[ Page 7139 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. L. Boone: Unlike some members of this House, this is in fact the first time that I've had an opportunity to introduce somebody in this Legislature who is actually from my riding. I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to introduce somebody who is not only from my riding -- Prince George -- but who also works within my ministry: Margaret Doyle, a 25-year recipient, and her husband Robin Ebert. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is also my pleasure today to introduce some people from my riding. Down here today from Ladysmith are Gillian and John Ames. Accompanying them, I believe, is Mrs. Ames's sister from Fort Nelson, Gerry Young. I would ask the House to please make these three people welcome.

C. Clark: Joining us today in the members' gallery is the executive of the SFU Young Liberal Club. Rick Sousa is the president. He's joined by the rest of his executive: John Panago, Dean Pogas, Mike Easton, Kim Haakstad, Sophia Wong and Afiya Khan. I hope the House will make them welcome.

G. Abbott: It's my pleasure today to introduce a very special constituent from the Shuswap, my mother Irene Abbott, who is here for the first time to see me participate in this assembly. She's here, among other things, to visit my aunt, Lily Spencer, from Victoria. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the pleasure to welcome special guests from Japan, who are here today to inspect the site of the upcoming Dohyo Iri ceremony near the Legislature on June 5. That event will launch the Sumo Basho in Vancouver on June 6 and 7, at the Pacific Coliseum. The hon. members will recall seeing a Dohyo Iri ceremony at the opening of the Olympic Games in Nagano earlier this year. Will the hon. members please welcome Mr. Yamada, the master Edagawa from the Japan Sumo Association; Mr. Okabe, from TV Asahi; and Mr. Mitsueda, from Japan Travel Corporation. Arigato, hon. Speaker. I ask the members to welcome our friends from Japan.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are Ms. Hendricks and Ms. Leslie Petrie. Along with them are ten members of the Vancouver Island Head Injury Society, a very worthwhile group in our community. I ask that the House make them very welcome.

C. Hansen: My colleague from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has introduced the executive of the SFU Liberal Club. I have to go back 16 years to a time when I was president of the UVic Liberal Club. In that vein, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the current president of the UBC student Liberal Club, Alex Johnson. Will the members please make him welcome.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have 32 young visitors, grades 7 and 8, with several adults and their teacher Mr. B. Hughitt and his colleague Mr. Burkhart -- and some other teachers, I believe -- from Petersburg Middle School, of The Dalles, Oregon. Please welcome them.

T. Stevenson: With us today are two friends of mine who are seniors who used to live in Vancouver-Burrard. Max and Clara Halber were very active in my election campaign. Unfortunately for me, they have moved to Victoria-Hillside, where they are sure to be active in that campaign when it comes. I would ask the House to make Clara and Max Halber welcome.

G. Wilson: In the House today is Mr. Garner Stone. Mr. Stone is the president of the Parksville-Qualicum riding association for the Progressive Democratic Alliance. Would the House please make Mr. Stone welcome.

J. Doyle: Today I'm pleased to have three guests in the galleries. First of all, there's Wayne Peppard from the Plumbing and Pipefitting Union. Wayne was also my campaign manager in the last election. With Wayne is Lee Loftus, from the Heat and Frost Insulators Union. Last but not least, a very regular visitor to this House is Tom Sigurdson, the executive director of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. Please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Sitting in the members' gallery today is Marcus Hollander of Hollander Analytical Services here in Victoria. Mr. Hollander provided my staff with valuable advice on evaluation processes for studying the proposed rural health care travel points initiative. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I recognize in the House today somebody who is very special to me, and I suspect all members will be able to relate to that when I introduce Susan Baker, who is my executive assistant and who was formerly my constituency assistant for about ten years. I haven't introduced Susan in this chamber for about ten years, and I do so now because (a) she is here and (b) I would like to be able to provide her with a copy of Hansard that she can show to her grandchildren, who didn't exist when she was here last time to be introduced. Colleagues, please join me in welcoming my dear friend Susan Baker.

Introduction of Bills

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT

L. Stephens: I move that a bill intituled Domestic Violence Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Domestic violence often goes unreported. However, when women do reach out for help, particularly from the criminal justice system, they frequently find that the system fails to offer the help they need. Current laws and policies concerning domestic violence are too lenient, creating the illusion that domestic violence is not a serious offence.

This bill is modelled on the Saskatchewan legislation, which has been very successful, and will allow victims of domestic violence greater access to the protection of the justice system through the use of a justice of the peace. The removal of the offender from the home, the use of emergency intervention orders, a victim assistance order and provisions for the respondent to be restrained, removed and/or to attend counselling or therapy are also included in this bill.

[ Page 7140 ]

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

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

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 10, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. This bill amends a number of statutes: Correction Act, Infants Act, Milk Industry Act, Motor Vehicle Act, Municipal Act, Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act, Parole Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and Provincial Court Act. Of course, I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 10 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE CAPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I move that this bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

[2:15]

These amendments will mean that more small businesses will have access to the program so that they in turn can create more jobs for British Columbians.

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

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

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

I am pleased to introduce the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, which amends the Mortgage Brokers Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. The primary purpose of this bill is to enhance investor protection. The amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act provide stronger regulatory tools in response to the growth and increased complexity in the mortgage market in recent years. The Mortgage Brokers Act amendments add new mandatory disclosure to investors of information that is material to the investment decision of investors, clarify existing disclosure requirements for borrowers, and require disclosure of conflicts of interest to both borrowers and investors.

The amendments also strengthen and modernize the Mortgage Brokers Act to make it more consistent with other acts regulating the financial sector by providing more precise regulations and enforcement tools, such as increased penalties for offences and a broader array of regulatory sanctions, including administrative penalties.

The bill also provides for improved investor protection under the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. The Real Estate Act is amended to create a real estate special compensation fund to provide protection from wrongful conversion of trust moneys held by real estate licensees. The real estate compensation fund complements the existing industry-run real estate errors-and-omissions insurance for negligent acts of licensees, and it replaces the bonding requirement for agents under the current act.

The Securities Act amendments are intended to protect investors by providing uniform regulation with other jurisdictions. The Securities Act is amended to make the reporting period for insider trading and the rules respecting takeover bids uniform with other jurisdictions, and to ensure that investors in insurance products and segregated funds are protected by the Securities Act in the same manner as mutual fund investors.

Hon. Speaker, these amendments represent a significant improvement in investor protection under the Mortgage Brokers Act, the Real Estate Act and the Securities Act. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Point of Privilege

It is important to note that the single allegation, the sole thrust of the written point of privilege, is that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks did mislead this assembly -- not deliberately misled, but simply misled the House. The member opposite, being not only an MLA but also a lawyer, will certainly appreciate that the most telling oversight in his submission is the lack of any argument that the minister deliberately misled the House.

It would be important in your deliberations on this matter, hon. Speaker, to consider that any deliberate misleading

[ Page 7141 ]

Central to the allegations made by the opposition during question period, the evidence around which the member for Matsqui, the Leader of the Official Opposition and finally the member for Richmond-Steveston carefully staged their performance, was the memo dated September 23, 1996. Only during the sixth question was the date of the memo, that vital piece of evidence, brought to light. That evidence was key, because it is a date prior to when the minister was first appointed. All of the questions preceding were asked of the minister in her capacity as minister, as question period is the only available opportunity to ask questions of a minister, and they were answered by the minister in her capacity as minister.

For example, the Leader of the Opposition asked: "My question is to the Minister of Environment as well. Will the minister confirm that she wrote to the Premier?" Indeed, the entire contrivance was premised with a lengthy reading of the annual report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner regarding the conduct becoming ministers.

Once the opposition completed their grandiose, melodramatic rollout of the punch line, once the minister. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat. I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I am mindful, hon. Speaker, of the accurate instructions provided to this side of the House about argumentative submissions with respect to either a point of privilege or a response to a point of privilege. I know that the Government House Leader would not want to run afoul of those instructions.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

I would caution the minister that argument and debating are not generally part of these kinds of statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In response to his comment, I asked my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs what "tautology" is. It is to prove your point by demonstrating it. The hon. member opposite just did that.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, your colleague may be accurate on that point, but the member for Matsqui is accurate on the points he made. So I thank you.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Once the minister was aware that the question was with regard to her conduct as a private member -- indeed, conduct prior to her appointment as minister -- she responded honestly and clearly, stating: "In my capacity as MLA for the area, I did contact my cabinet colleagues and lobby them heavily on the matter of Six Mile Ranch." Hon. Speaker, if there was any effort yesterday to mislead the House, either intentionally or perhaps in an unconscious state, as is sometimes the case on the opposite side of the House, the blame rests squarely. . .

The Speaker: Argumentative.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .with whomever orchestrates and manipulates the opposition question period. They deserve the credit for doing such a manipulation, but it was not, in any way, a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

Hon. C. McGregor: Not to my knowledge.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui for a supplementary.

M. de Jong: To the same minister: has the minister ever participated in any cabinet meeting or cabinet committee meeting where the Six Mile project proposal was discussed, either directly or indirectly?

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. members. The minister and the member may be well aware that members are not required -- and ministers particularly -- to respond about events and activities within cabinet meetings.

The member for Matsqui for a second supplementary.

M. de Jong: To the same minister: has the minister ever formally absented herself from any cabinet meeting or cabinet committee meeting, being mindful. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will wait until the question has been completed.

M. de Jong: Has she absented herself from any cabinet or cabinet committee meeting that dealt with the Six Mile proposal, recognizing the statutory obligation to disclose such absences?

The Speaker: My understanding, hon. member, is that that, too, is an inappropriate question.

C. Clark: My question is also for the Minister of Environment. Has the Minister of Environment ever formally filed a conflict-of-interest disclosure exempting her ability to discuss the Six Mile Ranch proposal, as required under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act?

Hon. C. McGregor: There would be no basis for me to make such an application.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for her first supplementary.

[ Page 7142 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Around the date that the member notes, I did direct my deputy minister to take on direct responsibilities related to Six Mile Ranch decisions related to my capacity as Minister of Lands. I did that with an abundance of precaution, because I believed there may have been a perception of a conflict of interest. I believe, in retrospect, that I probably acted prematurely. I didn't receive any advice from anyone before I made that decision, but I did discuss it with my deputy minister. I did ask her to take on delegated decision-making, and I did ask her to report those matters to my colleague the Minister of Education.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for a second supplementary.

C. Clark: If it is a matter of perception, why didn't the minister declare her conflict on the first day that she was appointed to cabinet, particularly in view of the memo that she sent to the Premier asking him to intervene politically on her behalf?

Hon. C. McGregor: As a new minister, I believe I erred on the side of caution in this matter.

The Speaker: I would like to observe. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

I'd like to observe that parts of this debate and these questions and answers are the subject of the privilege point that was made earlier, so I would hope that you would leave some of that for the Speaker to reply on.

[2:30]

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. During her time as minister, has she ever directly contacted her regional staff in Kamloops with regard to the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: From time to time I meet with my regional director, and the matter of the Six Mile Ranch has been discussed.

The Speaker: I'm going to move now to the member for Peace River South.

NORTHERN B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I will commit to review that and get back to him as quickly as I can. People do deserve to have access to emergency service.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, if the province of British Columbia were to enter into an agreement with Alberta to service communities in the northeast, including Tumbler Ridge, Fort Ware and the Tsay Keh, they could in fact do that more cheaply than by providing their own air services. The province of Alberta maintains appropriate aircraft in Grande Prairie and the town of Peace River. Will the minister commit today to investigate that option, which would dramatically improve air ambulance service for workers and families in small, remote communities? Will the minister at least make the commitment today to examine the possibility of contracting this work to the province of Alberta?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I will. I will make a commitment to look at anything that makes access by ambulance, including air ambulance, easier for people in the north.

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

Hon. C. McGregor: The matter of Six Mile Ranch was something that I was interested in well before February 6, 1998, and there are likely to be many conversations that I had with many people in the community on that matter, including members of my regional staff.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui for a supplementary.

M. de Jong: The minister also alluded only a moment ago to her decision -- "out of an abundance of caution" I think were the words she used -- to step aside from this file because of a perception of a conflict. What was that conflict?

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, there is no conflict. I do agree that. . . . I believe I erred on the side of caution. I was a new minister. I was trying to be particularly cautious about an issue that had become highly political, and I wanted to be able

[ Page 7143 ]

G. Plant: Since the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! We've got to hear the question.

G. Plant: . . .is apparently of the view that there was no conflict or apparent conflict on February 6, 1998, or before then, is she saying that she is now discharging and has since then discharged duties as minister that have involved the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, it's a bit painful listening to this fishing expedition and this mudslinging from the members opposite. As the Premier said yesterday, MLAs advocate for issues in their constituency, and they ought to be proud of writing letters -- and, in fact, signing their own names. Isn't it curious that when the MLA for Prince George North works for his constituents and works to save 150 jobs, the mudslingers over there attack him? When the MLA for Kamloops works for her constituents, the mudslingers over there attack her. Do those members over there work on behalf of their constituents, I wonder? What have they got against jobs in rural parts of this province? They should get off this phony line of questioning.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston for a first supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Plant: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. I think I'll try it again. Since the minister is of the view that there was no conflict, notwithstanding her original public statement that there was, has she discharged her duties as minister since February 6, 1998, in respect of the Six Mile Ranch proposal?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I've answered the member's questions.

