lay off staff?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This accord is an agreement between the government and companies. It was negotiated, and discussions took place around appropriate times for layoff notices. For the most part, if there's a permanent layoff, licences have a 90-day notice. That isn't a very long period of time to find alternative employment and so on. It was agreed between the parties which negotiated this that a four-month notice would be better.
We get these statutory notices under the terms of the licences as required by the Forest Act. So government does get that, but that doesn't automatically put it in the hands of the timber jobs advocate. Of course, we would pass that on to him. This just makes it clear that the parties understand that a longer notice is helpful in trying to ease the transition for everybody and to canvass all the alternatives. In some cases, we know a year ahead of time about closures, and that's even better; but the parties agreed that four months is an appropriate time period.
T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that in the past there has been three months' notice given in advance to the government. Sure, it's important that there is enough time so that the workers can be taken care of as best as possible under these sad circumstances when jobs are going to be lost. In the past, it did come to government; I suppose it did come to the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Forests dealt with it in a manner that was satisfactory to all parties; I've no problem with that. I don't care if it is six months.
But what I do not understand, and it is the crux of my question, is why the jobs advocate is the party that gets notified when it is not his or her job to deal with matters like that. As the minister said, the main function is to monitor what happens in these companies, what happens with the conditions that have been imposed on the companies in order to either get funding or more fibre, which would then be the justification for more jobs. The jobs advocate is to monitor that. Sure, he should be getting a notice, but then he or she shouldn't make the decision. He or she should not be the one who seems, if I get the minister right, to go into the issue and who starts looking at the government and says, "Listen, I think you could do this or you could do that to save some of
[ Page 5113 ]
these jobs" -- or maybe, as the minister said, "Here's an example of how a company over there did much better than you did under the same circumstances," and he shares that.
At the end of the day, is the jobs advocate going to write the report to the government and say, "There is very little we can do," or "I recommend the following"? Then once that has happened, when the government jumps in and says, "Okay, now the following will happen in order to allow the company to do what they want to do," or "We suggest different ways of solving your problem," is that the role of the advocate? He becomes an adviser to the government on issues that have to do with job layoffs.
[10:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The jobs advocate will be one of the advisers to government; there are many. There's the ministry; there's the Job Protection Commission; there's any number of them. But let me make it clear that we expect the advocate to understand the trends that are working for, in favour of or against the terms and conditions of the accord. His job is to advocate the whole accord.If he knows, for example, that the FRBC business plan would suggest that there are any number of person-years of employment being created and in what areas of responsibility, he would be in a position to indicate that. Or if somebody has successfully negotiated a new work arrangement, we would expect he would know that and might inform the companies. We do expect this person to know what is going on, and we expect people to report out so that he or she in turn can report out to the public. By this public reporting, we expect to achieve accountability. So if this monitor weren't there, if this advocate weren't there, there wouldn't be somebody responsible solely for ensuring that this goes on.
The Ministry of Forests has its responsibilities to get the wood out and to monitor the terms and conditions of licences and so on, and this person will have an overview of trends in the industry and will get notice. So it's essentially a monitoring role, but there is a minor role there for facilitating if there are any functions that can be offered by way of mediation or suggestions or whatever.
All the accord calls for is that the company that wants to make permanent layoffs of more than 25 workers give notice and agree to meet with the jobs advocate to explore considerations of alternatives.
T. Nebbeling: I clearly see a conflict. We can go for hours, but we're not going to go any further, because I think the minister is pretty well entrenched in his position that this is a good mechanism to see information flow into the system.
It's a little bit like me trying to add something to my home. I go to the building department in the city, and I talk to the building inspector, who is the monitor of my work. I say to the building inspector: "Okay, I want you to come and have a look at my extension." The guy or the girl comes, and they say: "This doesn't jibe. Let me make a drawing for you." And the building inspector starts to re-create everything that has been done, saying: "Here. This is how you should do it. This is how you can do it. I believe this way will work." So I take that information, and I go back three weeks later. I have made the adjustments, and then I go to the same building inspector. Now he becomes the monitor of his own work, in a sense. I see this happening, as well.
Here is an individual who is going to do a job that is monitoring what is happening in the industry, what's happening with the arrangements made between the government and industry. He will be monitoring whether they achieve the objectives. That's the job -- with all the information that that individual has, to see if indeed we have achieved the objectives of the accord and the agreement between the government and the company that has been made.
Then one day the company comes out and says: "Sorry, I can't work with these conditions. It doesn't work. I have made some changes or I have to make some changes." Then the person who has been watching the whole thing, who has been sharing that information to make sure that the objective is being achieved, comes in and starts brokering, negotiating, telling, ordering. I don't know what their authority is, because we haven't come to that, but that person starts telling the company: "You have to do this, you have to do that, and the following, following, following." And he gives him ten points of changes. Then the company comes back and says, "I've dealt with the ten points," and then everything should be okay.
These are really the actions of the so-called monitor, who now has become an adviser and then returns to his monitoring job to see if everything that he has advised the company to do is good or if it has led to the achievement of the objectives. I second-guess, but I would think that it will be difficult for the advocate in the monitoring process to find fault, because it was his own creation that he is now monitoring, rather than what the government has agreed to with the companies. I think there is a real conflict. That position is compromised because of the many facets that the minister says are included in the job description.
The minister also made the point that if indeed the jobs advocate gets involved in a situation where layoffs have to be considered because the company does not think that it can continue any longer with the same framework that originally was agreed upon with the government in order to be a participant in the jobs accord, the knowledge of the jobs advocate is going to be critical in saying: "Here are programs that may be able to help you; here is funding that could be available." Is the jobs advocate then going to play a role in order to save these jobs that are threatened? Is the jobs advocate going to play a role, then, to tap into the funding mechanisms that are there, be it FRBC or other programs? Is the jobs advocate going to be involved at looking at how, through his or her action as a jobs advocate, more fibre can come to a mill so that they can sustain the job levels that they have? Is the jobs commissioner going to be involved in any way, shape or form in trying to accommodate the real need to save these jobs, if they can be saved?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The document is complex in the sense that we anticipate creating jobs by flowing fibre from the majors to the remanufacturers, for example. So if that wasn't happening and it was jeopardizing jobs in the reman sector, I would expect that the advocate would comment on that. On the other hand, if it was a structural problem or a financial problem within a particular firm and was such that it required restructuring of the business, then I would expect the job protection commissioner to make that comment.
Your question was: did the jobs commissioner have this responsibility? I think you meant the jobs advocate.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. So there are respective roles, and if the job protection commissioner is involved, the advocate
[ Page 5114 ]
wouldn't get involved. But they would monitor and report out on progress under the accord. So it has the responsibility to make sure that the information on fibre flows and so on is being prepared. Otherwise we can't know what percentage of fibre, for example, is flowing there.
But I don't think we can expect this one person to solve every small problem that's out there. He can't be involved in every transaction. And that's when I talked about the fact that there were structural changes going on and that everybody has a responsibility. With respect to the accord, all the parties -- government, and industry in particular -- have responsibility to make it work. This person monitors and reports out, and could have a facilitation role if it isn't working. But he's not going to facilitate everything. It's humanly impossible for that to happen.
So the parties themselves
To answer one of your earlier questions, he won't have a responsibility for necessarily accessing funds. This person doesn't have a chequebook of FRBC funds, but may suggest that the program -- the investment plan -- of Forest Renewal might be tapped into to assist in the situation. They might suggest that. My guess is that that suggestion would come from other sources as well. Companies themselves would know what they're doing.
But there's no question that people are going to have to use whatever resources are available to get information. The advocate itself, I would repeat, would mostly have a minor facilitation role when it comes to individual agreements between companies and employees or companies and government.
T. Nebbeling: I agree with the minister up front that the document is very complex. That's why I have more questions than maybe the minister expected. With the little that we have access to right now, I have to second-guess a lot of situations that could happen, based on what I read in the jobs and timber accord as it has been presented to us.
For that reason, the minister is definitely subject to more serious prodding than he had expected. I think I have to do that; that is my job as the critic for Forests. The one thing that I want to make sure of at the end of the day, if we approve the budget for the Ministry of Forests, is that I feel content that that money -- the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent through this ministry -- will indeed be spent in a very effective manner and will reap the benefits that are supposed to come from the many expenditures that are going to be made by this ministry in order to get the jobs and timber accord going.
Had we been able to get a much more detailed document of what is really happening and what everybody's role is in this jigsaw puzzle of new jobs and new directions and new partnerships, I would most likely not have to ask these questions. But with that so-called complex document failing to be in my hands so I could read it, I will find out what happens through the estimates process. It is going to take us some extra time, but I suppose that's okay. The one thing I have is time, and I will take all the time I need to, to come to a level where I am satisfied that I know pretty well what's happening.
Sure I'm concerned, like when the minister just stated that this is a one-person job. How much, indeed, can that one person do? Last night, if the minister recalls, I spoke on that specific problem I see. Here is a job that looks, on the surface, to play a much bigger role than the minister is indicating: "It is a monitoring role." In just talking about this situation for the last 15 or 20 minutes, I think we have already identified that beyond the monitoring role
We now also know that, indeed, besides it being a monitoring role, the jobs advocate can also -- and I don't know if it is on the basis of whether he or she wishes or if it is part of the job description -- facilitate situations where a company is going the wrong way and needs some assistance -- you know, when it comes to the government and says: "Listen, we agreed on the creation of so many jobs. We have worked with it for a while and, unfortunately, we cannot sustain it, so we have to lay off 30, 40 or 50 people." Now I hear that the jobs advocate can indeed facilitate as well, to see if there are other opportunities, if there are other ways of dealing with that need to lay off 40 or 50 people in a particular situation.
[11:00]
Then we look at the tools of the advocate. I agree with the minister that I don't expect the advocate to have a chequebook; I agree with him. What I do not agree with is that it is going to take the jobs advocate a considerable amount of time and initiative to then broker with, for example, FRBC investment funds. If that would be the tool for the jobs advocate to save these jobs, it's going to take that advocate a considerable amount of time to broker funding for that plant if it is done the proper way. Now I understand why you need four months, because it is going to take at least four months for somebody to get involved in saving jobs, when other parties have to be brought in -- like FRBC or other investment funds that may be available.What I see happening because of this is that the jobs advocate will indeed be more involved with trying to save jobs by being a broker, by being a negotiator, by being a facilitator between different parties. As the minister said, it's a one-person job. How much time will be left over for the jobs advocate to do what the real role is, according to the minister -- the monitoring role? He becomes, in my opinion -- and that's what I'm trying to get to -- the monitor, and that's his job. He does checkups and gets information from all sources -- from government, from companies -- about how successful they are in achieving their objectives, how things are going well, how things are going wrong, so that he or she as the jobs advocate has a comprehensive picture of what has happened in the province in the forest industry since the jobs and timber accord was initiated. That would be a great job, because I think that is very much needed: somebody who is totally focused on making sure that indeed what we said we were going to do is going to happen.
After all, this government has a track record of making promises and then breaking promises. That has happened since I've been in the House. Many initiatives have been taken based on: not one job will be broken, not one job will be lost, not one penny will be taken from a fund exclusively for rebuilding the forests. We have seen what happened. So we
[ Page 5115 ]
just cannot believe everything the government says or everything the Premier says. There has to be a person that does the monitoring, that does the checking so that indeed we achieve the goals based on the expenditures. That person cannot at the same time also be what we are now getting into -- where he could facilitate, where he could be the conduit between other parties that may come in to assist.
I am asking the minister if he can give me, first of all, a direction that he sees this going in, by saying that it may not be a one-person operation; it may be a six-person operation. There will be staff there that does the work. The jobs advocate signs off at the end of the day when it comes to the monitoring process. Or would the minister consider that these are really the components as I just described: monitoring, on the one hand; facilitating, negotiating, brokering, on the other hand? Maybe there should be a different person so that we achieve both objectives. If there are two different persons focused on what they are supposed to do, I think that would be the first job in the jobs and timber accord that I could approve of. Is the minister considering anything of that nature? If not, does he not understand that there is a conflict?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I won't say it's a conflict. I really don't understand the point, but I'm sure you will make it again. I think it's fine for you to have an opinion that if this job does have some facilitation, it's a conflict. I think you can hold that opinion and I'll respect that opinion. I don't agree, because by that definition, people who are proposing, adjudicating and policing licences are in conflict. When you start saying government is in conflict, it often is; it has conflicting objectives. It's really difficult. Governing is all about balancing interests and the different objectives that people have.
I am prepared to say that, by definition, what was agreed to was that there is a minor facilitation role here; it's not major. I would argue that that is not in any way in conflict with the person's role as a monitor.
What we expect will happen is that the timber jobs advocate will be a small office. The first thing the advocate would have to do
T. Nebbeling: Now that we have established that there will be a facilitating role in the job description of the jobs advocate, the minister is actually saying that it will be a minor role, not a major role. How is that determined? I mean, if there is an uproar in the industry and there are a lot of opportunities missed, companies have to come to the government to get a re-evaluation. Is the jobs advocate going to pick and choose where he or she is going to get involved, thereby controlling what is a minor role? What happens in times when there is a lot of demand on that facilitation component of the job because of general turmoil in the forest industry? When everything is good and wholesome, no doubt there is going to be less demand on that particular part of the job description. But if the trend continues -- and at this point, considering that we still are not dealing with the real problem that has strangled the forest industry, and that is its lack of being competitive in global markets
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The other side has been talking about doom and gloom, but I don't think the record would show it. Let me just talk about the reality. We may have come through a difficult time period. We've done a number of fixes. There's increasing profitability in the industry; there's been a bit of a rebound on pulp. We've got the CEOs of a lot of major companies speaking highly of the accord -- some of them cautiously optimistic, but certainly any number of them saying that it can work and will work -- and a lot of people saying that we made adjustments to the code, etc. The climate has vastly improved.
We could say that we've maybe come through a difficult time. Well, having come through that difficult time, the job protection commissioner has a number of cases that he's dealing with. The ministry deals with cases, helping non-licensed operations, and the ministry is continuing to do that. But we don't have an overwhelming number of cases. The number of firms that want to make permanent layoffs is a few right now. There are a few outstanding cases, so it's not like there's going to be a tremendous demand. I would just encourage you to now show some optimism for the industry, given that there's been correction. You can't say, on the one hand, "There's overregulation," and then say: "Yeah, but we support the Forest Practices Code." The code is about regulation.
Do you realize what disservice you do to the industry and the people to only take the sort of whining attitude that says: "Overregulation, overtaxed"? Well, we're working on the issues around stumpage, but the stumpage is there to protect against charges -- and remember the context -- by the Americans that we're subsidizing our industry because we didn't have a market-based stumpage system.
So we are very conscious of making sure that we take this opportunity with the accord to say that this points to the future. It is a strategy to create more employment. It's also a strategy that recognizes profitability and the economics of the industry. So we can say: "It can work." It's fair enough to have some questions, but there is no uproar, and I don't predict an uproar unless there's a major crash in world markets or something like that. In that case, everybody will be busy.
Let's just be clear that right now, the way it is
What we're saying here is that the accord now says that we want to create more jobs and we want to monitor how those jobs are created, where they're created and who's creating them. They will have a minor facilitation role, because it's got to dovetail; there's got to be some connection with the other responsibilities. I would say that, for example, the job protection commissioner doesn't have a big role to play in monitoring the numbers. This jobs advocate does that. The job protection commissioner is out there helping to restructure, helping to problem-solve. But the ministry also helps that. There's a big team from the Ministry of Forests, sometimes from Employment and Investment, that works behind any firm that's in trouble.
[ Page 5116 ]
But I just caution you about overstating the problem. I think we're seeing a return to profitability, and that's positive. But it won't be perfect, because we expect some of the firms on the margin
Given that, I think there is this role for monitoring and a minor facilitation role. I really can't say anything more until the advocate does a business plan.
The Chair: Before the hon. member continues, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an old friend of this House who's in the gallery today: the former member for Cariboo North, Frank Garden. Welcome, Frank, to our deliberations.
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: I'll pretend I didn't hear the comment of the member from Mission.
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: It doesn't matter.
The minister made a couple of points that I think are very important. I would like to say that I would like to have a sense of optimism when it comes to the forest industry today and its future. There is certainly optimism in my heart. My mind, unfortunately, is saying that the way things have been put together -- the regulations, the non-competitive edge that we used to have, all these kinds of things -- does not give me, at this point, satisfaction that indeed there is a sense of optimism right now.
If I look at the reports, the industry still expects to make a considerable loss this year. And this is at a time when pulp prices are coming up a little -- not much, but a little. It is at a time when lumber prices are excellent. I mean, companies are shipping to the States over the quota. Because the prices are so good, they can afford to pay the surcharges. So I know that there is a good price to be had for the product.
[11:15]
But in spite of that, we still see losses in the industry overall. I think that until such time as we look at what really, truly is the blight of the industryWhen the minister says "with regulations," of course there are regulations. That's why we have the Forest Practices Code. I do agree that when the Forest Practices Code was initiated, it had tremendous potential to come up with a set of regulations -- what were going to be the only regulations that would clearly define how we work with the forest and how we would work with our sustainable objectives in the forest. That hasn't worked for the last two years, and rather than it having been a very positive contributor to the well-being of the forest industry, it has killed jobs -- thousands of jobs.
If the minister has a different opinion on that, that's fine. But I go with the information we have. We go with the person-years that we have, and we see a net loss. So again, until we change these regulations in the Forest Practices Code, I consider that the regulatory system in the forest industry is extremely burdensome and has again caused this industry to really lose tremendous opportunities to tap into the global market.
You have to add up all these different components to come to the conclusion that at this point it's not a form of pessimism; it is just dealing with reality. At this point we have to stop the ostrich policy of sticking our heads in the sand or the snow -- wherever you are. I come from Whistler, so I have more snow, so I have my ostrich sticking its head in the snow, if it comes to that.
Things are not that great. It should really be a sign for the minister. He talks about the jobs and timber accord and says that the CEOs are happy with it, that the CEOs like it, that they're optimistic -- cautiously optimistic but optimistic that it can work. If that's the case, why didn't they sign it? Why did they not sign the accord?
This was supposed to be an agreement between industry and government. An agreement only means something when there's a signature at the end of negotiations, put on a piece of paper. As the minister said, all these CEOs worked for a year, were having meetings, negotiating, debating and evaluating, and at the end of the day the only one who signed it -- if he has -- was the Premier. Why didn't these 17 CEOs pay their respects to the Premier and put their signature on this document that gave them a sense of cautious optimism?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've gone over that. The member has made that same statement at least once, twice, perhaps three times. If he has a question, I'd be happy to answer his question.
T. Nebbeling: I agree with the minister that I've asked this question once before. It was at the time that the minister was standing, proudly announcing that the jobs and timber accord had the support of all these CEOs. At that time I said that that support didn't mean much if they weren't willing to sign the accord. So this morning the minister once again uses as his argument that this accord is truly giving a sense of optimism -- by again using these same CEOs.
The Chair: Hon. member, have you got a question, then?
T. Nebbeling: Yes. The question is going to be
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the announcement of the accord, there were half a dozen CEOs who spoke to it. At a number of other locations, there have been a number of CEOs, and any number of them quoted in the paper saying that they support it. We take them at their word.