C. Clark: This is also to the Minister of Environment -- and I should remind members of the government that working on behalf of a constituent as a backbench MLA is entirely different from representing an issue when you are a minister of the Crown. I will ask the minister: during her tenure as minister, has she ever discussed the Six Mile project with Pagebrook or any of its employees or representatives?

Hon. D. Miller: Let's remember what we're discussing. The Liberals agreed with the Six Mile development. We are talking about trying to develop the economy and jobs in rural parts of our province. We haven't made a decision. We've gone through a certain process. That will be done in a timely way.

Why do the opposition insist on this political mudslinging? Why do they insist on taking this line, which -- who knows? -- may potentially jeopardize, in the future, these kinds of projects in rural B.C. I think they should think about their line of attack. The previous questioner hit on the point. As an MLA, the member advocated on behalf of her constituents. If she's guilty of doing something, then she ought to be darn proud of doing that. I'm sure the people of Kamloops are darn proud of their member. They ought to be equally proud. . . . I hope they stand up, because having done that, she is now faced with this vicious mudslinging in this House from the opposition. I think it is absolutely despicable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If there was some order here, then perhaps we could have a question asked -- all right?

C. Clark: Lastly, to the Minister of Environment: can she tell us of the most recent contact she has had with the company called Pagebrook?

Hon. C. McGregor: You know, hon. Speaker, I've tried very hard to treat this line of questioning very seriously, because I don't want anyone to believe that I am in a conflict in any way, shape or form. But I am getting really tired of the kind of questions that are coming from the other side of this House. You bet I've talked to Pagebrook; you bet I've talked to constituents in Kamloops; you bet I've talked to the mayor; you bet I've talked to a hundred people in Kamloops -- thousands perhaps -- on this matter. I have talked on it repeatedly because of the importance it has to my community for job creation and investment. It is part of our plan in Kamloops to diversify our economy, and when the opportunity comes for this government to make a decision on it, I continue to hope that it will be approved.

Ministerial Statements

AGREEMENT WITH BCTF AND EDUCATION FUNDING

Last month the Premier and I announced a major increase in education operating funds. This $105 million increase to core education funding in 1998 and '99 will allow for the hiring of 400 new classroom teachers plus nearly 300 teaching aides and other non-enrolling professional staff, such as counsellors and librarians, over the next year. This brings per-pupil operating funding to $5,849 a year, an average increase of $93 over last year and the highest level of all Canadian provinces.

Hon. Speaker, last week the Premier and I made two more important announcements to build further on our educational commitment. First, we announced funding for new schools, new classrooms and fewer portables -- funding of $338 million to be invested in '98-99 to create 17,200 new spaces for students in British Columbia, nine new schools, 64 school expansions and two major renovations that will go ahead this year. As projects started this year and last are

[ Page 7144 ]

Last Friday, hon. Speaker, the Premier and I joined with the president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation to announce an unprecedented three-year agreement with British Columbia's teachers. Through this agreement, teachers have accepted no salary increase for the next two years in exchange for significant new investments in our schools. When it is ratified, the agreement will lead to the hiring of more than 1,200 additional teachers -- that's on top of the new teachers hired as a result of the operating funding increase. The agreement will also establish, for the first time, provincial standards for lower kindergarten-to-grade-3 class sizes and will result in the investment of $150 million of new funding directly into British Columbia's classrooms. This innovative agreement will make a noticeable difference to our schools and to the educational experience of our children. It marks a renewed partnership that will benefit every child in British Columbia's school system.

[2:45]

Some critics don't have their facts straight. The reality is that, in total, these three announcements are a dramatic step forward for education in our province: 1,900 additional teachers, smaller class sizes, 75 major school capital projects, new spaces for 17,200 students, replacement of 1,500 portable classrooms over five years, a three-year agreement with teachers that provides for no salary increase for two years in exchange for major reinvestments in our system.

This is a bold response to the challenges facing our education system. It's a clear demonstration of this government's commitment to education. It's important for members of this Legislature to know that these important steps have been taken, that this government is acting decisively to follow through on the priorities of British Columbians. I urge all members to support these innovative measures, to support our commitment to education for our young people, to stand with parents and teachers and, most importantly, with the young people whose future depends on our education system.

The Speaker: A response from the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: I stand in this chamber today as a past teacher. I can tell you that I, frankly, find the remarks of the minister opposite unbelievable. No one in their right mind would see this minister as a person of credibility who has stood for education over the past seven years. I have critiqued this minister over a number of years, and I will respond to the political comment he has put in his remarks today.

This is not a government that continues to fund education in the province of British Columbia. This is a government that misleads the public on their budget, that misleads the public on their estimates, that misleads the public on announcement after announcement. Judge people by what they do, not by what they say. This minister has not delivered; I'm not convinced this minister will deliver. When he talks about an increase in funding for students in British Columbia, he knows that's not true. It wasn't true in the riding of Richmond East last year.

The Speaker: Hon. member, will you take your seat, please.

L. Reid: A $72 reduction. . . . He will tell you that that. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat.

L. Reid: . . .is simply not true. I do not accept. . . .

The Speaker: Richmond East, take your seat. When the Chair requests a member to take his or her seat, that is what the member is to do.

Now I am asking the hon. member to pay very close attention to some comments that she made that were, in my view, unparliamentary and not appropriate in a response to a ministerial statement or in this House. I request that you withdraw a couple of those last remarks that you made.

L. Reid: Would the Speaker indicate which remarks she's referring to?

The Speaker: There were some suggestions about the minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I heard the member opposite clearly allege that I was speaking a falsehood. I think that is contrary to parliamentary procedure in this House, and I ask that those remarks be withdrawn.

The Speaker: The hon. minister is correct that those were the words, and that's what I ask that she withdraw.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, the Premier in this House has said that education funding has been reduced.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a withdrawal.

L. Reid: If the minister does not accept. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat, please. The point has been made that it was a particular statement that you made that we are asking you to withdraw. You must do that.

L. Reid: I withdraw it, hon. Speaker, and I will continue.

The Speaker: Thank you.

L. Reid: And again, I will repeat for the benefit of this minister that the Premier has stood in this province and in this chamber and indicated that education funding has been reduced. That is a fact. For this minister to suggest otherwise is unparliamentary.

I do not believe that education is a priority for this government. We do know that there will be additional students coming into this province, perhaps as many as 8,000 this coming year. That is a significant increase, and frankly that will eat up most of the dollars that this minister has men-

[ Page 7145 ]

We are entering a time when education will be operating bare-bones. The minister will tell you that this is about a teacher-student ratio, and he is including every single educator in the system. When we talk about classroom ratios in the province of British Columbia, we talk about the number of students that interact with a single teacher during a classroom day, not the entire system. So again, the minister is attempting to compare apples and oranges -- not prudent, not decent and, frankly, not forthright for the taxpayers of this province. I too want to see a better education system for individuals in this province, but I'm not prepared to accept that this minister has any credibility on these questions, hon. Speaker.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I am frankly astounded that this minister would come into this House and would make reference to what is, at best, an interim agreement on a collective bargaining process that has not been ratified by the two sides at the table. We have not seen in this province, in all the years I've been observing politics, such a gross intervention in free collective bargaining as we have witnessed in this particular round of negotiations. This government, when it sat in opposition, vehemently opposed the move towards centralized, provincewide collective bargaining, because they recognized how difficult it would be for there to ever be an agreement such as the one outlined in this ministerial statement.

What we have seen is that after millions of dollars of expenditure in that experiment, they failed to. . . . At the request of BCPSEA, asking for this government to provide assistance, the Premier's Office directly intervened and got into direct negotiations, as the minister correctly points out in this document, with the BCTF. Nowhere in here does it talk about the B.C. school trustees or parents. Nowhere in here does it talk about the other side sitting at that bargaining table. Nowhere does it talk about local boards which are now going to be faced with having to implement this agreement. The reason it doesn't is because this agreement has not been fully explained, nor has it been ratified by the other parties to the negotiations.

This is a shameful, shameful intervention in free collective bargaining, notwithstanding what the documents may say in terms of its numbers. I think there can be a dispute made in future discussions as to whether or not this is a good deal or a bad deal. This government is supposed to be in favour of free collective bargaining -- unfettered and without the intervention of government. What we have seen here today is a most horrendous intervention in the free collective bargaining process. I would hope, in reference to this minister's statement today, that what the government will acknowledge is that provincewide collective bargaining is decisively dead and that they will move back to bargaining at the local school board level.

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK

This week has been set aside across this country. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry to hear the members opposite mocking my appointment as minister responsible for volunteerism. There are thousands of volunteers in our community. That was indeed unfortunate.

This week has been set aside across this country to honour the thousands of women and men of all ages and in every community who donate their time and energy to making their communities a better place to live. Indeed, I think you can argue that the strength and prosperity of our communities depends upon volunteers. Services such as libraries, museums, service groups, arts, culture and recreation benefit from the work and dedication of volunteers. We see things from seniors' peer counselling, where seniors counsel seniors, to youth working with youth. In every instance, volunteers make a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

I want to give an example of volunteerism in partnership with government. In my ministry, the Ministry of Human Resources, over 5,000 volunteers based in 120 communities around British Columbia take part in the emergency social services program. These people assist communities and individuals when they face emergencies, including everything from a house fire to some sort of natural disaster. Volunteers also add to the quality of life for our youth -- our future in our communities. Thousands of children in this province are involved in sports activities that help them develop their skills and self-confidence. These activities simply wouldn't take place without the dedication of thousands of volunteers, who set up the sports fields on Saturday morning or who turn up after a hard day at work to practise with the kids. Volunteers create much of what makes our communities the wonderful places they are to live, and they are essential to the fabric of our society.

Volunteerism is also an engine that fuels the economic prosperity of our communities. For many people, volunteerism can be a valuable first step in gaining the skills that lead to a job. Business is attracted to communities where people work together, where opportunities exist for our children and for our youth. Active citizen involvement in community life makes for strong communities, and that is key to strengthening our investment climate and economy.

As we celebrate national volunteer week this week in every one of our communities, let's recognize, celebrate and, above all, thank the thousands of volunteers who donate their time, their skills and their expertise to making our province an even better place to live.

The Speaker: I recognize, in reply, the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: Sorry, hon. Speaker, not in reply. I stand to raise a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: Oh, all right. Proceed, please.

[ Page 7146 ]

Point of Privilege

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: Sadly, the member for Vancouver-Burrard isn't here and may well wish, then, to reserve his right to respond. I would just point out, however, that the literature on privilege is very clear indeed: matters that are not stated on the floor of the House -- i.e., that are not Hansardable -- are not matters of privilege. Comments made sotto voce behind the benches are not part of the parliamentary record.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, may I ask if you are playing the role of Government House Leader?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was, hon. Speaker. I'm sorry I neglected to say so.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Chilliwack on another matter. The other matter has been. . . . I've heard the degree to which arguments have come forward and points have been made. A right has been reserved. I will hear that and then will make a response. But at this point, no further debate is allowed.

B. Penner: It's not debate; it's a point of clarification. I will send you, Madam Speaker, a copy of the tape.

The Speaker: All right. That's materials as required.

I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock.

[3:00]

VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK
(continued)

While I support the spirit of and the words in the minister's statements, I am concerned by the many stories which I have heard from many volunteers all across this province -- stories about the disbanding of volunteer hospital boards, stories about the disbanding or the risk of disbanding so many volunteer boards in so many of the non-profit sectors, and concerns with respect to the seizing of their assets. Volunteers really are the fabric of our communities, the people who bring our communities together and make it happen. So many of these boards and societies have been generated out of personal commitment and out of personal need. They have been initiated to provide services which are now being rolled in and taken away from these people and from the commitments that they have put forward.

I'm pleased to hear that the minister is planning on making it a priority to consult with the people in the communities on ways to promote citizen involvement and wants to give the community-services sector a stronger voice in the policies and programs that affect voluntary action in this province. I truly believe that we must take further action within that area. The reflection of the quality of life in a community is based on the strength and the involvement of its volunteers, from Girl Guides through Little League and on to a myriad of other services and activities. We must encourage these programs, we must encourage the volunteers, and we must ensure that they are recognized, that they are appreciated and, indeed, that they are supported. I trust that we will this day and throughout the year reflect upon their valuable contributions and ensure that we do the best we can to provide policies and practices which will support and enhance their involvement, rather than reducing or diminishing them.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to respond.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, volunteerism is important in our province and in our society. I think all of us here, at least prior to coming here, have been actively involved with volunteer organizations. Most of our families and some of us are still involved with volunteer work. We recognize how much volunteerism adds to the quality of life in British Columbia.