We get letters like this: "Let me start out by saying that the Slocan group is a strong supporter of the jobs and timber
[ Page 5117 ]
accord, both in terms of specifics and, equally important, in the general philosophy." That's pretty strong. We take these people as honourable, and I'm not going to dispute their word.
The accord, as I explained, was signed by the negotiators. We asked the negotiators to have a mandate from their groups. The negotiators did. The government negotiators had a mandate from government, and the industry negotiators had a mandate. They signed the deal. These are the words on the paper. They initialled the wording, and they undertook in good faith to implement it. This is not a contract; it's not a piece of legislation. It's an accord; it's an agreement. They agreed to undertake certain things. The principles that were signed off by the negotiators
"I could go on. There's a preamble that talks about it. It is just that: an accord. It was initialled, it was negotiated, and the parties to the negotiation had the support. That's sufficient for us.. . . that government and industry recognize each other's objectives, responsibilities, strengths and capabilities; that the partners to this accord are committed to the principles of environmental sustainability and no aspect of this accord will undermine compliance with environmental standards; that any plans, strategies or initiatives agreed to under this accord must be workable, practical and feasible for industry and government."
T. Nebbeling: I asked a question on the jobs advocate, and I will come back to that. To relate to what the minister said, a lot of money must have been spent on bringing all of these groups together -- the negotiators and the government sides. For that reason it merits a question here under estimates. I was under the impression that the group who worked, who negotiated, had a number of CEOs of these major companies on the team. I thought the CEOs were involved in the negotiations. If I'm wrong, I'd like the minister to explain that to me. That's what was reported -- in the press, at least.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am repeating what I said -- that industry had a negotiator backed up by a team. There was an executive committee or a group of 17 or 18 CEOs; six of them were more intimately involved than others. They were backed up at some negotiations by 50 company representatives. There were two head negotiators -- one for industry and one for government. They had mandates to negotiate.
T. Nebbeling: Now we have cleared that the CEOs were involved in negotiations. They were at the table, and at the end of the day one person became the one who would summarize what the side of the CEOs represented. That is something else. The CEOs were involved. It is these CEOs -- and I've spoken to some that the minister has mentioned
That is where you have lost a number of the CEOs, and that's where you have the reason that the CEOs are not signing off the document. If they would sign it, they would almost have legally committed to achieve the objectives that the government is setting out through the principles, in spite of whether it is possible or not. If these CEOs had gone back to the shareholders of their companies and said, "Hey, listen, we just committed to do the following," these shareholders would have been raving mad.
Why? Because today there is no justification. This is an industry that is having a loss in its operation. This is an industry that has no return on its investment. Consequently, there is no more investment; it has almost dried up. The basic gets reinvested, but that's it. These CEOs would have had one hell of a battle trying to explain to their shareholders why they signed a contract or an accord that clearly has good principles but because of the circumstances outside the accord is very unlikely to achieve the goals the accord has set out to do.
When I say that, I am talking about, as I said before, other principles, principles of when lumber and value-added products are produced in Canada, those products can have a competitive role or a competitive price so they can work against other countries supplying the same product. As long as we cannot give a competitive edge to our product, but because of the costs imposed on the industry actually burden the end product with a cost factor that makes us a considerable percentage higher in prices than the same product produced in Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Sweden or Finland
That is why we don't see their signatures. There is no other reason why somebody wouldn't sign it, because I don't think -- unless we change the fundamental way the forest industry works in this province, how the forest industry delivers funds to the government -- that we are going to see these jobs unless
That will create 3,000 new jobs. But remember, that goes at the cost of 3,000 existing jobs, workers who will not be able to make the hours that they used to have, who will not be able to make the overtime that was often the money that paid that little extra to give themselves, as families, the quality of life or allowed them to buy into a mortgage for their home. That's gone.
If the jobs are going to be created, they will be created through pressure, not because the market dictates need for it. The only way we're going to see the companies creating opportunities through a businesslike approach is if, indeed, the product that they create is going to be able to be sold in a global market at a price that people are willing to pay.
That is my little redemption on the CEOs' participation. They believe in the principles, they hope the principles will work, but they have doubts that it can be achieved under the circumstances that prevail today in this province. For that reason, they do not sign off. I believe that to be the case, and the minister may have a different opinion. But having talked to some of the CEOs and to people who are behind the CEOs, that sense of optimism is not as strong as the minister likes to present it.
I will go back to the jobs advocate role. If the jobs advocate sees that there is a situation where 50 jobs can be saved
[ Page 5118 ]
and he drops his monitoring role, unfortunately, and he goes into his facilitating role -- he's going to spend time on that -- the job facilitator would maybe come up with a package that he or she as the jobs advocate believes can save some of these jobs. What kind of authority would there be behind that package? Or is it just: "Well, I'll throw it in, and I hope somebody is going to pick it up"? Or is there more in the job that gives an element of certainty that the exercise is not in vain, if I can use that word?
[11:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I do appreciate the roleWhat we've done here is go into a cooperative, strategic plan with industry. The timber jobs advocate will assist and be one party, but he has no authority to require the carrying out of the plan. All the authority would be in the Forest Act. He will report on progress on the accord. His primary job is monitoring; go back to that. All of this is hypothetical. If this advocate finds some way that nobody else has found to maintain or create jobs, we would all welcome it.
T. Nebbeling: I don't want to drift away from vote 37, because I could certainly react to what the minister said. Maybe I should, because we are talking about a $1.5 billion investment, taxpayers' dollars invested in an industry. When I am saying, on the one hand, that the document has no teeth and, on the other hand, that the companies will be forced into taking this deal whether they like it or not, the minister knows what I am talking about. If companies in the future want to tap into fibre opportunities, if companies need funding from FRBC, the first thing that will be held up is this document. You want fibre? Here is the requirement. It's under the jobs and timber accord. It is not a matter of voluntary participation -- no, no; if you want fibre, you participate.
As a matter of fact, the Premier has said -- and that is why you don't need a signature: "Listen, any company that is not willing to come aboard with my accord, my idea
The minister, hopefully, is not going to disagree with me that these have been the statements. Inherent in the principles of this document is that if you are not willing to participate in hiring all these extra people, justified or not, we may actually reduce your fibre. We will not allow you to tap into FRBC funds under the jobs and timber accord. That's the truth that is there, but I don't think it is the right type of truth in order to create a bite. The corporation is not there, and this is more a mandated form of action.
My question to the minister is: what happens if there is a recommendation made by the jobs advocate to save the situation? After studying the whole matter for a considerable time, who does the jobs advocate go to see if indeed he is going to find some virgin ground where this plan that he has created to save jobs in a certain area could find some foundation, so that he could do what the job says and save these jobs or recommend to deny the firing or layoff of a number of people?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The jobs advocate reports to the Minister of Forests. He makes his recommendations. If there is something he wants the ministry to do, he will make recommendations to me.
T. Nebbeling: So just to be clear, the jobs advocate will come to the Minister of Forests or to the Ministry of Forests? I didn't hear that right. I don't know if the minister is going to play a personal role in this. I only ask for clarification because I didn't hear the answer. If the minister does not answer, that's fine.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It feels sometimes like we are in grade 2 social studies, you know?
The Minister of Forests is an office, and you can approach the minister by phoning his number there. You can come and meet with the minister there, or you could meet with any of the officials in the ministry. So it would be some of each.
T. Nebbeling: Such a simple answer. I didn't know or didn't understand.
There was a question in there: who actually is going to deal with the recommendations made by the jobs advocate, who is being solicited to facilitate in a situation where potential job losses are a possibility, an opportunity? Does the jobs advocate have an exercise whereby he or she will determine that there is a way of saving a company or saving existing jobs? If that exists, but the jobs advocate at the same time doesn't have the authority and can only suggest something, what's going to happen? Are they going to write reports, send them somewhere and then hope for an answer, all within that four months of time?
What is the potential that all those recommendations will disappear into the bureaucracy of the ministry? Is there another group of people that the jobs advocate will work together with, another team that will make the decision? That may be a representative of cabinet; it may be having team representatives of FRBC; it may be representation from the union. I don't care. But the jobs advocate, not having any authority, according to the minister, to make any decisions -- including, I suppose, denying
Is there a group that the jobs advocate will refer to and say: "Okay, here are my recommendations. If we can tap into this source and we can do the following, we will be able to either save the situation or at least reduce the potential damage of job layoffs"? What is the jobs advocate going to do with his recommendations, because he hasn't got the authority himself to act on that?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to the function of monitoring, he reports out to industry and government through a public reporting process. If he's involved in facilitation, I would say that this is future policy, because it hasn't been worked out. I would imagine it would be similar to the Job Protection Commission, where he reports to the stakeholders of the particular agreement. If you're facilitating, you're in between a number of stakeholders, so you would report to them. If you've got something to say to the Minister of Forests, as a stakeholder you would come to the Minister of
[ Page 5119 ]
Forests. There's no other body. There's no timber jobs advocate body out there. We're not going to create another body of stakeholders, or whatever.
Let me say that the second-to-last page of the accord does say: "The parties to this accord agree that an implementation process is required to deal with outstanding matters. Government will ensure sufficient and dedicated human and financial resources are available to meet targeted objectives and processes." So a lot of your questions are hypothetical. They have not been worked out yet. As I say, this is a strategic plan. It isn't an implementation plan; it's not an action plan. That has to be worked out.