I want to start by joining with the minister in recognition of the contribution made by them. I must say, however, that coming from this government, one has to wonder whether or not this is a sincere outreach to the volunteer sector or whether it is simply some damage control because of the great number of volunteers who are moving away from that activity in our province. Hospital boards, which traditionally were vigorously involved in fundraising activities and enhancing the quality of health care in the community, find themselves disbanded and their property seized. That's a tribute to volunteerism? Let them work for 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 years to accumulate properties -- hospitals, homes -- and then seize them from them. That's the way to recognize them? That's the way to give them some profile in the community?

When we look at the charities sector with respect to gaming, one of the things that charities were very much involved in was volunteers going down and running bingos and casinos and other kinds of activities. What do we see? New legislation that cuts volunteers out entirely, turns it over to professional casino workers. That's a tribute to volunteerism? That's support for volunteerism? Madam Speaker, it rings hollow coming from this government; it lacks sincerity.

I want to say again that I think most people recognize the contribution, but it is a bit of a bitter pill coming from this government and this minister. I think of the number of times in the last six or seven years that volunteers have come forward and offered to provide services that would cut the cost of government. What happens if one job is threatened as a

[ Page 7147 ]

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, as I was not in the House this morning at the time the member raised his motion of privilege, I'd like to take the time to review his remarks in Hansard. I would like at this time to reserve my right to respond to the point of privilege at a future date.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That's permitted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have a small novel I could read here, but I won't attempt to put in too much detail on the front end. I'm sure members have a number of questions, and it's in those question and answers that we can explore some of the issues relative to the ministry. I would rather just briefly say that the government, obviously, has made some significant moves with respect to the Energy and Mines portfolio. The first -- and, to some degree, symbolically very important -- was the re-creation of a stand-alone ministry responsible for energy and mines. Because of the smaller size of cabinet last year as we dealt with some very tough issues, we had to roll a number of portfolios together. I have actually held the portfolio for Energy and Mines since the re-election of the government, and I'm delighted that it's now once again a stand-alone ministry.

Members will be aware that we announced some significant initiatives both in this chamber and outside this chamber this week: namely, the agreement with the mining industry on a variety of initiatives, which we think will serve in good stead in terms of trying to stimulate more exploration, particularly in mining in British Columbia, and a variety of incentives with respect to tax and regulation, which was very well received by the mining sector. I was delighted to listen to some of their comments and to see the reporting that took place. I think all members would agree that it's very important that British Columbia position itself as a jurisdiction that is friendly to the mining sector and that is interested in having exploration dollars and development dollars spent in our province. It's not just my opinion, but it seems clear from the response of industry that they were also very pleased with the initiatives that we've worked on together. I look forward to working with that sector and, hopefully, to seeing more projects come on stream in our province.

There has been some fairly good mining activity over the past number of years, with two new mines opening last year. It's no secret that those two new mines -- one owned by Princeton, the Huckleberry project south of Smithers, and one owned by Imperial Metals, the Mount Polley project east of Williams Lake -- were welcome additions to the mining industry and welcome additions to the employment base of communities like Williams Lake and Smithers. Both of those mines are experiencing difficulty. In fact, the two companies have merged. That's finally been agreed to by the boards of directors and the shareholders, I believe. It will create a stronger entity, and in terms of global competition these days, I think that is a good thing. Both of them are very good companies. I look forward to continuing to work with them. They have proceeded to the Job Protection Commission to see whether or not we can work together to try to reduce costs in this current very difficult operating environment. If we can do that successfully, then both of those projects will continue to operate. If we cannot, for whatever reason -- if the market deteriorates even further. . . . It has, actually, and I'll speak in a moment about that. If we can't close the gap between their current prices and prices in the current world economic forecast, then there may be a period where they'll have to close for some period of time.

The copper and gold markets have both been very volatile; both have seen dramatic reductions. Copper, which enjoyed a price in excess of $1 throughout the last couple of years -- it varies -- took a pretty significant drop to the mid-70-cent range and is now starting to move back up. It has sort of bounced around from 83 cents to 85 cents, even as high as in the 86-cent range. The long-range forecast, or at least to the end of the decade, is for no significant improvement on that price. In fact, it is in the 80-cent range, I guess, to the end of the decade. Forecasters have been proven wrong, whether it's on the upside or the downside. So with any luck on the market side, we'll continue to see those projects. . . . They're also impacted by the price of gold. Again, I think one of the projects was predicated on a forecast price of about $3.98 or $3.89 -- something in that range. With gold now at $3.10 or thereabouts, you can see that the anticipated return to service debt is very, very challenging. We'll see what may develop with respect to those two operations in particular.

Similarly, the Kemess project, a very significant project in northern B.C., has also experienced difficulty, particularly with respect to the capital costs. I must say that I give absolute credit to Ms. Witte of Royal Oak for her tenacity with respect to trying to keep going on the project and to raise additional funds. She's been able to do that, and I certainly wish her all the best with respect to completing that and having that mine open as well -- again, opening in the face of some very, very difficult market conditions.

[3:15]

[ Page 7148 ]

On the oil and gas side, we have been working not only with CAPP, the petroleum producers, but with the municipal and regional governments in northeastern B.C. in an attempt to get an agreement to satisfy issues that they've identified -- the so-called Fair Share. We've signed a memorandum of understanding with the Treaty 8 bands in northeastern B.C., again with the intention of trying to develop better processes in terms of the applications that are received for oil and gas drilling.

Oil and gas has been a bright spot in the province, with a considerable increase in the level of activity -- some $1.7 billion invested in British Columbia last year. All the forecasters suggest, particularly with the Alliance Pipeline moving forward. . . . There was some good news again today. I think a major project for a gas pipeline in the U.S. has now been shelved. It seems to me that that boosts the potential for the prospect of Alliance succeeding. They're in the National Energy Board process, and so we await that with anticipation. Clearly the potential with Alliance Pipeline means that there can be significant new activity in the northeast. That line has to be filled, and I understand that net-backs to producers, etc., will improve over time.

So we can see that in both the mining and the oil and gas sectors, there is lots of potential. It's not bad to do this, particularly on the mining side: at the bottom of the cycle, take advantage of hopefully, a rising tide in the future.

We have also brought in other initiatives. Last year, it was Power for Jobs, which, we are attempting to use to lever investments into the province to create even more employment, whether that be in aluminum smelting or in other types of projects.

I also have responsibility for -- and as a northern MLA, I was delighted to have the Premier ask me to take this on -- the Northern Development portfolio. It's not a portfolio that has staff. We will be working with northerners.

Members, be aware that following the Premier's summit in Prince George in October last year. . . . There was general agreement, first of all, that the summit was a very good exercise. I think northerners were pleased to be consulted. They made it clear that they want to be listened to. They don't want Victoria to tell them what to do, but rather they want to be listened to, and they want to have the resources to look at issues that they might drive. The advisory committee that I put together, not only to put the conference in place but to follow-up, was asked to go on the road to consult with northerners on the form of an agency that might suit the needs of northerners. They've reported back; they've recommended a commissioner model. I've committed to following up on that, and I anticipate that we may be debating that issue in the form of a bill, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. That will provide an agency, a very small one, listening to what northerners say -- not a big bureaucracy, but a small agency with some capacity to focus on the needs of the north and to drive the agenda that's developed in northern B.C.

There is a fair amount of excitement on that question. Whether I talk to university presidents -- as I did this morning, to Charles Jago from the University of Northern B.C. -- or to others in the business sector and aboriginal sector, there is a fair amount of excitement. As a result of the kind of focus we're putting on northern B.C., particularly this year, we are able to allocate. . . . I really want to thank my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways. A significant allocation of the Highways budget was made to northern B.C. this year. Again, northerners seem to be responding in a very positive way to those announcements.

There are all kinds of other things I can talk about with respect to the north and ideas that northerners and I have in terms of how we can pursue objectives to expand the northern economy. We're working on transportation initiatives. We signed an agreement last October between B.C. Rail and CN Rail. Finally, after two decades, we've solved the interchange problem in Prince George between those two railways. We are working on a further initiative where they intersect in other parts of northern B.C.

We think that there is huge potential on the agricultural side for the further development of the agricultural sector in northeastern British Columbia and further potential to see significantly more product moved through the northern rail transportation system and out through the port of Prince Rupert. That port, as members may be aware, is some 600 kilometres closer to the Asian markets. That's a full day's sailing time. In terms of time, it's a significant saving. It's an outstanding, unimpeded corridor, and it's a very efficient port, capable of handling a diverse cargo: grain, coal, lumber and other products. For the first time, this year they actually have some reasonably significant inbound cargo: some steel for the very significant pipeline work that's being done in Canada. We're going to continue to work, as we are now with the government of Alberta, on a joint task force to look at ways in which we can enhance the throughput on the rail line and out through the port of Prince Rupert. So there's some exciting ventures that we will be collaborating on with northerners. To the degree that it's possible, we want to take these made-in-the-north ideas, to work with northerners and, as I said, to try to expand the economic opportunities.

We've had some very controversial issues in northern B.C., not the least of which was this government's very serious attempt to try to assist in saving the economy of northwestern B.C. I know that's been opposed by members opposite, and while it's not technically under my ministry. . . . Well, maybe they don't want to bring it up, but just to kind of illustrate the kind of efforts we're prepared to make, particularly in the rural parts of our province, where the economy is still very much commodity-based, resource-based, there are diversification strategies. But it's important to maintain that core industry, that fundamental core of your economy, and to maintain employment, and we're going to work very, very hard with northerners to see if we can not only maintain but expand opportunities.

I think I've talked longer than I actually planned, but not quite as long as the speech might have led me to do. So with that, I'll take my place and try to answer some questions.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I recognize the hon. minister for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Thank you for calling me a minister, but I'm already. . . .

The Chair: I apologize, member.

Hon. D. Miller: It might be as close as you get.

[ Page 7149 ]

Just in response to the minister's opening remarks and to put on the record how we hope to deal with these issues that are in your portfolio, the critic for the Mines portion is the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who is sitting beside me. He will be leading the estimates debate on the mining industry. I will take the energy industry first, as we're going to do it right now. I will also bring forward questions on the Northern Development part of your portfolio. The two Crown corporations. . . . I will be dealing with B.C. Rail issues, and the member for Richmond Centre will be dealing with the Ferries debates when we finally get to them.

Just as a bit of a response to the minister's introductory remarks, I want to say, having lived and worked in the north pretty well all my life, both in Fort Nelson and in Fort St. John, that I really appreciate living in the north. I think I understand some of the difficulties that northerners face and have faced over time, over years.

The minister talked about making some significant moves. We're going to talk a little bit about some of those moves that he feels are significant. When we talk about the mining industry, and the minister talks about new mines -- Mount Polley, Huckleberry, Willow Creek. . . . That's all fine and well to say. But all those mines are experiencing. . . . Willow Creek is just being developed, so it's probably unfair to include that one, but the other ones are all having some tremendous difficulties operating in this environment. Now, I will concede that part of the equation is the price for their concentrate; there's no two ways about that. But one of the huge parts of the equation is the regulatory burden that has been imposed on the mining and oil and gas industries -- and the taxation problems that have been imposed on these industries. It's really taxation and regulation that have been brought forward just recently -- in fact, as recently as since the NDP became government. If we look back prior to that, there were some discussions about regulatory burdens and some taxation problems, but nothing like we've witnessed since this government came to power.

I say with all respect to the minister, a person who has lived and worked in the north most of his life, that all of a sudden, I guess after winning the second term, then realized that there is a northern British Columbia and that northern British Columbia deserves something. It's unfortunate that it took almost five years for this administration to actually start responding to some of the needs of the people in the north.

I could go on and on and list all the things that have taken place, but one that will always remain with me from my constituency is the state of our rural roads. You know, it's fine to stand up in the seventh year of the administration and talk about how you're going to put $11 million into the constituency of Peace River North, which has 6,000 kilometres of gravel road, and say: "We're really looking after things." Unfortunately, those roads went to ruin in the earlier years of your administration. Not once did you listen, not once did the Minister of Transportation and Highways listen, and neither did the Premier. I guess it was directed at looking after the southern part of the province -- and how much revenue you could get out of those industries. That's exactly what took place. That's just a few years ago.

The other thing that the minister talked about, and the bright spot, is the oil and gas industry. He's been the minister responsible for oil and gas for two years, I think, and now he starts talking about an investment of $1.7 billion a year. That's actually been going on for a while. But to get some recognition for the ministry was pretty tough. In fact, this government even eliminated it -- absolutely rolled the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources into another ministry. That's how much, I guess, this government thought about that industry in 1996.

My first question for the minister, after having said that, is that. . . . When you eliminated or amalgamated that ministry with another one in 1996, you sent out a huge negative message not only to the mining industry, of course, but to the oil and gas industry. That, coupled with ministers of the Crown coming to the North Peace and saying that the oil and gas industry was just a cash cow for the government of the day, didn't leave too good a taste in the mouths of people from the north. Ignoring it, using it, not investing back in it were very negative. Now this government is trying to go out and say how much they really care about the mining industry. I'll give them credit: they brought in a bill that the mining industry is quite happy with. But you had to bring the mining industry almost to its knees, and then you responded with some positive stuff. That's the problem.

So maybe the minister could tell me, for my constituents, the reasoning behind the reinventing of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development, as it's called now, from what it was two years ago.

[3:30]

With all due respect, I really think the member is right. Quite frankly, I want to go back further than two years ago. Let's go back 20 years and ask ourselves why, over 20 or even 30 years -- my party was not in power for most of that time -- those kinds of issues were neglected badly. Perhaps really all I'm saying is that the past is the past, and all of us can look at the past and take our own particular slant on why things weren't done.

I prefer to be prospective. I would only point out. . . . And I'm not standing here claiming credit on the government's behalf for the activity of last year. But we were in power; we were the government. If we and if things were so bad, then why was there a 25 percent increase in wells drilled in northeastern B.C. in 1997 over 1996? Most governments would stand up and have the trumpets blare and say: "We've done a great job." I'm not doing that; I'm just citing the statistics. The highest number of wells drilled in a year in the province's history -- 583 wells -- were drilled in 1997, an all-time high with respect to the sale of oil and gas rights.

The best-kept secret in B.C. is that the unemployment rate in the North Peace regional district is 3 percent or thereabouts -- 3.1 or 3.3 percent. The industries up there are having a heck of a time recruiting and hiring people to work in the industry. I venture to say that most other regions of the province would be quite envious of having that same condition.

But the member is absolutely right; there are serious problems. And we are moving. I suspect that we will see an announcement very, very soon of even further initiatives of the government. Half of the Highways budget this year was allocated to northern B.C. The comments from elected municipal and regional officials in northeastern B.C. were very, very positive, and I'm pleased about that. In fact, I talked to a number of them this morning on the phone and had a very good conversation.

The reason why the Premier had to take drastic action in the first year of the mandate was to show symbolically that

[ Page 7150 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says: "Too much." I agree. Notwithstanding that, you take those challenges and you do the best you can.

Now, as we come into the second year -- as we look at specific sectors and we look at our job-creation initiatives -- we are moving to follow up on the commitments that the Premier made to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs in British Columbia. That's why moving to a stand-alone ministry with an added responsibility for northern development makes all kinds of sense for northerners, for the mining sector, for the oil and gas sector. We intend to work very hard. As I said to that member when I was at a reception in Fort St. John, I would prefer to work on a bipartisan basis. I know that all northern MLAs really have something in common. They all want to work along the lines that I've talked about, and I'm quite prepared to work on a bipartisan basis. I'm also quite prepared to be partisan, although I prefer the former.

So that's the reason behind it, and I think we're making some progress.

R. Neufeld: Probably the reason you started finally recognizing that northern B.C. is there and that you really desperately need it, is because it's the only part of the province that is making any money for the government of the day. They've brought the rest of industry to its knees around the rest of the province -- specifically the forest industry -- so I guess that bright spot shone bright enough that it's a pot of gold for this government to go to. That worries me to a certain degree. They might be wanting too big a part of the gold.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we'll get on with a few more questions around the ministry. Will the ministry have the same responsibilities given to it that it had prior to its elimination in 1996?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Have any departments at all been eliminated or downsized? If so, which ones?

Hon. D. Miller: Along with other ministries, with the exception of Education, Health and Children and Families, this ministry has taken a budget reduction. This is the second year in a row of budget reductions. Perhaps my staff can give me a percentage in a moment, but it has been reduced, and we have challenged people in the ministry to do more with less. I think that's generally a theme that meets public expectations. I think the public wants us to try to do more.

We're looking at about a $1.7 million reduction, plus a further $1 million, for a total of a $2.7 million reduction over last year.

R. Neufeld: Thank you for giving me the dollar figure. But have any departments of your ministry been eliminated or downsized? If so, which ones?

Hon. D. Miller: The significant reduction on the employment side in the ministry took place last year, so this year I don't think there's any impact on the employment side. It's zero on the employment side. But I do think it's a challenge. It's a challenge in all ministries that have had these kinds of reductions to continue to perform their functions. Everybody has to work a little harder and be a little more creative. I can tell you, just from a corporate point of view, that the people in the ministry are delighted to be back in a stand-alone ministry.

There are some very enthusiastic, very talented people in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. My sense right now, in this early stage of the stand-alone ministry, of some of the initiatives that we are doing is that the staff are very, very excited. I know I've talked to people in the field and people here at headquarters, and there's a renewed enthusiasm and a renewed sense of confidence in the ministry to get out there and do the job.

R. Neufeld: I agree with the minister. There are some tremendously talented people who work for the Ministry of Energy and Mines -- no doubt about it. I'm happy to see that it's back again as a stand-alone ministry and that we can start dealing with this industry, important to British Columbia, in a stand-alone ministry.

The number of FTEs in your ministry has increased, I think, by 25. You say that last year there were major cutbacks, and this year you've added 25. Can you tell me where those individuals will be utilized?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, roughly 25 people. It's a bit misleading, and I'll put it to you this way. While I was the Minister of Employment and Investment, at various times I also had under that umbrella. . . . I was also the Minister of Municipal Affairs, briefly. A memorable term, actually. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, in more ways than one. You can appreciate that while I, as Minister of Employment and Investment, had an office with a certain number of staff, with the creation of additional ministries, I still have that office with those staff, so that ends up being counted as additional FTEs. Do you appreciate the argument I'm making?

R. Neufeld: Yeah.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. So we've identified 25. Seven of those are notionally allocated to the Northern Development portfolio. They've not come on board yet. The additional ones end up representing my office -- the argument I just gave you -- the deputy minister's office, the ADM's office and the office of the director of communications. Part of it is bookkeeping, if I can use that term.

R. Neufeld: If I can, I'll just go back a little bit and ask the minister about the issue around enhancing accountability and performance in the British Columbia public sector. We've both talked about appreciating them very much and that there are great people who work for the ministry, but this is an initiative taken on by your government. I just wonder where you're at with that. Was it in place before, when it was under your other ministry, or is there a plan in place now?

Hon. D. Miller: We did have plans under the old ministry. Obviously, with the new stand-alone ministry and its initiatives, that's part of our economic planning. Yeah, we'll be working on business plans.

[ Page 7151 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Could I have a copy of that, please?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll advise my staff now in the House that any particular papers, plans, etc., that can be shared with the member, we'll make available to you.

R. Neufeld: I guess this is getting on to a bit of the policy. Maybe on the Energy side of your ministry specifically, could you tell me what your policy is? What is the policy of this government? What is your mission statement? How does it relate to oil and gas?

Hon. D. Miller: Our objective -- and I spoke briefly of it in my opening remarks -- is to increase the level of activity in the oil and gas sector in British Columbia. We're going to achieve that through a variety of mechanisms. The most significant will be an agreement that we will reach with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. We're working, as well, on agreements with the Treaty 8 first nations and with the municipal and regional governments on Fair Share. As a result of that, as I say, we hope to increase that level of activity -- not just in and of itself. . . . Quite frankly, economic development has to have a purpose; it has to suit the needs of the public. Clearly, in the case of northeastern B.C., addressing the infrastructure problems that the member outlined in his remarks is the key component of any strategy to ensure that we develop the economy of the province in the best interests of the people of the province.

That's my version of it. I'm not really wanting to recite bureaucratic language around these questions. I like to approach things in a pretty straightforward manner. Let's all go to work and see if we can increase the level of activity and get more jobs and more benefits for people of the province.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, the member might look at -- and probably has looked at -- the results of the Premier's summit. The summit was developed, and the process that was gone through was to break people into sectoral working groups to talk about various sectors -- what the problems were what solutions there were to try to overcome impediments to growth.

Transportation infrastructure was identified as a key issue in northern B.C. While to some degree the basics, particularly the major east-west corridor, are in reasonably good shape on both the rail and the road side, the member is absolutely correct: significant deterioration on the road side is in the northeast -- without identifying particular roads -- and the Highway 37 corridor. There's no question that they need serious attention. Part of that will be dealt with initially by the allocation of one-half of the Highways budget for northern B.C. this year. There will be some additional announcements with respect to money available for road development in northeastern B.C. So stay tuned; I won't give it away here.

Generally, my thought is this: as we look at opportunities to develop the economy of northern B.C., increasingly we have to look at ways in which that increased or expanded economic pie can make a contribution to the infrastructure issues that the member has talked about. There is no set formula on that, quite frankly. As we move forward, I think the oil and gas initiative would be one approach. I'm not certain that there an actual single approach to that question, but in the province generally, unless we can expand the economy, we have a problem with respect to the amount of capital that's available for the projects you identify.

It's a very intriguing question, and I've made speeches outside this House on that point. I've actually advanced a certain premise that I think is logical and that I think would, in an objective way, be supported by economists. In fact, I gained some of the information from articles that I had read, specifically a major article in the Globe and Mail last year, that talked not just from a B.C. perspective but really from a Canadian perspective, about the issue of debt and the ability to invest in infrastructure.

As I say, it is a very challenging question, because B.C. has been challenged more than any other province. Arguably, other provinces have vast geographies, but ours is pretty unique, because we've got a lot of communities around northern B.C. On the prairie provinces, for example, you won't find nearly the population base that you have in northern B.C., at least along the Highway 16 corridor and up into the northeast. We have a very large and tough geography. Your part of the country is one of the most difficult. Soil stability and those kinds of things are huge problems in terms of road and rail construction. B.C. Rail had huge problems last year with sections of their track being taken out of commission and significant dollars that they had to put in.

We've had 500,000 people move to British Columbia over the last six years. That has put tremendous pressure on the government's ability to finance capital projects: schools, hospitals, transportation corridors, roads and those kinds of things. Yet all of us agree that those investments need to be made if we are to realize the economic opportunity that exists; and that's particularly apropos in northern B.C.

Our government had developed a capital program of investing in British Columbia -- investing in new schools, investing in roads, investing in hospitals. We had determined that it was appropriate that the ratio between our gross domestic product, which is really the size of our economy. . . . This is a crude analogy, but nonetheless it's one that I think people understand: if you want to relate that to an individual, it would be the size of an individual's income, or what they earn on an annual basis, and the ratio of that income, that

[ Page 7152 ]

In a theoretical sense. . . . Economists argue, quite frankly, although there is no magic number, that 25 to 30 percent is a reasonable ratio. To illustrate the magnitude of the difference that exists across our country, if we look at the federal government, for example, the ratio at the federal level is 70 percent. Other provinces vary in the 40 to 50 percent range and even higher; I think Quebec may be fairly high. So we can see that we have a distinct advantage in B.C. in that our debt on a per-capita basis or as ratio of GDP is actually the lowest in the country.

There is a reasonable argument, quite frankly -- it meets with fierce opposition from both the opposition party and, I suspect, from the public -- that if we really want to stimulate the economy of B.C. and of northern B.C., we would lift that ratio up. Now, the Minister of Finance this year, as you may be aware, developed a sliding scale. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it's between 19 and 21 percent. I think it's somewhere in there. One could argue that if we really want to forge ahead and build the economy, we have to make investments in basic infrastructure. In northern B.C., it's the highways you talked about; I think they're critical for development.

But you know, there are some other very, very important areas where there are also serious gaps in the highway. To my mind, the information highway, the electronic highway, is equally important in northern B.C. if we're going to be able to take advantage of the new economy and the electronic linkages. These are vital in terms of expanding the economy, which clearly in southern B.C. has led to significant growth in the high-tech industry.

Some elements of that high-tech sector are growing at 20 percent annually. They have a huge problem trying to recruit people with the right skills. I see some young people in the galleries. It's interesting to note that the biggest problem in information technology and the high-tech sector in British Columbia is that there's a shortage of people with the sophisticated technical skills that that industry needs to grow and prosper. We're working with them. My colleague -- and again, the change in ministries. . . . Combining post-secondary education and the high-tech industry together in a ministry was, I think, a marvellous idea of the Premier's. The synergies between those two are significant.

But they do access the information highway; they're part of it.

In northern B.C. I would dearly love to have a huge fund of money so that we could complete those electronic linkages, so that northerners in small communities could also be linked in to that information highway, which is, in many respects in terms of the developing economy, as important as blacktop is on a road. But there are limits on the capital side, so we look for creative ways in which -- for example, stay tuned on the oil and gas initiative -- we can, as a result of new developments and expanding the economy, try to ensure that some of the revenue and some of the economic benefits kept in the region are more and more to address those kinds of issues -- and others.