T. Nebbeling: Obviously that answer is a frightening answer. The only thing that seems to have been worked out is, actually, that any corporation or any company, prior to having to deal with an emergency situation or on an occasion when the viability of the plant, the mill, the operation is in jeopardy
I'll tell you one thing: when you're in business you look at every angle before you make a step and before you make a move, and then you analyze every step and every move and see whether you achieved your objectives. You look at the mechanisms that have to be created to achieve these objectives. That is the normal way that business handles itself, and that is the difference. If it is done in a businesslike manner and there's a good, solid foundation, that may lead to success for that business. If you don't do these kinds of things up front, then you're bound to fail. That is how the difference between a good business operation and a bad business operation is defined. What kind of planning have you done before you make your moves?
I'm saying here today that the government has made its move. This government has committed close to $2 billion in total, of which $1.5 billion is FRBC money -- committed to the jobs accord. They made a commitment. Now I'm asking the question on how you're going to secure that financial commitment of taxpayers' money, how that money is going to have the return that you would expect as a business
There should be at least, in the introduction to the accord, guidelines that say: "This has happened in the following situations. There are job losses in our company. The company comes to us. The company reports to the jobs advocate and says that within four months we will have to lay off 60 people, 50 people, 100 people, 200 people." The jobs advocate, I would expect, would have as part of the accord -- which is a complex deal, as the minister said half an hour ago -- some guidelines. "I will do the following: pum, pum, pum. And then, when I've done the following steps, I will present a study or I will present recommendations to the next body, which is the ministry of government." Then I think the ministry of government, because this is serious business
If that is happening, then we have a business plan that deals with situations. This has nothing to do with hypothetical situations; this is part of the role. We know that businesses will come to the jobs advocate. So I don't think I'm asking questions out of order. As a former businessman -- thank God I've retired
I still demand to know, under these circumstances that the jobs and timber accord has set out, how it is that we cannot get an answer on how the $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money -- investment in this industry -- is going to be protected. It's not by saying that there will be a jobs advocate who will look at the various situations that can arise hypothetically over time.
I would like to know how that jobs advocate is going to deal with these so-called hypothetical situations that could lead to job losses. I'm sorry if I upset the minister, but I thought I was going to ask some very straightforward, businesslike questions. I am afraid that the answers given have been not only not satisfying me but have given me a real sense that the jobs and timber accord has very little foundation to make the claim that it will and can be successful because of all the i's having being dotted. That has not happened, unfortunately.
Hopefully, the minister will take some of the suggestions that I have made in this last hour on how to deal with some of the problems. I also hope that the minister is not going to take offence at the fact that I am looking for a businesslike approach in how these kinds of affairs are being managed. That's why I shared with the minister some of the practices that I incorporated in my company, and I had a big company. I employed a lot of people, and I never came to government for a handout. I employed them, five at a time. I hired more and more by working hard, expanding and working harder, and expanding more and making money.
[11:45]
I know how we can create jobs without the government creating the jobs and then being held to ransom when these jobs don't work out because of the regulations and the non-competitiveness of the forest industry in the global market. Sure, I want to see changes so that I can be optimistic, as well. But at this point, I would really like to know from the minister how he is going to secure that the role of the advocate is indeed going to be as he described earlier on.Furthermore, how will the labour of this jobs advocate -- who will be solicited from time to time as a facilitator to get involved in saving jobs in projects -- get into the ministerial system and get an immediate response so that the issue can be dealt with? I went a little bit longer than I wanted to. I think it is important that we know that when the jobs advocate has finished doing his assessments and facilitating, what he recommends will get an immediate hearing within the ministerial offices, so that a decision is made and his activities are not going to be just another bureaucratic exercise, which is what could happen if there is no framework in place.
Can the minister share if he would consider having a task force within his ministry, so that people that will be part of the funding, if that is necessary, or other elements that the jobs advocate will recommend
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've been ready to respond to a number of questions, and I'll try. The last one I didn't get. I just
[ Page 5120 ]
could not comprehend your question. I'm sorry; I apologize. I don't think anybody else understood it, either. I would just ask you
You want to know about how the jobs advocate is going to relate to the ministry. He reports to the minister, as the deputy minister reports to the minister. If he sees a problem or needs something, he would come to me. If he hasn't been able to tap into an assistant deputy minister, an executive director of operations or a regional manager, he would come to me, I would expect.
The idea of creating a task force is not how we respond. If there's a problem in one firm in one town, the way we do it now is that the company alerts the ministry. The ministry goes to work on the problem. They might create a working group for a short period of time.
You see, you're asking the most elementary questions about how bureaucracies work. They work under direction; they work under policies. This advocate has access to government, access to industry, and reports to them.
What we have said in the accord is very clear: there needs to be an implementation plan. We have been meeting within the government. We're getting ready to sit down with industry to discuss implementation. We agreed not to have any more detail than is in the accord until we could meet on implementation. So there are all kinds of ideas out there, and we will put an action plan in place.
To respond to your question about businesslike approaches, the advocate will have a business plan. That will be a very businesslike business plan. That's what it is: it's a plan of how he will do his business. He will develop that, and that will be one of the first things.
T. Nebbeling: I incorporated in my summation to the minister what I see happening and what I see lacking. I included a number of elements, because that is how we have to look at how we do business. You cannot just take everything in isolation, deal with it, and then put it aside and go onto the next one. So when my summation included a number of questions, it is not unlike when the minister answers some of these questions. He answers questions and introduces new elements into his answers. That's the way it happens in debate. I think that is a standard procedure that shouldn't intimidate anybody, unless it is a one-track mind, and I do not believe the minister has a one-track mind.
One point the minister actually made was how this strategy would get the government involved in dealing with a problem in the industry. He said it would be like it was in the past. Be it in Golden or be it anywhere else, somebody will come to the government and say: "Listen, there's a problem." And we as the ministry go into action. We go to the community. We see what's wrong, if it is salvageable, and what kind of action has to be taken. As an action team, we go in there and solve it. That is the way the minister said it is happening today. I think that's a great way.
But with this jobs advocate, that is, in a sense, eliminated, because now companies are coming to the jobs advocate, which is a one-man show. That is what the accord says. The jobs advocate will be notified of needed changes, especially when it comes to layoffs, and the jobs advocate will be notified four months in advance. Then the jobs advocate gets involved with the issues and starts doing his job.
That's why I was asking: what is that job? If we have today already set out that the jobs advocate will come into action under certain circumstances, we better make sure that we know up front how that action will be initiated. We do know that now. The company will file a notice with the jobs advocate, and then the jobs advocate goes on. That's what I was trying to find out: how will the jobs advocate go, step by step, to come to his recommendation status? Once that recommendation status has been achieved, what happens with that recommendation? Now, of course, we hear that it will be back to the minister or through a deputy minister to another party.
One question I have, then, if indeed that's the case that the recommendation from the jobs advocate doesn't come to a task force made up of individuals that represent the various groups that could come to their assistance, be it FRBC funding
That's not the case, from what I hear. It goes to the minister, and then the minister will dictate what happens from there on. I do not believe the minister has the authority to dictate to FRBC to make funds available in the situation we just described. I do not believe that the minister has that authority; as a matter of fact, the minister has stated on many occasions that he has no authority to spend the funds of FRBC. That is the Forest Renewal B.C. board's authority.
I had hoped that there would have been a body within the ministry that would immediately take action as a group to save these people's jobs that are potentially lost. This is a hypothetical situation; I know that. But the whole reason that the job of the jobs advocate has been created, with the guidelines set out in the jobs and timber accord, is based on hypothetical situations. They are hypothetical in nature, although there is very little doubt that these kinds of situations will arise in the next couple of years.
I'm not really satisfied with the answers, but like the minister said, I'm now beginning to give recommendations on how things could be better. I think he has a problem with me doing that, as well. Although I should say that when I started these estimates a couple of days ago, I made it very clear to the minister that, yes, I will criticize things that I believe deserve criticism. I will be skeptical when I see something that creates skepticism. But if I see something that I believe can work with some suggestions how I or we as the B.C. Liberal Party would do it, I hope that that would also have been received, not as a criticism of what the minister is doing but as a suggestion of how things could be different.
In the last hour, I have shared some of my personal business experiences, and the minister knows it's a fairly substantial company
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: I will ask the question, Madam Chair.
Could I ask the minister if he would consider a structure for the committee that would deal with the issues, which I just described in a quick, reactionary manner, rather than see the recommendations by the jobs advocate disappear into the bureaucracy? Would that waste a lot of time?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't see the need to create another committee because we fear criticism. We take the
[ Page 5121 ]
constructive suggestion that we organize ourselves in a disciplined way. I'll charge the deputy minister with being sure that the whole of the Ministry of Forests responds in a creative and positive way very immediately to any initiative of the timber jobs advocate. I give you assurance that I will hold the deputy responsible to do that. Where we need to create a task force, as we have done in the past, we do. There is a task force around Golden; there is a task force around Skeena Cellulose. We'll do that.
Noting the hour and being thankful of the constructive suggestions from the other side, I'd like to move that the
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, sometimes I say things under protest from my side here. I'd like to move that the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, have reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
The committee met at 10:22 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
(continued)
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to introduce the people with me for the members: Blair Trousdell, president and CEO; Rick Krowchuk, who is the vice-president of finance and CFO; Glen Leicester, executive director of strategic planning; Rob Clarke, acting general manager of Victoria and municipal systems; and Steve New, manager of municipal systems. They will be assisting us throughout our work today.
I just want to go over some details for the member -- just a financial budget overview. Our total operating budget for this fiscal year is $650.06 million. Our vote will fund $297.76 million, which is 45 percent of the total. Actually, if the hon. member wishes, I can just pass these across to him.
The B.C. Transit operating revenue and dedicated local-based taxation funds the balance. Provincial contributions are comprised of $152.38 million for operating costs -- wages, fuel, vehicle materials -- and $145.38 million for debt-service costs related to capital assets that are in service. Our vote includes $2.87 million for '97-98 service expansion. This funding will support a 2.4 percent increase to service levels at a total cost of $9.7 million.