I'm committing a cardinal sin, here, because I'm eating the clock in my own estimates. My colleagues are going to get me for this. But it's a very, very interesting topic.

R. Neufeld: I don't mind if you prolong your estimates a bit. If you wish to do that, that's entirely your purview.

Some of the issues that the minister brings forward when he talks about debt-to-GDP ratio and those kinds of things. . . . That's fine if you have a debt repayment plan in place that actually works, that you actually live up to. That's how business plans are put together. Your government seems to bring in a budget every year, and you've got a brand new plan on the repayment of the debt. I can remember, going back a number of years, when you talked about in 20 years getting back to where we were when you took office in 1991. You've left that one alone; you went on to others. We've got sliding scales like you wouldn't believe.

I have said in the past that debt. . . . I'm not going to say that all debt is bad. But the difficulty I've always had -- up until we in the northeast finally have the only shining part of the economy in the province of British Columbia -- is that very little of it was spent in the north. And that's the problem.

If you want to talk about the electronic highway, I agree. I don't mind talking about those things. That was something that was announced by the previous Premier, Mr. Harcourt. How many years ago did he talk about the electronic highway? I can tell you that in my constituency, there are all kinds of people who would love to be upgraded to where they would be off the party-line system -- they could use computerization and their farms could actually access the Internet -- and not have six or eight people on one line. If you want to talk about problems in the north with communications and those kinds of things, just north of Fort St. John -- the largest city north of Prince George -- we have switch gear that's 40 years old. That's absolutely unacceptable. How can we get anywhere in building the north?

We will get into technical skills later on. I hope the Minister of Education stays and listens a bit to how we can maybe work on that.

I want to go back a bit to revenue. Over the last number of years -- the minister is correct -- there have been record numbers of wells being drilled. There is a need, a huge market, for natural gas across the province. Any bit of oil that we can find in the north just complements what we have to import now. We don't produce much oil in British Columbia, but we produce some. So there's a huge market out there, along with the Alliance pipeline and use in the south. On Vancouver Island use is increasing all the time. That oil originates from northeastern British Columbia.

[4:00]

[ Page 7153 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure of the member's question. Is he asking how much was spent by the ministry?

R. Neufeld: I'll clarify that a little bit more. A substantial amount of money came into government coffers from the Energy part of your ministry -- some $447 million. How much of that was actually invested back into the industry or into the area that we have just talked about -- all the infrastructure, all the needs -- to be able to keep generating that kind of money? How much money from that ministry was reinvested? Or was all of it brought down here to Victoria and expended out of general revenue?

Hon. D. Miller: The system that's always been in place in the province is for revenue to flow into consolidated revenue and to go out in the form of budget allocations under various ministries. For example, I don't have a tabulation across the ministry of the dollars that might have been spent both on the operating and on the capital side in northeastern B.C., nor do I necessarily think it's worth paying someone to try to get that number. Governments receive revenue from a variety of sources: taxation, natural resource revenue and those kinds of things. And you're right: we did increase the revenue as a result of the private sector's decision to be more active in purchasing oil and gas rights. At the same time, we suffered declines in revenue from some traditional sources -- forestry, most significantly. All of that has to be balanced out against the budgetary allocations under each ministry. There's been an increase in spending in education. Has that benefited the north? I think it has. There's been an increase in spending in health care. Has that benefited the north? I think it has.

If you were to add up all of the expenditures that were made in northern B.C. versus all of the revenue that may be obtained from a variety of sources in northern B.C., I don't know what you'd get. But is it an academic exercise that we're interested in, or are we interested in seeing how we can work in a cooperative way with industry, business and others to grow the economic pie and, at the same time, see that more resources are retained or are available in the north to address the problems that have been identified? That's exactly our strategy. The member is aware of that, and we'll be proceeding with, hopefully, some significant announcements along those lines.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to get into an academic accounting of dollars and cents either, or whether money from the industry benefited Peace River North or not. What I'm trying to get at and what I'm asking the minister. . . . I think he gave me the answer in a fashion, but when you talk about enlarging the economic pie. . . . You talked earlier about how the economic pie has actually been enlarged in the northeast over the last number of years when you talked about the record well-drilling and the record amount of revenue to government. We've enlarged the economic pie, but the other side of the equation hasn't increased with us. That's where I'm trying to get to. How are we going to go about reinvesting into the north?

It's just like a business. You can't just continually pull out of that business all of the money that you absolutely can and not reinvest something into the hard assets of that business so that it can continue to provide revenue for you. Those are some of the things that I'm talking about. Obviously the minister quite understands, because he talks about growing the economic pie. I'm afraid that if we use what I see has happened in the past, with the economic pie growing but with no investment back into the industry and into the ability to produce that much money or more. . . . If we increase the economic pie over the next two years, are we going to be faced with the same thing? Are we still going to be asking the same questions and looking at the same infrastructure and the same services that northerners have now become accustomed to receiving? Is that where we're going to be, even if we do continue to enlarge the economic pie?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we are working on some initiatives, and I guess it's appropriate to say: "Well, why didn't you do it yesterday instead of today?" That's fair enough, but that's not really the subject of debate. That's not to say that there have not been any attempts to deal with issues in northeastern British Columbia or in northern British Columbia generally.

The member talked about the issues around the municipal and regional government. Why is it that this is the only administration in the history of this province that brought in a Fair Share program, which provided $4 million to northeastern B.C.? That had never happened before. It never happened under any previous Social Credit regime that I'm aware of. It happened for the first time under this administration. Why was there never a university built in northern B.C. in the past? It happened for the first time under the NDP in the previous term. It's significant -- a $150 million investment in a new university in northern B.C. I met with the president this morning, and we talked about some very exiting work and ideas that Dr. Charles Jago has with respect to northern B.C. Some of the programs are actually working, in a very creative way, to deliver training in ways that northerners never had the opportunity to have before.

The new college building in Fort St. John -- how old is that? It's not that old, I don't think. It's a magnificent building. I had the opportunity to sit in on a discussion with a number of stakeholders who were working on the development of a training program for oil and gas workers. The new courthouse in Prince George. . . . The new jail is a capital project in Prince George -- a new medium-security facility. There have been some significant initiatives in northern B.C. and in northeastern B.C. My own view is that we need to do more, but it's not to suggest that there has not been any activity at all. In fact, there has been quite a bit, and we're moving in a very cooperative way.

This morning I had just a great conversation with people from Fair Share: the mayor of Fort St. John, Mr. Thorlakson; the mayor of Dawson Creek; the former head of the regional district, Joe Judge; and Karen Goodings. We had an outstanding conversation on some of these issues. We're seeing eye to eye. There's a new spirit of cooperation as we look to the future. So I'll leave it at that.

R. Neufeld: We'll get into the Fair Share issue a little bit later on, and maybe I'll read some of the letters into the record. We'll see if there has been a real change in heart; if so, I'm grateful for it. But up until just recently, I think it was a little bit different.

I don't want to leave things on the record without being corrected. I guess the minister is not aware of some other Fair Share proposals that have taken place in the province. Maybe just to give a little history on it so that he understand it, in Fort

[ Page 7154 ]

There is a program in Fort Nelson that actually goes 130 or 140 miles out of Fort Nelson and taxes the oil and gas industry for services in that community. It's a good program; it works well. That program was in place long before this government came along. I can only say that had it not been for that same gentleman deciding to make a career move from Fort Nelson to Fort St. John and putting forward the same proposal, that wouldn't have taken place either.

So in all fairness, I'm going to give some credit to a very good person who works for the municipal government in Fort St. John, for working hard and actually being the architect of these things. They came along long before you folks got to sit on that side of the House. It has happened before; in fact, it's taking place. It's just that we're having a little bit of trouble in the northeast convincing the minister and the government that it actually is a good deal and that it would work much better if the proper funding were given in Fort St. John.

UNBC -- exactly. I don't have any problem with what the minister said about UNBC. It may have finished construction under the NDP administration, if you want to take credit for it in that sense. We have UNBC because of foresight from some others long before you became government.

I want to go on a little bit. What we're talking about here are roads. Before I get to the estimates, I want to take the minister back to a previous life in the Ministry of Forests, when he was the minister of that portfolio.

Hon. D. Miller: And a darned good one at that.

R. Neufeld: And he says: "A darned good one at that."

In the Ministry of Forests there are allowances given to forest companies for putting main-line roads into where their forest licences are. I think it's a system that works very well; I think it's the way we should be doing some of these things. I've asked other ministers before, and they've always beat around the bush and told me all kinds of reasons they couldn't do it. But it works well in the Ministry of Forests. Now most of the funding for rehabilitating and building those roads has been shuffled off to FRBC, as I understand it. In fact, I'm not sure where it comes from, but it's still out of the Ministry of Forests, and it's reflected in their stumpage rate.

Could there not be much the same kind of system put into the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Northern Development to look not just at the oil and gas industry on its own but possibly the mining industry and how we can deal with some of those issues? There would be a reduction in their royalties or their lease payments -- whatever would make the best accounting process. I think it would alleviate a whole bunch of the problems with roads that we have in the northeast. Maybe the minister could just respond to that, please.

[4:15]

I think that member was in attendance when I visited Fort Nelson in my capacity as Minister of Forests in September of 1993 or 1994 -- somewhere in there -- and might recall the speech I gave at a luncheon that the community put on. The mayor at that time, whose name escapes me at the moment. . . . I said: "Mr. Mayor, there will be a significant investment in a forest manufacturing facility in your community. You've got my word on it." And it wasn't too long before Mr. Barber of Slocan, one of the leading entrepreneurs in British Columbia, followed up and in fact built a $100 million oriented strand board plant in Fort Nelson. I was very, very pleased that that happened. Obviously employment in that kind of manufacturing and industrial base is very important to those communities.

The member really talked in a general way about a tax principle which is essentially forgone revenue, and it's not one that I'm averse to at all. If you can work with the private sector so they will make investments that will lead to permanent jobs, and as part of your ability to work with the private sector you develop a mechanism where there are cost allowances, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Essentially you're dealing with forgone revenue. The argument very simply is: if you did not have that kind of program, would the expenditure be made by the private sector? Now, you've got to watch this broad application of that tax policy, but as a principle I don't object to it at all. I think you have to be careful how you design it. In the past we've seen those kinds of cost-allowance programs: the huge failure on the federal side with research and development tax credits -- badly misused. I've seen them misused in the housing field and the. . . . Oh, what was the program the feds had that failed miserably? It created a whole bunch of holes in the ground and not much else. Essentially, it was a tax-driven program.

So you have to be careful that you get the desired result, but on principle I'm not opposed to it. We announced our mining initiative last week. Clearly part of that was the exploration part of that, and we did announce that we are going to work with the industry over the next couple of months to finalize an agreement on a cost allowance for exploration. If that has an application in other ways, whether that be in the oil and gas sector or indeed other sectors, then I'm very interested in looking at that.

R. Neufeld: Yes, I remember clearly the day you were in Fort Nelson. I was happy that there was a guy by the name of Ike Barber in the private sector, who came up with a hundred million bucks and built a plant there which employs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 people. That's great stuff; that's private enterprise working at its best. I really like that.

In fact, the minister talked about the private sector investing their share and creating permanent jobs for individuals in the northeast. When I talked about a credit being given to. . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I don't know if there is something really funny that I'm saying here. . .between the minister and his staff? I'm just a little bit distracted. Is it joke time or what?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I sincerely apologize. I was talking about something completely different. If I've not been paying attention, I do apologize. So, Mr. Chairman, ask the member to continue.

R. Neufeld: I was talking about the private sector investment part of it and the jobs that go along with it. If we look seriously at giving an allowance to the oil and gas industry or

[ Page 7155 ]

If we go to the forest industry. . . . I'll just use it as an example, because it happens much the same way in the oil and gas industry. I'll use the community of Fort Nelson. Mr. Barber has two plants there. He's got the OSB plant, and he's also got a plywood factory. When they go out to log in the wintertime -- they can only do it in the wintertime -- they have essentially three to four months to do that work. What happens to the community of Fort Nelson during that time is that the population almost doubles, as truckers and logging contractors, rig movers and people that build the leases for the oil and gas industry and their camps move into town. What happens is that for about four months out of the year, those people work absolutely ungodly hours. In that short period of time, the number of hours that they have to work is really quite unfair to those people. After spring breakup, somewhere around the first part of April, most of those people leave and go back to other parts of British Columbia, and Fort Nelson again comes down to its population of about 5,000 to 7,000. Everybody stays at home for a couple of months.