Our 1997-98 service expansion represents the third year of B.C. Transit's ten-year development plan. The proposed service expansion is consistent with the Vancouver and Victoria regions five-year plans and the municipal systems strategic plan. Transit service will be expanded throughout British Columbia. The service will grow by 100,000 hours -- that's the 2.4 percent -- in Vancouver; 14,000 hours, which is a 2.3 percent expansion, in Victoria; and 23,000 hours, which is a 3 percent expansion, in the smaller communities in the province.
Capital expenditures of $67.3 million are planned for '97-98, providing for future years' expansion. Major new projects for '97-98 include new transit centres in Richmond, Victoria and Kelowna, and the purchase of 63 new vehicles. As capital investments are amortized and charged to the operating budget when the asset is placed in service, there is minimal impact on the '97-98 estimate requirement.
The '97-98 estimate reflects current cost-sharing agreements with the various local authorities. The current provincial-GVRD negotiations on transportation funding and governance are not anticipated to impact provincial funding until at least '98-99, so they are not part of the impact on this budget.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for those opening remarks. I also thank the members of the team there, who I met a few weeks ago when they went through some of the material with me, particularly the budget material. It was helpful in organizing the topics that I will be speaking to today.
I guess the thing that is of most concern regarding Transit is the auditor general's report, which we'll get into bit by bit as I go through the questions I have and the comments I may have to make. I think that one of the real concerns -- it is with me, and I'm sure it is with the minister and with B.C. Transit -- is the depth of criticism, in a sense, of various aspects of the operation of B.C. Transit that was reported in that auditor general's report, particularly dealing with management, management style, relationships with the working staff, and also the business of attendance, absenteeism and that sort of thing. All those are issues that I'm sure B.C. Transit wants to address and resolve, as much as the auditor general found these things to be of concern.
Maybe my first question is that each year, I believe, there is a
Ah, we have it. Thank you. May I just ask the minister: has it been tabled, or am I getting something privileged here?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's been tabled.
[ Page 5122 ]
D. Symons: Somehow I've missed it, then. Thank you very much. That's good.
The budget for the Vancouver regional transit system is $550.8 million; it represents a 4 percent increase. By what percent has the ridership increased in the last year in the Vancouver regional system? Maybe I can just put a couple more on and move this on. By what percent has passenger revenue increased during that past year? If we might ask, what is the debt-servicing cost for the Vancouver regional transit system?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're just dealing with Vancouver now. Is that right, hon. member?
D. Symons: Yes, just Vancouver.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The ridership for '97-98 over '96-97 is anticipated to increase by 2.7 percent. The revenue is anticipated to increase by about 5 percent, and the debt-servicing charges I'll get for you.
[10:30]
D. Symons: The minister may remember, during our discussion on the West Coast Express, that I was raising some questions about the balancing of ridership figures with revenue figures, and I couldn't come up with what I had. I found it today, so if I may, I'll submit that letter asking the questions I had on that particular thing. We don't have the staff here for that aspect of the service.Moving on to SkyTrain for a moment, what is the total debt owed as of April 1 this year -- the end of the last fiscal year and the beginning of this fiscal year? What are the debt-servicing costs, again, for the SkyTrain operation? Is the debt itself in the form of a sinking fund, amortization or a lease-to-buy? How is that particular part of it being handled? Maybe if it's in different aspects -- different parts of the SkyTrain operation or different things there -- you might break that out for me.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The debt is about $1.3 billion. The annual debt servicing then works out to about $150 million. It is a sinking fund.
D. Symons: At what rate is the debt being paid down, and when is it expected to be paid off at current payments? Has any of the debt been refinanced to a longer time period -- i.e., moving from 20 years to 30 years, as was the case with the West Coast Express?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a 40-year amortization, with a 20-year rollover. It's being paid down, as planned, through the sinking fund.
D. Symons: I worked something out awhile ago here. It relates to the SkyTrain operation. I gather it's about $17 per service-hour less to operate the SkyTrain system than it is the buses. If you take the operational hours of SkyTrain, for which I was given a number of 580,000 hours, and multiply that by the $17 an hour less, you come up with a figure somewhere around the $10 million range. It would seem that the SkyTrain operationally saves around $10 million, rather than having buses carry the same number of passengers back and forth.
My point here is that although there are those very high capital costs for SkyTrain, because the operational costs are somewhat less, maybe over the period -- and you're giving me a figure of 40 years in that sinking fund to pay it off -- the high capital costs aren't so bad after all. We've been told over and over again that so much money has gone into that, and that's why they can't bring other buses in; you couldn't improve the system because of the high debt left by the previous administration in bringing in SkyTrain. But it would seem that if you take those high capital costs and amortize them over a long period of time and factor in the savings you have on that system compared to using buses, the difference isn't too bad. I would assume that that has been looked into by the corporation to determine whether we might be saving money in the long term, rather than costing extra money, even taking into consideration those high capital costs. Has this been done? What has the conclusion of that study been?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The conclusions that the hon. member reaches are valid and have been factored into the value attached to SkyTrain, as well as, frankly, the other values attached to SkyTrain. Certainly all of these issues have been factored in as we move forward into expanding transit in Vancouver and in the lower mainland, as well. There's a significant difference between, of course, SkyTrain and the buses, and that's that there are no operators.
D. Symons: I would assume the same sort of study that I was referring to in the long-term part has also been done as far as commuter rail goes and as far as any light rail system that may come in along Broadway or other areas. Has there been a study done that would evaluate those on a cost-per-service or a cost-benefit analysis, maybe using the SkyTrain as a model and applying that to the others to see how cost-effective those systems are compared to just continuing with more buses on the route? In Richmond you're putting in a rapid bus line. Eventually we hope that there will be a light rail system or a rapid transit system of some sort to Richmond. What are the cost factors when you take into account the savings to the system over the bus system on the operational side, and then looking at the cost factors -- there are higher costs putting buses in -- over its life expectancy? Which is the most efficient way of moving people -- that is, efficient in an economic sense?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member describes the ongoing work of strategic planning that the corporation does in terms of the expansion of Transit. For instance, in coming to the conclusion of the model of light rapid transit that we will proceed upon, there were three major studies done examining the upsides, insides and outsides of models for Transit, and the conclusion was reached to proceed with the proposal that was established.
The member's points are very well taken, though. The complexities of planning for future transit are not just based on a single factor but on a complexity of factors, all of which are taken into account in planning by the corporation.
D. Symons: I guess there's some concern that during the heat of a coming election and so forth, sometimes announcements are made that haven't been thoroughly considered as to the long-term costs and viability of some of those election promises. But the minister is assuring me that that's not the case, that all these things have been looked into, and I'm pleased to hear that.
Can you give me these figures, too? What is the cost per rider? This would be for the Vancouver transit system, which we'll stick with for a little while, if we can, since it's the largest
[ Page 5123 ]
in the system. What is the Vancouver transit system cost per rider and the subsidy per rider. My question is: is that an operational subsidy, or does it include the debt-servicing costs when you talk about the subsidy? If I could have those figures, then I'll move on to some more questions from that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The total cost per rider, which is boarded passengers and which includes debt servicing for the Vancouver bus system is $1.69, and for SkyTrain it's $4.39. That includes debt servicing. You asked for the total debt service for the Vancouver region. It's $198.72 million for '97-98.
D. Symons: Since extending the service of SkyTrain to King George station, has there been a significant change in the cost per rider? Has that extension balanced out the ridership? Or has the cost per rider gone up because maybe it isn't utilized as much as was thought, or has the cost gone down because there is heavy utilization?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The trend from '95-96 through to this year is down. The actual for '94-95 was $5.06 for SkyTrain per ride, all in. Of course, now we're at $4.39 per ride.
D. Symons: On the operational side, there's an operational profit, I would gather, from SkyTrain. If you were to deduct the debt-servicing charge, does SkyTrain actually operate on the profit side?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The operating cost per boarded passenger for SkyTrain is about 91 cents, and the average fare we get per rider is about 70 cents, so there's a minor operating deficit.
D. Symons: When you say the average fare is 70 cents, I gather that's including the factor that a number of the passengers are transferring in, so you're proportioning the thing off.
Can you give me -- and I should know these -- the cost of each SkyTrain car, commuter rail car and light rail car? If you don't have these here, I'll take them at some other time. Also, what are the relative capacities for each of those particular vehicles. If the minister doesn't have that, some other time would be fine.
I was trying to compare with Vancouver
Hon. J. MacPhail: Because I know the member wants to do a comparison, this is the operating costs per boarded passenger. Is that what you want? That's exclusive of debt. You wanted it for Victoria or Vancouver?
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- for Vancouver bus, it's $1.46. For SkyTrain, it's 91 cents. For Victoria
D. Symons: Yes, please.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, it's $1.84. For the municipal systems, it's $2.62. The average, then, is $1.57.
D. Symons: Thank you, I'll hold on to those figures. The Vancouver Sun -- and I know the government doesn't have too much faith in newspaper articles -- of November 13, 1996, had an article saying: "Crown Corporations Face 15 Percent Cutback." All of this was tied around the time, I think, that there was some talk of reducing some services in Vancouver, and there was a bit of public feedback on that. The quote in the Sun here is: "Crown corporations, including
[10:45]
So I'm wondering if you can tell us how you've done on that 15 percent reduction and whether any cuts have been made. I know there was an attempt to make cuts last fall, and apparently, I think, a good number of those cuts didn't materialize.Hon. J. MacPhail: In 1996-97 the corporation reduced their operating expenditures by $6.8 million, and this year by a further reduction of $8.4 million. There's been an overall increase across the system in service.