So you can see the kind of social atmosphere that that brings into the whole mix of things. It's not good for families, because men and women are away from home for 16 hours to 18 hours every day, seven days a week, for four months straight, trying to do that work because of the small window of opportunity in winter. That's when the ground is frozen hard enough so that the equipment can get out there to either haul the logs to town or move the rigs out so they can drill the wells. Workers end up working when it's 40 and 50 degrees below zero, because there is a time factor. It affects safety; it affects the home life. It affects children; it affects what happens in the community. If we were to look seriously at the social side of what takes place with that kind of mentality around the industry and think that we can continue that way, I think it's wrong.

I grew up in the oil and gas industry; that's where I started working. I did the same thing. I lived in Fort St. John. Just before Christmas, because I was single, I was sent to Fort Nelson along with many others. I lived in a camp and worked untold hours until springtime came. Then we came back home again. That didn't do anything for building Fort Nelson's infrastructure or the things that they should have in their community to attract people who want to stay.

If you have roads that you can access the resources with -- not totally year-round, because that's impossible, but at least eight to nine months out of the year; you might squeeze in ten sometimes -- you attract private entrepreneurs that want to come to those communities. They want to start businesses, and they want to employ people. You and I both know that if people can have steady employment year-round, they're much happier. It's much better for the system, and it's much better for all of us. In that way, if we use the system I'm talking about -- I know it's forgone revenue -- at the end of the day, when you take all the costs associated with employment and the social side of people being away from home so much and being able to have them in their communities, it would make not just good economic sense to this member but good social sense too.

Maybe the minister can tell me what he thinks of how that would work, if we were to institute that kind of program in the Energy and Mines ministry, much the same as Forests, and start getting some of those permanent full-time jobs in those communities, rather than just having a migratory system up there in the fall, and then they leave again in the spring.

I want to add just one more part to that, which is also on the social side. What seems to happen is that drugs -- something that we all try to fight -- seem to become part of the psyche then. They're used for whatever reason. Alcohol is consumed more. There's nothing wrong with alcohol on its own, used wisely. But it does bring that element into those communities, and that doesn't do anything for policing. Fort Nelson doesn't even have a probation officer. People that are on probation go down to the courthouse and sign on the dotted line that they were there. Maybe we could look at helping those troubled people that are having difficulties. Maybe we can help to try to relieve the drugs.

The other part where the drugs come into my communities -- Fort St. John too -- on a big scale is because of the high wages. There's lots of employment, and there's bucks around. Those people that happen to peddle that kind of thing know where that takes place. I'd like to see it evened out a little bit more. I'm not just asking for a big pot of money. I'm asking for a program that we can start putting into place to look realistically at some of these things, that will benefit and will build the whole economic pie for the province.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the member is very passionate about the issues. I won't seriously attempt to address the issues around the social side. It's not under my purview. I'm familiar with the issues of seasonal work. Certainly in my own constituency, historically -- in the development of the fishing sector -- people came from all the surrounding communities and, in the early days, lived in some pretty terrible conditions. It's interesting that there are some very fond memories of those histories, living in the bunkhouses in Inverness, and the canneries and all the rest. We still have a seasonal industry. Some things you can't completely alter. You know, 100 years ago you could never eat tomatoes in December in British Columbia, but you can now. So things are changing, and we ought to look at that.

We are trying, in a creative way, to deal with. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, really we're trying to deal in a creative way with some of the infrastructure issues. The member is aware that we did announce, on the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road, a fairly unique and creative approach, I thought, which is to take the road under the TFA to do the capital work necessary to bring it up to a certain standard. We are making a contribution of $300,000 this year. Then, when that is done, turn it back in and look at user fees. That's a pretty good way, I think, to deal with an issue.

In fact, I was delighted that the ministry got a letter this March from someone with Mighty Peace Oil Services of Fort St. John. To quote: ". . .I found the high grade road in very good condition, the best I have ever seen it, as I travel up in that area three or four times every winter. I am writing this letter to say thank-you, as the condition of the road will save us and many more companies in maintenance costs on our vehicles and keep them safe while on the road." Now, there are probably as many letters saying it's not very good. But it tells me a little thing: we've tried a creative way; we're making some progress.

[4:30]

[ Page 7156 ]

I think the member raised some good issues with respect to trying to deal with the seasonality of the industry. Obviously you can't completely overcome that; it's the nature of the beast -- and I say that with the utmost of respect. But I do think that we should not simply accept that certain conditions prevail and that you can never change them. I think you've got to work hard.

In terms of the social questions, as I contemplate more and more those kinds of issues and watch what is happening around the province and around the world, I am becoming increasingly convinced, particularly in small communities, that the partial solutions lie with the ability of communities -- and that's a pretty broad definition -- to deal with those kinds of questions. I think it's clear, when we look at the situations that some children find themselves in in this province, that the state simply cannot take the place of individual responsibility and collective responsibility at the community level. It's a challenge. I don't think we have really wrapped our minds around that at the provincial or municipal or other levels of government. It is my strong belief that that's the only way we will resolve some of the social issues and problems that exist in our society. But I'm ill-equipped to deal with that; I'm the Minister of Energy and Mines.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I agree; we don't have a big enough pot of money to look after all the social ills that there are, but we have to look at other ways that we can maybe combat those things. That's just one part of what I've witnessed where I live and in the years that I've lived there. I think there are ways that we can collectively work together to try to alleviate some of those problems.

The minister talked briefly about the Sierra-Desan road, and I do want to touch on the Sierra-Desan road. I also noticed in the estimates manual that you have. . . . I'm going to read out of it: "Grants are provided for resource studies and projects and resource roads. Costs are partially recovered from industry for administration of resource roads." Is that specifically the Desan Road, or are there other roads within your ministry that are industrial roads, much the same as that one?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes.

R. Neufeld: I'd be interested in receiving a copy of the letter that the minister received from Mighty Peace Oil in regards to the quality of the Sierra-Desan road. It was last winter that I spent a considerable time trying to convince some of those same operators not to roadblock the whole road and stop all traffic on that piece of road. In fact, it was quite surprising. They were phoning me on a Friday afternoon. They were going to roadblock it. They were going to dig it up unless something happened to it.

So you're right. I mean, you get a little bit of this and a little bit of that. But having lived in Fort Nelson for as long as I have, I drove the Sierra-Desan road long before it became a high-grade road, and afterwards I had lots of equipment travel it.

To be fair, that person might have written that. I don't know if the minister has ever taken the time to drive the road, but I did drive the road part of the way with a person from the TFA who the minister should speak to and get a different viewpoint of what kind of shape that road's in. It's actually quite unsafe. It's a road that I think your ministry, Energy, should be paying a little bit more attention to in funding.

I appreciate that what's probably going to happen is that we're going to increase the maintenance. I know the minister talked about the $300,000. That's appreciated, because there was about $150,000 prior to that. So that's actually doubling it.

When we talk about the TFA taking over the Sierra-Desan road, we should tell the whole story. What they are is a tax collector. They will actually put a tax on the industry, and it's agreed to with industry -- a fee per well, per seismic job, and so on and so forth -- to come up with about $5 million over a period of time to invest back into this road. This road stretches some 130 miles north and east of Fort Nelson.

When the minister talks about private-public partnerships, as he did earlier, I am wondering if on that road you would be quite willing to kick in your share -- that being another $5 million. I see the same process being used in other parts of the province by your government. A $10 million rebuild to that road would make a lot more sense than $5 million. There's no doubt about it; $5 million is going to help. But you're talking about 130 miles of road that is in absolutely terrible condition at the best of times.

I tell you, people go out there in the summertime. I've had one fellow who had to live in his truck for three days before he could get back to town, because there was a rainstorm. The condition is not good, and it's not safe. I don't say that just so I can get some more money; I mean it. It's a damn mess. It's a disgrace, when you think about the amount of dollars, not just under your administration but under previous administrations, that have come out of that area in oil and gas revenue and taxation revenue.

I want to go on a little bit more about it, but maybe the minister could comment a bit on the private-public partnership and maybe on putting a bigger part of their share -- more than the $300,000 -- into the maintenance end of it.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I've learned not to make decisions on my feet, particularly with respect to major expenditures, so I won't do that.

G. Wilson: When did you learn that?

Hon. D. Miller: When did I learn that, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast asks.

I think it is a good. . . . The member may be exactly right. Certainly I think I qualified my remarks. I did read an excerpt from the letter. I talked about creative ways. . . . With this particular road, what is happening is that the Transportation Financing Authority is taking the road. They are going to spend, I think, $5 million. So they're capitalizing the cost. They're going to bring it up to a certain standard, and then it's going to be turned over back to the users. The money will be recovered through user fees, and we're contributing $300,000. In fact, it's interesting, because when I look at fiscal year '97-98, we had budgeted $200,000, and we spent half a million. Now, I run a great risk by revealing that here in the House, because I might be criticized for overspending the budget and being reckless with the taxpayers' money -- that has happened in this House.

An Hon. Member: What, that you've been reckless? It'll probably happen again.

Hon. D. Miller: And it'll probably happen again. It's interesting that there appears to be some selectivity with respect to when you want to make the argument and when you want to flip the argument on its ear and make the counterargument. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[ Page 7157 ]

That issue, interestingly enough, is being challenged. I didn't take the time to wade through the major piece in today's and yesterday's Times Colonist, but I believe the gentleman, Mr. Scott, who is much more knowledgable than I on these questions, is attempting to make the argument that we ought to book that debt. I believe your party is making the argument that we ought to book that debt. If we were to follow your advice. . . . Let's say it were possible, in a practical sense, to double the level of expenditure from $5 million to $10 million. Using the logic that your party uses in arguing on these questions, we would be obliged to increase the debt of the province by $5 million.

I don't know. I think there are some practical ways. . . . We've tried to do it in this road. It remains to be seen whether the $5 million will do the job or not, but hopefully it will. We seriously want to work on those infrastructure problems in northeastern B.C. and in other parts of the northern part of our province. I'm speaking only for that; other ministers can speak for other parts of the province. I think this is one example that's possible. We've talked about cost allowance as another way in which we could see more money put into infrastructure, into roads. I'm quite open to all kinds of creative ways in which we can try to resolve some of these problems.

R. Neufeld: First of all, maybe I should explain how the TFA system is going to work on the Sierra-Desan road. The government is not capitalizing the $5 million. What's going to happen is there's going to be a contract put out to the private sector to provide $5 million worth of funding to go into the capital upgrading of the Sierra-Desan road. That will be paid back over the five-year term to whomever the private contractor happens to be. The TFA is a collection agency for the revenue stream only. It's not the government that's putting in the $5 million; it's private enterprise that's coming up with the $5 million. That will be paid back over five years. That's how that process works on the Sierra-Desan road. Maintenance of $300,000 per year -- you're correct -- will come out of your ministry. But what I'm asking. . . .

I appreciate what you're saying about debt. I mean, if we really want to talk about $5 million being a huge expenditure, we should think about what happened in the northwest. I guess we'll have time to get into that at some other time. But when we look at some of the ski hills and things like that that have taken place across the province, where there has been public money, or government money, and you've gone and increased the debt, and private money to improve road access and those kinds of things -- infrastructure access. . . . I'm only asking for the same thing. If you want to talk about expanding the pie and about being able to get more revenue out of the oil and gas industry, you're definitely going to get it if you put in some decent infrastructure. That only makes good common sense to me. I can't imagine how anyone can argue against that kind of a process.

I'm still not sure that the minister understands where I'm coming from. If you want to rag on me because I want to increase the debt by $5 million, I'm talking about increasing the economic pie right along with it, and that will be paid back. Maybe the minister would like to comment a bit about that before I ask some more questions about the Desan Road.

Hon. D. Miller: Very briefly, we're happy to look at a creative way in which we can upgrade the road. We did issue a release in March of this year. It may have gone out already with respect to an RFP. That is fairly specific; we intend to bring the road up to a very good standard. The winning firm will be required to upgrade the road to a minimum of six metres in width along its entire length and provide and maintain a smooth, stable gravel surface. We expect each of the competing firms to submit road and bridge upgrading and maintenance plans, a construction schedule and a final cost figure.

[4:45]

R. Neufeld: My understanding is that just east of us, in Alberta, the main roads are constructed in most cases by the oil companies when they're going in to explore for gas and oil. They have to build those roads to a specified standard on a grid system that the government of Alberta actually lays out: "This is how you have to build your roads -- to this standard." When they finish those roads and have gravelled them, what happens is that they revert back to the province -- to, I guess, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or whatever they call it in Alberta.

I'm just wondering if that isn't another avenue. When we talk about public-private partnerships, we're talking about industry actually expending the capital costs to build the road, and then the government, through whatever ministry -- presumably Transportation and Highways -- would become responsible for it. Is that another way that we could be looking at some of these issues in the north? Now, I know that wouldn't encompass all highways or all roads that the oil and gas industry uses, because they have little roads for exploration or what not. But some of the main grid roads could be put into place in proper fashion, planned out and built to a standard so that they will last for a long time. Then it is the responsibility of the government to maintain them after they are brought to that standard.