D. Symons: Much of that reduction in expenses has come from cutting administration costs, and I might ask here how many employees are there at the Gateway office and at the Burnaby office -- the total number of employees? They're basically, I suppose, in the management/administrative side of B.C. Transit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The administrative costs, excluding West Coast Express, have trended downward over the last three years. There's basically a flattening out from last year to this year because of a salary increase. I can give you a general accounting of the Gateway employees, because it's by department, of course, that we calculate the employees.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Do you want just the grand total of administration? Would that help? Okay -- this includes SkyTrain and West Coast Express. I will let you know when that occurs. No, let's not include them; 359.4 for May 1996; that has now become 354.2, a year later. The administration costs total
D. Symons: I thought a figure was coming with the costs of that, but that's fine. I note that that seems to be a reduction of staff of five roughly. Those are full-time-equivalents that you've mentioned, I guess. I gather that there has been significant hiring at B.C. Transit on the management side. Headquarters, particularly in their planning department, have had an increase. I wonder if we might get an idea of how much that planning department has increased in the last two years.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, the planning department actually has been reduced.
[ Page 5124 ]
D. Symons: I seem to be getting wrong information from people, then. Going back to the Vancouver Sun article on Thursday, September 12, 1996, there was a comment by Mr. Trace Acres, saying that at least 50 percent of the costs of the cuts to service would hit Vancouver bus routes and that many suburban routes would also be affected, especially at night. Earlier, when I asked about Transit cuts because of that 15 percent mandate from government to reduce costs of the system, the minister indicated that we've had no reductions; it simply increased service
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I actually remember this period. It was the beginning of my time at Transit. There was a rationalization proposed where services that were greatly underutilized would be rationalized to actually only meet the demand in that community and the extra operating hours would be transferred to the more greatly utilized routes -- with an overall effect of an increase in services. At the same time, we re-reviewed our proposal and even made some further changes in terms of not only rationalizing routes and thereby enhancing other routes but actually expanding the enhancement of certain routes as well. So the overall effect is that there's greater bus service in the areas where bus service is more greatly used.
D. Symons: Which seems logical. I note again -- I seem to be reading quite a bit from columns, but it's often where I get information -- an editorial in the Vancouver Sun, September 13, 1996, saying:
"Vancouver city staff, in gathering thousands of public responses to the city's transportation plan, were told repeatedly that the buses do not run often enough. Since 1982, Vancouver's population has grown by 100,000 but not a single new trolley bus has been purchased. The city needs at least 100 more buses to deliver a reasonable level of service. The entire region needs to double the number of buses in the next decade, but instead, B.C. Transit is cutting back."You have indicated that that cutback didn't occur and that you are adding buses, but I think at a much slower rate than has been suggested by that editorial. So how are you going to deal with the issues that the editorial raises? We have a growing population, and with the traffic congestion getting the way it is, there should be a greater need for public transit. We don't seem to be adding the buses and the service fast enough to meet that need.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an excellent point -- one which shapes the future of transit with the corporation. Just to talk figures, the Transport 2021 plan, which was done by the GVRD, calls for 1,200 buses up until the year 2006-07 -- a ten-year plan. The B.C. Transit ten-year plan calls for being able to put 715 new buses on the road. So how do we cope with the difference? Those are exactly the discussions that are going on right now -- the funding and governance discussions -- with the GVRD. I am very pleased with the discussions and negotiations as they proceed. It is exactly those kinds of issues that we are attempting to resolve in a consensus way.
There are many factors. I know the hon. member is very well informed on all the factors that affect the use of public transit. I would say that the nature and scope of the discussions that we're having with the GVRD about how we can increase the use of public transit and how we can fund public transit in a way that makes it suitable for customer use are unprecedented. No longer are we looking at the use of public transit in isolation from highway development, for instance. The funding and governance negotiations going on in the GVRD also include transportation modes beyond public transit. As part of the debt-management plan, our government has committed to
Yesterday our government announced $58 million of capital for transit expansion that we're working on with the municipalities and the federal government. I would say that outside of our commitment to building hospitals and schools, the next highest priority of our government is the expansion of public transit.
D. Symons: I note that B.C. Ferries has something called a "Performance Reporting Requirement for B.C. Ferry Corporation." They have this divided up into financial operations, operating results, assets, liabilities, productivity
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there are performance indicators. The corporation entitles them performance indicators. We have '97-98 targets for key performance indicators at the corporate, regional and modal levels. The targets set for '97-98 are compared to the '96-97 targets. Historical information is provided for four years for the regional and modal levels. I can certainly provide those details, or I can read them into the record right now. They're quite lengthy, though.
D. Symons: I was asking whether you had performance-reporting requirements for B.C. Transit. I think you said that you do. Maybe I'll share the Ferries one, if Transit doesn't have a copy of it, to see if you have something similar that you might share with me as to what the goals are there. Later on, the other information you are giving me may be more meaningful to me when I see what the reporting requirements are. I would appreciate anything that we might be able to pass back and forth regarding that at some future date.
I gather that the fare increase of 5 percent generates, from some calculations I've done, somewhere around $6 million per year. That would be if the fare had gone from $1.50 to $1.60 in the last change in fares. Is my calculation approximately correct? Does a 5 percent increase give you about $6 million?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's about $8 million.
D. Symons: The recent changes that were made by doing away with the decrease in the zonal changes where they pay a zonal fee outside of peak hours now, that they didn't before -- what will that generate for the corporation?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That is the $8 million to which I referred earlier -- usually with the Vancouver changes.
D. Symons: When I mentioned a 5 percent increase, I meant an overall increase in the fares, as they had been. You're
[ Page 5125 ]
saying that would be $8 million, and by doing away with the zones, it's creating roughly the same amount of revenue increase for B.C. Transit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's correct. The base fares weren't altered; it was just the midday discount.
D. Symons: Basically, there were four options being considered to increase the cash fares overall. That's the one I was talking about -- if you increased everything on a regular basis, 5 percent on everything. The second option was to freeze fares and passes but eliminate off-peak discounts, which seems to be the option that was chosen. Option 3, I have here, is that zone 1 is the same, in zones 2 and 3 there is an increase in the fare, and option 4 was to add a new or a fourth zone, maybe changing the zone parts. Were all four of those options worked out to generate that $8 million figure that B.C. Transit needed?
[11:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.D. Symons: I noticed the minister nodding. I was going to take a nod as an answer, but it wouldn't look too good in Hansard. I apologize for that.
One of the things that comes up quite frequently -- I asked it regarding commuter rail, and I ask it again -- is the business of fare evasion. From my observations, it seems that that does take place, and it seems that my observations and what B.C. Transit says are sometimes at variance. They indicate that the figure is very low, and other people have indicated that the figure is much higher than that.
I'm wondering if a lot of problems might not be solved by being more stringent in catching fare evaders. I noticed in today's Times Colonist an article about a bus driver being assaulted. It had nothing to, in the sense
I'm thinking back to my education years. When we had graffiti around the school we tended to remove it as quickly as possible, because graffiti seemed to gather more graffiti. I'm wondering with transit that if, by not taking as stringent a view with fare evasions as has been taken, we might also be getting the same concept as with the graffiti in schools -- that we're feeding a problem that need not be there. If we had turnstiles in at the SkyTrain stations, as we have -- not for fare but for passenger motion -- on the SeaBus, it feeds them on, all right, by having turnstiles
Indeed, you could have a box that people deposit something in and one person watching. So it would involve a staff person -- that's true -- whereas now you're basically barrier-free and staff-free at many of these locations. But I think there would probably be savings in the fares that would be paid and also in the attitude of the travelling public toward the fact that this is not a free system but is a system that's there for the benefit of all. Those who are paying won't feel a little jaded by the people they see around them who apparently aren't paying fares. So I wonder if we might just sort of go around that tree a little bit and discuss that issue of fare evasion and how we can best get the attitude of people out there that this is not a free system. This is a system that's there, and if we all pay, we can have a better system and can keep prices down.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is a useful discussion to have and also to talk about the trends in other transit systems in terms of fare evasion, at the same time making sure that your system is customer-friendly. B.C. Transit is very concerned about making sure that our system actually welcomes people to use it and that we become even more customer-oriented than in the past. The issues around how you pay your fares and how accessible the service is are all tied together.
Let me just start with the statistics. We do take fare evasion very seriously, and we do check regularly. At least one out of six passengers is checked for fare evasion on a regular basis on SkyTrain. In the SkyTrain, we estimate that there's about 4 percent fare evasion, and on the bus it's about 2 percent fare evasion. Yes, that is a problem, a problem that we pay attention to regularly.
I actually have a different experience than the hon. member does about being checked. I carry a pass, as you know, and I have more often than not been asked to root through my purse to get out my pass. I know it, because you actually have to make an effort to get it out to demonstrate it again. So my personal experience is that checking does occur, although I know that the hon. member has a different experience. We do take it very seriously, and we put resources into checking for passes and fares, of course.
The technology that's being developed in the western world is not to put barriers in place. The erection of barriers, the maintenance of them, is very expensive. There are safety issues attached to it. So the new way of dealing with fare evasion is through the use of better technology.
One of the things that we're instituting on our buses right now, which is wonderful -- and I hope some day the hon. member can actually take a tour and see the demonstration that exists now -- is the new fareboxes that are being installed. They're electronic fareboxes. No longer will it be up to the sharp eye of a bus driver to determine if there are corn flakes going in or fake coins; it will be an electronic counting of the fare administered. This will, in our view, greatly reduce fare evasion and also enhance the safety of the trip and the driver. The dispute will now be with an electronic box, as opposed to an individual. People are much more reluctant to dispute technology as it faces them. Those are being installed on the Vancouver buses currently. So it is an issue that we take very seriously, and we constantly update our technology to cope with society.