Hon. D. Miller: I would be happy to pursue that with the member privately, and certainly I think I will be meeting. . . . I just received a letter today from Mr. Paszkowski, a minister -- I think he's still a minister -- in the Alberta government. We're working together on a transportation plan for the northern regions of our province. I'll be happy to talk to him about that.

R. Neufeld: Just one further thing before I leave the Sierra-Desan road. It involves Alberta too. I'm sure the minister has looked on the map numerous times at the location of that road. It runs east of Fort Nelson, over towards the Alberta border. In fact, it's only 60 miles -- maybe 50 miles -- from the Alberta border and then generally runs north, almost. . . . Well, in the wintertime the roads do go into the Northwest

[ Page 7158 ]

What happens is -- and we've talked about this before -- we see a fair amount of poaching, I guess you could call it: coming over into British Columbia on those roads in the wintertime and doing work in British Columbia. Although I don't want to get into a philosophical argument about putting walls up or all those kinds of things, we have to compete on a level playing field. The Sierra-Desan road has a lot of value not just in British Columbia, but there are some huge reserves of natural gas in the Northwest Territories -- in fact, directly north, in Midwinter Lake and up north in that part of the province.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Access to that part of the country on a year-round basis would be very beneficial for British Columbia when we're talking about enlarging the pie. If you're talking about the Territories, obviously it's not going to come in the form of royalties, but it will come in the form of personal taxation, fuel tax, all those kinds of things -- employment. You talked about jobs earlier. It'll provide jobs if there's a decent road up into that area. Those are the areas that are going to be explored and are being explored now for huge deposits of natural gas. In fact, the Northwest Territories was drilled 20, 30 years ago -- that part of the Territories that I know of. In fact, it was probably even longer ago. So I think there's an economic prospect there for the province to be able to start looking at that road in a little more serious manner.

So $5 million is good, but maybe with a little bit more we should be thinking about going up there further, so we can tie into that economic activity in the future. Rather than Alberta all of a sudden building roads up to the border and taking that work totally away from British Columbians, that work would actually come back down into Fort Nelson, where probably most of it rightfully belongs. There will always be a certain amount of it that will go across the border back into Alberta, but if we get there with a good, decent road, we can access that and provide jobs and economic activity for the province. Maybe the minister would like to comment on that a little bit.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly am interested in ideas with respect to expanding economic opportunities in northern B.C., particularly in the sector the member talks about. I anticipate that in the very near future we'll be dealing with some issues of this administration to try to do that. Beyond that, if there are ideas with respect to those issues. . . . I certainly acknowledge up front my unfamiliarity. I have driven on some of the roads. I did come down from Fort Simpson to Fort Nelson a few years ago by pickup; I got a bit of a flavour of the country. Quite frankly, it's a magnificent part of British Columbia. If we can work with people in the region and perhaps work with the government of Alberta. . . . We've got a common interest in the oil and gas patch. I'd be open to ideas that the member has or that other people might have with respect to these questions.

R. Neufeld: Thank you. I'm not going to take any more time dealing with the Sierra-Desan road, rather than talking about how many employees you have and how many you are not going to have. I'd rather talk about some of these things that you're not. . . . I don't expect you should be. To be quite frank and honest, I don't think that as the minister you have the time to be driving over some of these roads. I would hope that you would take some of these ideas and look at them seriously within your ministry. I don't know everything about the oil and gas industry up there, that's for sure. It's been a while since I've been in it, but I have lived and made most of my life in the community of Fort Nelson, and Sierra-Desan was a big part of it. So I do have some fairly good experience in there and with some of the prospects for what we could do in the future to enlarge the pie, for the province and for those people that live, breathe and eat in the north.

I appreciate the minister saying that he will take that kind of information and look at it seriously, and maybe we can work something out with Alberta. Maybe we should be talking to the Northwest Territories about things that we can do to access that part of the province. The Westcoast Gas plant in Fort Nelson -- one of the largest in British Columbia -- would obviously be one of the biggest beneficiaries for that natural gas, because it would come in on their pipelines.

I want to go on to another area that has some implications for some of the other ministries, mainly Environment. That is the issue of referrals and some of the difficulties that we're having with the processing of them. It's not the Ministry of Energy and Mines so much, but the rest of the ministries. It's what affect your ministry can have on looking favourably at how we process those in a timely way, so that the folks that actually purchase the right to go out and drill for natural gas and those kinds of things, and provide jobs, can do it.

Maybe I will read to the minister. . . . I've had a lot of correspondence over time about referrals, and the Minister of Environment may be interested in this. I have some notes of meetings that had taken place between Energy and Mines, Environment and Lands, Agriculture, Highways and Forests. Environment talks about taking a minimum of 30 days to process a referral. I don't think that that kind of time frame is available -- I talked earlier about the narrow window of opportunity to get out there and do the work -- or that 30 days is acceptable or can be accommodated. In the case where there are some very technical environmental issues, or where it's really a sensitive area, I think that everyone understands that that process will take longer. But to talk about 30 days to process referrals -- and I know they haven't all taken 30 days. . . . It gets a little bit tough on an industry that operates on a 90- to 120-day window. Maybe the minister could inform me of what influence he will have in working with all the ministries involved in the referral process to get a more responsive referral process in place.

I might mention that prior to 1991, I think you could almost get a referral through all the ministries in one day -- three at max -- and we've gone a long way a way from that. I guess that has to do with a lot of the regulation that's taking place. Maybe the minister would like to respond to that, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Just very briefly, I want to say, first of all -- and this is a personal view of someone who's had limited experience but enough to form some conclusions around process -- that I am not at all happy with the length of time it takes for some of our processes. And I say that advisedly; I don't say that with any disrespect for the agencies themselves, for the work they have to do or for the values that they are mandated to protect. I think those are important. But I am very unhappy about the length of time it takes to get some things done in this province. If you really wanted to look

[ Page 7159 ]

This is something that's really a problem that has developed in all modern administrations. Quite frankly, it has developed inside large companies. We talk about bureaucracy and red tape. If you really took a microscope to some very large companies, I bet you'd probably find more than exists in government. But it's not good enough. With the pressure with respect to capital, the need to be timely, it seems to me, is paramount, and we are examining those very questions.

I was delighted to announce, as part of the mining initiative, a mineral exploration code. People can go to my ministry in the field and get their permits. They don't have to run around all over the place. We are now mandated to be a single agency, one window with respect to the kind of permits that are required in mining exploration. It's not quite out the door -- regulation and those kinds of things -- but we've announced it. It's a deal. The industry's happy with it. That, more and more, will be the approach that this administration takes to the question of process.

It's the old saying: process is for cheese. You have to respect the values. We cannot go back, and we've taken great pains to reassure people that by bringing in an MX code, we are not diluting the standards. We're not saying to companies: "Go out there and destroy the environment." We can't afford to do that anymore. But we can do it a heck of a lot quicker than we have been doing it, and we are looking to other initiatives beyond the MX code where we can deal with this question, because I think it's an important question. Hopefully, we'll make some really good progress.

[5:00]

When you talk about big business, I agree. The bigger it gets, the tougher it is to get things done, it seems. And it doesn't matter whether it's government or big business. A whole huge industry has grown up around trying to get referrals done. It's absolutely unbelievable what happens in Fort St. John with the number of people, whether they're consultants, they're people who work in offices or they're surveyors. It's unbelievable when they come to me with some of the processes that they've been put through to try and get a well referral. In some cases, I don't know how they can stand to do those kind of things.

But I'm pleased to see that the minister. . . . I hope it will actually increase the revenue for the Crown in the near future -- trying to process some of these referrals sooner. I have letters from Numac Energy and Remington that are, to be quite frank, damning of the whole system of how we go about it and how we've actually kicked investment out of the province and have had to go back across the border into Alberta to go back to work again. If the minister's serious about that, I'm hoping that in this session he'll bring forward some legislation that will actually address some of these issues.

I'm going to leave the referral process. Before I do, if we go back to the northern summit, the minister will remember very clearly. . . . I don't think I have to read out of this northern summit book the number of times that it came out in all the workshops that the process of getting referrals or being able to get work done in British Columbia was getting tougher and tougher. So I hope that that has an effect on how the minister deals with it.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Peace River South, who wants to ask a few questions about Energy and probably Mines; I'm not sure. I'll defer to him for a while. Maybe you want to respond to what I said.

Hon. D. Miller: Very briefly. We probably are in relative agreement with respect to the process. But my caution is that as much as we desire the very quick turnarounds and as much as any delay causes frustration, often we encounter situations that are not easily resolvable. I'll just cite one, and I only raise this because it's important for people to understand: the Kaiser well. Now, there's an example where I'm sure that from the company's point of view, they would have liked to have had a very quick turnaround; they would have liked to have had approval to go ahead and get on with their business. Generally, when we stand and speak, we take their position in a generalized way, not a specific way. But the issues that arise -- in this case, the proximity to a populated area -- raise genuine concerns. Because of that, they frequently require extensive discussion, analysis and process before you can arrive at a conclusion. I don't think we ought to. . . .

In generalizing, it's very important that we also understand what those legitimate concerns are that the members of the public sometimes have, whether it's, in this case, a simple matter of the proximity to a populated area or, in the case of aboriginal communities, impacts that might take place with respect to traplines -- those kinds of things. We always have to have a lot of respect for all the players. But given that, I still think we can speed things up; I like to think we can. With the right framework and the right attitude by everybody, we can make decisions on a much more timely basis. So that's where we're heading, and hopefully we'll make some headway.

J. Weisgerber: There are a number of issues that I'd like to canvass with the minister. I think he will recognize that there is perhaps some confusion existing -- at least with me, if not with other members on this side of the House -- as to where responsibilities lie on particular issues, given the changes within the ministry or the changes from Employment and Investment to the new ministry.

The first issue that I'd like to examine is the announcement by the government of the Northern Rockies protected areas. I look back to some notes that I had from October when the Premier was up in northern British Columbia. There was an initiative announced around the Muskwa-Kechika area to create some parks, some protected areas. As the minister knows, the area is huge. We're talking about something in the neighbourhood of 4.4 million hectares of land. I'm still having trouble converting, but I know enough to know that that's a huge amount of land, probably in excess of eight million acres -- with which I'm much more familiar and much more comfortable -- of land. Before I get very far down the way. . . . I am very supportive of this initiative. I think it's good news; it's a balance of interests that I, for one, applaud. But before I heap more praise on the government, I need to know whether this falls under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment or whether I should be talking to some other minister about the concerns that I have around the implementation of this plan.

Hon. D. Miller: The implementation is under Environment, Lands and Parks.

[ Page 7160 ]

One of the initiatives that we did pursue with respect to the Muskwa-Kechika. . . . It's very interesting, because I think it's the first time it's happened, and I played a bit of a role in that. The member is aware that when you're drilling for oil or gas, you don't necessarily have to have a platform and go straight down. There are a variety of ways, going back to the Kaiser well. One of the options, of course, is to have the rig quite a way from being in close proximity to that neighbourhood in Fort St. John. But on the Muskwa-Kechika we reached an agreement that allows horizontal drilling from outside the park boundaries to access gas reserves that are technically beneath the park boundaries -- a unique kind of approach. We sold one, if not all, of them -- I can't remember exactly whether it's all the lease rights or just one of them -- for about $7.7 million. It's the first time we've done that. I guess we could have locked it up, but we didn't.

That was an initiative that was agreed to by the resource sector. CAPP was fully supportive of the declaration of the Muskwa-Kechika as a protected area. With the advisory board that will be formed by government, it's going to be something that I think we should continue to laud as part of this magnificent heritage, this landscape that we've all inherited. It's a tribute, really, to all the citizens of B.C., who after all. . . . Perhaps governments make final decisions, but I think it's all the citizens of B.C. who deserve credit for these kinds of designations.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly I appreciate the direction with respect to the ministerial responsibility. I will pursue with the Minister of Environment some of those issues that I have.

Again, let me say that the notion that you might be able to explore for gas and oil in this three-million-hectare area is important. I understand that the LRMP group, the various stakeholder groups, set some very clear and fairly restrictive criteria in order to preserve that area. They anticipate the availability of those lands for development, not only of gas and oil but mineral and other development.

The notion of horizontal drilling is neat. It sounds great. But I can tell you, if you don't know, you aren't going to drill horizontally very far into a one-million-acre park. You might get a mile in there, and that would be an engineering feat in itself. So to think that somehow we're just going to zip around and do that. . . . I think everybody has to understand that's not on the table.

My concern is with the protected areas and with the special management zones -- that over time they become parks. The worry is that in the euphoria of the announcement, everyone believes very genuinely that they've worked out a compromise of interests that is going to allow development to continue, that they're going to protect pristine areas and that everybody comes out a winner. And I think there is potential for that to happen. I think there is also the potential to have the great fear that people who depend on resources have -- that is, that over time these protected areas simply become parks by another name, and then ultimately parks.