Certainly in no way is there any indication that the B.C. Transit system is doing any more poorly than any other transit system, and certainly we're doing as well in catching fare evaders.
D. Symons: In one sense I can agree with what the minister says because at least on the bus they have to go past a driver, a person, who can sort of act as a barrier or a check of whether a fare has gone in the box. Whether it's the exact dollar sign or not, or right number of pennies, might be another matter, but at least there is a driver there. Some semblance of having paid a fare has to be made, whereas on the SkyTrain and the SeaBus, since there isn't a person checking as often
I've had the opposite experience, as the minister said. I also have a transit pass, and certainly when I get on a bus, I
[ Page 5126 ]
have to flash a pass at somebody. Once in Victoria I accidentally flashed my driver's licence, and only when I was putting it back in my wallet did I discovered it was my driver's licence and not my bus pass. The driver hadn't challenged me on it, but they do look similar. Certainly on SkyTrain I've not had to reach into my pocket or my wallet to pull out the pass, because nobody has ever approached me, as of yet. I have ridden SkyTrain a considerable number of times, as well as other transit in Vancouver.
There's one thing that concerns me. You're saying that one in six is checked. I wonder if you might give me an idea, then, of how much has been collected through fines for fare evasion.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The fine collection is actually done through the Ministry of Finance, as are all fines, so there's not a separate accounting for B.C. Transit fines.
D. Symons: Would not those who are fare checkers have reported the number of people each time? Maybe you could give me, if not the dollars, the number of people that have been caught fare evading and have been issued a summons or a ticket, rather than simply being told to go over and buy a ticket. How many have actually been given a ticket of some sort that would eventually have been paid, possibly?
Hon. J. MacPhail: On SkyTrain the figure of 4 percent captures those ticketed and, in some cases, those that are actually removed from the train or are required to pay the add-on. The actual collection of fines is part of the Ministry of Finance accounting.
An interesting statistic that the CEO told me was that in Singapore, where there's a barrier system -- three barriers, actually, that people have to go through in order to get to the transit system -- their fare evasion is 2 percent. They're creative, anyway.
D. Symons: Yes, creative or athletic -- one of the two.
I note that Calgary collects around $360,000 in fines for fare evasion. That's why I was asking what it would be for the Vancouver system. I would be interested
If we can go on to planning
C. Hansen: A constituent of mine came into my office a few months ago with regard to locating a bus stop in front of their home. I know it's something that to many people might seem to be a trivial matter in this situation, but certainly to them it's not. Doing a little bit of digging into it, I was surprised at the way bus stops are located. I wonder if the minister could explain to us the policy that is followed by B.C. Transit when it comes to locating bus stops in residential areas.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The practice generally is a stop every two blocks. The actual approval for the location of a stop is done through Vancouver city council, the transportation committee. They're the ones that actually do the approval. The corporation has requests for safety, etc., but within the context of the actual location, the city does that.
C. Hansen: I guess therein lies part of the problem. When you contact B.C. Transit, they say it's a responsibility of the city; when you contact the city, they say it's a responsibility of B.C. Transit. It's one of those issues, as best as I can tell, that nobody takes responsibility for. I would like to be able to go back to the city, if this is the case, with a clear indication from the minister that it is in fact 100 percent their responsibility when it comes to the siting of a bus stop.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know the hon. member isn't trying to play "gotcha" politics; he wants to resolve a concern. If indeed the member's constituent wants to have an influence on the relocation of that bus stop -- I gather that's what the request is -- then that is the city's concern. I would expect, though, that if there is some concern around the safety of the stop because of personal use, etc., then B.C. Transit would get involved with that. But if it's the exact location of the stop, it is the city's responsibility.
Let me reassure you that all of these matters are reasons why we're into major negotiations with the GVRD about customer service and the complex levels of decision-making. I certainly would not disagree with the member at all about the need to make matters much more simplified in terms of how we establish transit, who pays for it and what the consequences are of poor decision-making.
C. Hansen: Certainly I think you'd find lots of support for those initiatives. In this case, this family went on holidays and came back after two weeks to find that a bus stop had been relocated to the front of their house, which caused problems in terms of litter and noise and, I guess, a disruption of their life and the enjoyment of their property. When we pursued this to find out why there was no consultation, one of the reasons given was that it would make it very difficult for the transit system -- whether it be the city or B.C. Transit itself -- to set up bus stops if they had to consult, because no one would want them. When we asked why people wouldn't want them, the person at the other end of the line freely admitted that it was because it would devalue their property.
My question to the minister is: is there direction given from B.C. Transit to municipalities regarding the policies and consultation for siting bus stops? Or is this totally up to each individual municipality? Are there different approaches, for example, to these issues from municipality to municipality, or does in fact B.C. Transit give direction?
[11:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said earlier, the basic criteria -- for stops being located every two blocks, and that safety concerns and lighting be taken into account -- are the directions given to the municipalities. The municipalities, on an individual basis, determine the location of the stops, how they notify the residents about that, what kind of input the residents can have and whether the decision is made by an elected official or a staff official. All of those are done municipality by municipality in a slightly different way. So there is no overall general approach.C. Hansen: Is the minister aware of any municipality that has compensated property owners for devaluation of property as a result of the location of a bus stop?
[ Page 5127 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No -- and I do understand the concern of residents about bus stops. But that is the debate. Do we have a system of public transit that takes people where they actually live, or do we not? There's no question about the fact that there are consequences to delivering a bus service into a residential community. But I also believe that we need to expand public transit. The only way we can do that is to make it accessible to where people live.
Certainly Transit takes into account all customer relations. We're actually going to, I hope, talk about our own improved customer relations around matters such as this. But, in my view, it is also a slippery slope to make an admission, which I think may not be able to be supported, that somehow property is devalued by public transit. Just to give you an example, in my community the opposite holds true, where people are demanding more service into their residential areas.
C. Hansen: I guess before I turn it back to my colleague from Richmond Centre, I'll make just a closing comment that for me it's not an issue of devalued property, although I know that some people perceive that. From my personal point of view, I would welcome bus stops closer to my house, not farther away. For that reason I have a lot of faith in neighbourhoods making these kinds of decisions as to what's in the best interest of their neighbourhood. I think everybody welcomes better services, bus stops closer to where they live; but there are those, I think, who genuinely feel that it is an infringement on their property.
My closing comment is that I think there's a lot more room for consultation and cooperation, whether it's from a municipality or from B.C. Transit itself, when it comes to discussing these issues with property owners before it's located. My bet is that you would find that while one homeowner may resist it, another homeowner would welcome it -- and that with consultation there would probably be a lot less anxiety coming out of the siting decisions that are made. The minister can respond; otherwise I will turn it over to my colleague.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might just take a look for a moment. I've got the audited consolidated financial statement for March 31, 1996, and some questions maybe relating to that. I note in there that there are deposits on capital projects. I'm wondering if you might be able to tell me how long in advance of the expenditure you receive the money, so that when you have these deposits you're getting the money ahead of it. Who is responsible for investing the funds prior to them being used? Could a better rate be achieved through the central government rather than B.C. Transit, which has sort of a smaller investing portfolio, I suppose, than the government as a whole?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's through the discretion
D. Symons: So the transfer, in a sense, is a book transfer, not necessarily a dollar figure. Then the long-term investments are done through the Treasury Board, not through B.C. Transit on those investments. Note 3 on page 9 talks about spending $66.6 million, and I'm wondering what they're spending that on. It's been committed to capital projects in progress. B.C. Transit received funding totalling $25.9 million, held in interest-bearing deposits, for approval of capital projects. What was the $66 million being spent on during that particular time frame?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are dozens and dozens of expenditures, but they're primarily vehicle purchase, conventional vehicle expansion or replacement, some park-and-ride facilities. It's about 40 or 45 different projects.
D. Symons: That $66 million, almost $67 million, is a substantial figure. That would represent somewhere in the neighbourhood of over 200 buses, if indeed it were all going to buses. But you're saying it's primarily vehicles and some other projects. If that's the figure that was sitting there before for committed capital projects, what figure -- since this is a year later -- is now being committed for capital projects in progress? Can you give me the current figure?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As at March 31 of this year, 1997, $17.2 million has been committed for capital projects in progress.
D. Symons: Of the $66 million before, I would assume that a good number of those have been completed, if you're only down to $17.2 million. Is some of that $17.2 million left over from the $66 million before? Or is this totally new money, and the $66 million was totally used up in the previous projects?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There may be some left over, so to speak, but this is mostly new.
D. Symons: Because you have the expenses in this document broken down into administrative costs, I'm wondering if you might send me a breakdown of those administrative costs at some future time. I don't think you want to read all those into the record now, but if I can make a request for them, we might question what the financial impact of some of the executive perks might have been. We have the one case of an automobile. Any of that type of information would also be valuable.
We'll leave that particular topic for the moment and go on to a capital review that was done as part of the capital review project when we had a freeze on capital projects. Some recommendations were made regarding B.C. Transit. I don't know if you have that capital review document there, but page 17 deals with B.C. Transit and their planning. The review recommended "that government and B.C. Transit" -- and I'll just read approximately a dozen recommendations made -- "adopt the provincial policy on the use of value analysis in facility construction." I'm wondering if you might explain to a novice over here a little bit of what that meant. Is B.C. Transit indeed doing that, as was recommended?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To begin with, yes, B.C. Transit is following the directions of the capital review. It is multiple-account evaluation. You not only take into account the financial implications but the life cycle costs and environmental impact costs. The Crown corporations secretariat put the model in place for all Crown corporations, and B.C. Transit is following it.
D. Symons: Another recommendation which we'll investigate: "
[ Page 5128 ]
in a yard in Richmond when the new rapid buses come in. Is the suggestion, then, that possibly B.C. Transit would not own the property or own the buildings but would have it done as a private partnership sort of thing and lease it back?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In every case it's looked on as an option. For instance, in Victoria it was actually selected as an option -- to lease.
D. Symons: I gather -- and I think it's a good policy -- that you're doing it on a case-by-case basis. It sounds like the logical way to do it.
"Investigate the feasibility of acquiring non-revenue company vehicles under lease" -- I'm assuming that does not mean the perks that the various people may have had, the Ford Explorers or Saabs or whatever, but rather the transit supervisors' vehicles. Are those currently owned by B.C. Transit? They are not leased?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, for all expansion or replacement there's an evaluation done on the best case -- whether to purchase or lease. So there's a combination of both that exists throughout the corporation.
D. Symons: When it comes to financing, I have some problems, because I have never leased a vehicle. I've always saved money and then bought it and paid more or less cash for it, so I have not had the problem of paying off payments and all the rest of it. That's why I drive old cars all the time. I am assuming that you've made this evaluation as to the leasing and the purchasing. I've done it the way I do it because I don't like paying interest. Of course, I lose the use of the newer vehicle in the meantime. So I assume all of that's been done.
Another one they have here -- I think this might be relevant to the auditor general's report: "Use computer scheduling tools to maximize the use of vehicles and increase service." Have you moved into that mode where this is being done more efficiently -- and in a more timely way, I suppose -- by use of computers?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that recommendation has been followed. The computer program called Trapeze has been used in Victoria for three to four years and has been instituted in the last year and a half in Vancouver with significant positive results.
D. Symons: I put question marks by some of these, because I am sort of curious as to what is meant. The next one says: "Adopt provincial government office space standards." Does B.C. Transit not use those? What are these standards, and what are you now being encouraged to do?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the new headquarters is below the standard of the provincial rules in terms of size. We're actually below it.
D. Symons: I find that interesting, because I remember a number of years back, when the Premier was minister responsible, B.C. Transit moved its headquarters from Marpole out to Surrey. I believe they increased their office space during that move by about 40 percent over what they'd had at Marpole, and you're saying they're under-standard. I assume standard means so many square feet, or square metres nowadays, per person. I'm surprised. It must have been really crowded at the Marpole facility.
There's one I didn't mark here, but as I read it, I realized: oh my gosh, this is interesting. It says: "Encourage off-peak travel through variable pricing to maximize the use of existing assets." You can see why I said, "Oh, my gosh," because it would seem that the recent fare changes you've made have done exactly the reverse of that particular recommendation. Was the fact that that recommendation was made during the capital review taken into consideration when you did decide on the options for raising more money for B.C. Transit?
[11:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think it's useful that various entities make recommendations, and all of the recommendations have been considered by B.C. Transit. Let me just reassure the member that there still are off-peak fares in existence, even with the change. The off-peak fares now exist for evening travel; that's the least utilized time. So all of the factors have been balanced.D. Symons: The last one I'd just like to make a comment on
Apparently, as we saw last November, December, January and what not, B.C. Transit didn't have enough vehicles to deal with the situation they had at that time. They also had problems in maintenance of those vehicles, so indeed this recommendation would seem to fly in the face of the reality of what B.C. Transit was facing at that time. Did they come around and talk to B.C. Transit people before they made these recommendations? That one seems to be totally at odds with what the situation was at Transit.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is correct.
D. Symons: There are other incentives being put in place to change people's commuting habits. There have been a number of recommendations made as to how we might get people out of their cars and into public transit. The "GVRD 2021" study three years ago came up with some conclusions, and the Transportation Financing Authority has also put out some information on what they call transportation demand management, or TDM. They made that report public in '96. So what new facts or decisions were learned or made as a result of this particular study that B.C. Transit and the government are now instituting?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The key to the ten-year plan is, of course, expansion of bus service, but the transportation demand management activities are that the B.C. Transit is participating in a regional TDM study sponsored by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the GVRD. B.C. Transit activities support the establishment of a regional trip reduction service -- that's TRS -- that will actually encompass car-pooling, van-pooling and employer outreach programs. B.C. Transit currently provides an employee transportation administrator program, and this provides trip reduction services to employees of major employers.
D. Symons: I have here a letter that was a response to somebody who had written to B.C. Transit on things, dated June 16, 1997. It says: "As you may be aware, several transpor-
[ Page 5129 ]
tation demand management measures are expected to be introduced over the next decade. That's going quite far into the future, but we believe the impact will be to move people out of their cars and onto public transit."
I guess maybe one of the concerns I have is that so often it seems that these particular transportation demand management programs seem to involve hitting the car people quite heavily. I don't see as many of the carrots to go along with the sticks. I'm not too sure whether this is the right forum to ask these questions in, because they really revolve around non-Transit vehicles. But if there are going to be bridge tolls, will they only be on the new bridges as they are built -- the new Lions Gate Bridge, for instance -- or will they toll all the highway bridges in the greater Vancouver area, as was suggested by the third-previous Transportation minister in 1993? I don't know if these are questions which the minister feels comfortable in answering.
Are there any road tolls planned for the lower mainland? There's another transportation demand management procedure. Will there be kilometre-based auto insurance premiums, parking tax -- any of those things? If the minister feels free to answer them, she may; or because maybe it falls in other purviews, she might want to leave that to some other forum.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, certainly this would be very appropriate to ask of the Minister of Transportation and Highways as well, but just let me generally comment. The expansion of public transit requires greater funds. So how do we expand transit in a way that meets the taxpayers' needs and actually makes the people who get the benefit of the expanded transit pay their fair share? That is part of ongoing discussions around the funding and governance negotiations between GVRD and our government. In fact, the whole list of ideas for enhanced revenue that the member articulated is under active consideration, as well as a whole host of other revenue measures as well -- for instance, residential property tax. Almost every other community has a residential property tax for transit, save the GVRD. But those are the kinds of issues that are being discussed in our funding and governance negotiations.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might look at UBC's transit. I gather something has been entered into just recently with UBC, because there are places where they've put in a U-Pass -- I think that's the term -- that has been instituted in some other places. I'm wondering if that sort of idea is being considered with UBC. I thought I read something recently, and maybe you can confirm that indeed it is now already taking place. The university has a fairly heavy population, particularly UBC, and it is getting to be that way at SFU also. There's a large number of people heading in those particular directions, and if we can get them on transit, we can relieve a lot of the crosstown traffic on the Broadway line, for instance, heading to UBC and indeed going the other way out to SFU. Have you entered into negotiations? Have those been successful, and what has been set up?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me begin by describing what is happening. We are in discussions now with the university around the U-Pass program. It's modelled on a very successful program that exists in Seattle -- the University of Washington. The basic thrust of the program is that campus parking rates increase and the increase goes toward subsidizing cheaper public transit for campus employees or students who use public transit. You also enhance public transit to the campus, as well. Those discussions are ongoing. All sides are enthusiastic about it. If we're successful in reaching an agreement, it will be in effect for 1998 and can be used as a model for other post-secondary campuses as well.
D. Symons: B.C. Transit is putting in a B-Line on Broadway, or has a B-Line now, and I believe it turns at Arbutus. I'm just wondering if that could be expanded out to UBC -- or is it going there? Can we have an express bus, maybe from the end of the B-Line, that would take students out to the university area? I think somehow we leave them, except for express buses
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the B-Line does go right out to UBC. It carries about 12,000 passengers a day, and we're going to expand it.
D. Symons: I was mistaken on where the end was, so I think when I said Arbutus I was thinking of the eventual light rail that's going to be on Broadway. It was initially planned for Arbutus. I think now Granville is its terminus or temporary terminus.
One of the things I noted a few years ago and raised because I kept getting the minister, now the Premier, making comments any time I criticized B.C. Transit, was the fact that Transit has won an award. I find on the bus system everywhere they have these little award decals.
I guess I have some concerns when Transit wins these awards, and yet they seem to have criticisms in the auditor general's report about some of the things that Transit supposedly did well to win the award. When I looked into it, I discovered that these awards are often self-nominated, and there's no checking on the information given on ridership and all the other things. It seems a little as if maybe sometimes the information given is self-serving and maybe there could possibly be some discrepancies between the reality and the facts, if indeed what the auditor general says is true.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think what we should do is praise where praise is due and criticize where criticism is due. The member targets both. The APTA award is a legitimate award. It is a legitimate, recognized professional body. The nominations don't occur from the public at large, but they occur from within the industry. It's North America-wide, I believe, and the nominations are a rigorous process. So let's give credit where credit is due. That award was significant, and B.C. Transit worked hard to get that award.
Does that mean that the award makes mincemeat out of the auditor general's report? No, not at all. We are in a situation, particularly in the lower mainland, where we have the equivalent of a small city arriving each and every year. The expansion, the growth, is unbelievable, so in the context of expansion and meeting the needs of a changing population, criticism is due. There is no question about that. The fact, though, which I find significant, having had experience in
[ Page 5130 ]
other areas of government, is that this corporation actually welcomed the auditor general's report. To me that was brave -- courageous, I might say -- because they worked very closely with the auditor general as the auditor general was doing the investigation and the report. In fact, in my private briefing with the auditor general, he and his staff made it very clear to me that they had received unprecedented cooperation from B.C. Transit in the auditor general's report, because we needed to address the same concerns that the auditor general targeted, as well.
Are we moving forward on the recommendations of the auditor general? Absolutely. Is there anything that we would quibble with? Minor stuff, very minor stuff -- nothing that needs to in any way affect the public debate. In fact, I would say that we accept almost universally the auditor general's report and are moving forward. I might say it is very difficult to shift a huge and growing beast to meet the public's needs, but we're very committed to doing so.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the committee might, noting the time, rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.