On October 8, I think it was, the announcement was made up in the Peace country. The Premier was there, I think with the previous Minister of Environment -- being very keenly conscious today of the dates of appointments of Ministers of Environment, history would suggest it must have been a minister other than the current one. In any event, the announcement was made in Fort St. John. The Premier flew up to Fort Nelson, and then. . . . That night I was speaking to an NFPA in Chetwynd as their guest speaker, which I was honoured to be asked to do, and the Premier showed up. As riveting a guest speaker as I am, it was very difficult for me to compete in that audience with the Premier. Indeed, I didn't try to do so; I was quite happy to share the podium with the Premier. It was a rare treat for them, and I think there is a respect that goes with that office and to the individual, as well, when they show up in a small community. I understand; that's who they want to hear from.

[5:15]

At that time, on the day of the announcement, I had an agreement from the Premier that he too understood that there would need to be specific legislation brought in to clarify, by way of legislation as opposed to accords or memorandums of understanding. . . . There would need to be clear legislative guidelines that would give force to the recommendations that had come forward from the LRMP.

I'm wondering, again, having relayed that information, if the minister can tell us whether it would be this ministry, the Ministry of Environment, the Premier's Office or perhaps a combination of agencies that we could look forward to this legislation coming from. I don't think it's out of order for me to ask whether we can anticipate, at this sitting of the Legislature, seeing legislation which would give force to these recommendations from the LRMP.

Hon. D. Miller: I won't answer the question with respect to legislation. I'm just not informed enough at this point.

But I think the member raises some important questions. In my own experience with land use plans, several of them have come forward over the last year and a half that have identified, both in the Kootenays and in the Bulkley region, if I'm not mistaken, sort of the core protected area -- but also, beyond that, what they call SMZs, special management zones. And as a result of discussion, we have tried to provide letters from the government, from the ministers responsible, to reinforce the notion that I spoke of earlier -- and that is that those areas, in fact, are not restricted for development.

There is, I believe, a view in the resource sector that they are de facto parks or parks-in-waiting, or call it what you will. I think it is challenging, quite frankly. About 20 percent of the total of the protected areas, as I understand it, is in these SMZs -- not the significant part, but enough, and with sufficient resources within them that it's raised these questions.

My understanding is that there will be a cross-ministry review of how this is working, to ensure that the original

[ Page 7161 ]

So it's tricky stuff. Really, we have to be able to advise with assurance the resource interests who may be considering exploration, or whatever, that if they are pursuing that, they have a reasonable chance, given the kind of special constraints that might exist, to bring projects to fruition. Government is aware of the issue and is looking at it cross-ministry, and I think will. . . . I'll leave it at that for now. I think it's probably more appropriately pursued with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and I know my colleague will be happy to do that.

J. Weisgerber: I think that at our level -- this legislative level -- and at the level of the people who made the announcement, the people who worked out the accord and made the compromises, there is a pretty clear understanding of what's expected. I think where the confusion comes is on two sides. One is from the person or corporation anticipating an investment in exploration and anxiety about this. The other area of possible confusion or lack of understanding of the spirit of things is at the bureaucratic level.

As a former Minister of Energy and Mines, I would never for a moment expect that it would be staff in that ministry who would do that, but there are bureaucracies across government that are not particularly pro-development. It is in the response of those agencies to the developers where the worst fears can be confirmed.

For that reason, again let me put on the record that I think we need to develop specific legislation that spells out the spirit, the intent, of what all of us can take enormous pride in. A protected area the size of Nova Scotia is the description often used. It's an area that's very, very rich in wildlife and should be protected. I just want to make sure that the people who worked for three or four years on coming to that compromise don't feel, five or ten years from now, that they've been abandoned or sold out because the initial intent has long since passed and the bureaucracies have made a de facto park.

I'll leave it at that. I think the point's made. I'd like to move on, unless the minister wants to respond.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps, very briefly, I'll read the preamble. Not to offend the rules of the House with respect to debate on bills, but the preamble to Bill 12, which we've not discussed, seems to me to sum up the issue quite well.

"AND WHEREAS the government recognizes the rights of persons to obtain access to their mineral tenures and to carry out mining activities responsibly and in accordance with the law outside legally designated protected areas, including the rights of persons to obtain access to their mineral tenures and to carry out mining activities responsibly in non-protected areas in which there are special management considerations developed under land use planning processes."

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move into an area that's still clearly within the energy field but quite removed from the Northern Rockies initiative. I have to be careful about moving into the territory of my colleague from Peace River North. I don't want to do that except for the way it affects my own constituency.

In Taylor, where Nova is building a natural gas processing plant, there is a great deal of concern about the fact that the strategy in that initiative is to strip out the liquids at the plant and ship all of those liquids by pipeline to Alberta. What British Columbia does is produce the gas and get the jobs -- and they are not a lot of jobs -- involved in stripping out the liquids. Those liquids are amongst the most important: propane, butane and a whole host of other by-products. Those are shipped off to Edmonton for processing in the petrochemical industry there. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts about that.

I can tell him, as he might expect, that I have a good deal of concern, if for no other reason than the loss of propane in the northern communities. Many of my constituents and constituents across northeastern British Columbia operate their vehicles on propane. They operate their home heating on propane. It was only, I think, 18 months ago that we saw propane prices go through the roof. We saw propane prices skyrocket to the point where people on fixed incomes were paying almost their entire pension to simply heat a mobile home with propane on a cold winter day.

I am alarmed about the fact that the next time we see this happen, we're going to hear about world prices of propane. That's a stretch that the distributors of propane make. But we're also going to hear about shortages, about a lack of availability of propane in northern communities. Why? Because it has been shipped to Edmonton, for processing there.

So as the minister looks at this program -- which probably has all been approved -- I'm wondering if he shares any of my angst and concern over the loss of these valuable by-products as a result of the strategy that Nova has adopted with respect to its Taylor plant.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly as a general view, to the degree that we can retain resources and add value through processing in our province, we ought to be doing it. That applies, really, across the piece, with respect to any number of resources. But the economies have to be there. In other words, I don't personally believe that you can create a false economy. If it's not there in terms of economies of scale, volume and all the rest of it, then. . . . In other words, if it's unlikely to be led by the private sector, I don't know that there's much government can do.

There may be ways in which you can influence through public policy decisions, and I haven't really gone through that exercise with respect to the issue you raise. There may be some issues. I'm quite prepared to look at that.

The Solex plant will be expanded. While that was somewhat confrontational -- there were some divisive issues around that -- the government and I, as the minister, took a kind of free enterprise position, if I can put it that way -- a light-handed regulatory position is perhaps a better way -- and said: "Well, I'm not going to get in the middle of this scrap. Solex and Nova, you work things out." And they did. As a result, we're going to see a $30 million investment in the Solex plant to increase capacity.

I was just conversing with my deputy, because I did have a very informative meeting with Nova, looking generally at the potential to increase facilities in northeastern British

[ Page 7162 ]

So while I don't have a specific answer to your specific question, if there are ways in which we can look at opportunities, if there are public policy decisions that make sense and that can have some influence with respect to capital investment by the private sector to retain value and processing and jobs in B.C., then I'm always interested in looking at those opportunities.

[5:30]

Hon. D. Miller: I do agree, and again we are talking in a theoretical sense about the benefits that might be obtained by evaluating maybe even more than two proposals to do a certain thing. I think we have a history in this administration of trying to obtain as much value for local people as possible, particularly in the rural areas. I don't want to get carried away and start to come out with examples, and I don't wish to be controversial, but clearly the Island Highway, where we said there has to be local hiring, apprenticeship training. . . I think those kinds of things are appropriate. I think it's appropriate for government and its agencies and Crowns to seek those kinds of benefits.

But fundamentally. . . . I'll go back to the original premise with respect to the liquids that are stripped out of the gas. Do we have enough volume that would justify the private sector investing in the kind of plant that would be required to take those to the point where they are a saleable commodity? Can they get them to the marketplace? And what are the economics of all of that? I guess all I was saying was that if the fundamentals aren't there -- if you lack the sufficient volume, and if having crunched all the numbers you can't honestly show that you will have a profitable, stand-alone, private sector enterprise over time -- then I suspect that you are not going to see any investment. You can tweak around the edges with respect to public policy, but if the fundamentals, the real fundamentals, aren't there, then I don't think it will happen.

But things change very rapidly. That's one thing I have learned. I know that I've had several discussions with the Pac Rim-LNG people, and they and Mr. Pirie are very aggressive. He has some history with respect to his ability to assemble capital and to take on major projects. I talked to some people in the gas business, and they just said: "Ah, it will never happen." But the fact is that he keeps coming back to see me, he's making progress and to some degree he's decrying conventional wisdom and the odds. I kind of like that. I'm always open to somebody saying: "Well, yeah, that's conventional wisdom, but let's look at it this way and maybe it will work."

Again I extend the offer. I am open to ideas and suggestions along those lines.

J. Weisgerber: I guess the discussion around propane and processing locally and then changes to the price structure take me back a few years to the decision by the Tory government in Ottawa to close the Petro-Canada refinery in Taylor. At one time, British Columbia enjoyed a pretty substantial refining operation of Peace River petroleum products at Taylor. We also enjoyed competitive gasoline prices. We weren't the lowest in British Columbia, but we weren't always the highest. At that time I went after my friends in the Tory government in Ottawa and tried to persuade them that their corporate decision to abandon that refinery was not in the interests of British Columbia and particularly not in the interests of northern British Columbia. I went after the government of the day -- your government -- to talk about what we might do in order to encourage Petro-Canada to continue refining gasoline in the northeast in British Columbia.

Those were unsuccessful; that was history. The footnote to it is that now any time you drive through the Peace, you can probably find -- and probably will find -- gasoline for sale in the pumps, right on top of the ground that it's produced under, at a higher price than in any place in British Columbia, including metropolitan areas where Transit put on a big tax for public transit. People fundamentally understand the lack of justice that prevails there.

I'm wondering, given those realities, whether the minister has any ideas about gasoline prices. I see that the gasoline marketers are busy flooding politicians with material about gasoline prices and denying vigorously that there is any fixing of prices with respect to gasoline. They're doing their very best to persuade us that the fact that we drive through a community and find exactly the same price for gasoline at every gas station in town is entirely coincidental and a clear function of the marketplace working at its very best.

An Hon. Member: That's cynical.

J. Weisgerber: Far be it from me to be cynical about that kind of argument. But the fact of the matter is that as a northern representative, I am much more concerned with the effect of processing activities, the cost of shipping and the ultimate charge to my own constituents for gasoline and propane. So I worry about this latest propane initiative because I and my constituents have already been there once in this decade with respect to gasoline. Quite honestly, we don't want to go back for a second time around.

For many years, the northeast enjoyed the lowest propane. . . . We had by far the highest rate of propane conversions, which I think was not only economical but also environmentally friendly. That is changing as well. I'm venting here, because quite honestly I wish I had a solution to demand that the minister implement -- and I don't. But I do believe that it's the kind of issue that warrants airing, warrants consideration. If we can't do anything about it, then it doesn't bode very well for the people who depend on those commodities in an area where they are produced.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, listen. I understand completely what the member for Peace River South is talking about, because I

[ Page 7163 ]

The reason is that if you're going to run a store, you need to have enough volume of business that it's going to cover your overhead, your costs and all the rest, and you put a little money in your pocket at the end of the day so you can reinvest. Quite frankly, it's an issue around population and the economics, or the structure and availability. These are problems that are out there in our regions. As much as I understand the issue, I also think that you ought to focus on areas where you actually can change it. If, for example, the economics and fundamentals are that you cannot, forget it. We'll never get into doing what was done in the past, whether that's refining gasoline or stripping liquids out and manufacturing a variety of products out of them.

Are there other areas in which you can assist people in the regions? The member for Peace River North talks about transportation. I think that's a huge issue. Look at the cost issue for northerners who drive a lot farther distances. Add to that the fact that your vehicle gets pounded, and your deterioration is probably a lot quicker. Well, can you address the roads over time? Does that help? I think it does.

So that's the kind of approach I take. I don't mind running up against a brick wall. In a perverse way I sometimes, occasionally, enjoy it -- but not endlessly. I like to look strategically at where you think you can make some progress, pick those things out, focus your energy and go with them.

There may be some opportunity on the natural gas side. If that is the case, then perhaps look at the potential for vehicle conversion. Are there cost advantages in northern B.C. if natural gas becomes available? If it's available in sufficient quantity and if it's reliable in terms of where you can get it, would converting to that fuel make some sense, given the higher costs on the gasoline side? Well, maybe. So let's look at those kinds of things. I don't have the answers to all those problems. I know exactly what you mean when you sort of express your frustration about them.

We also have some advantages, quite frankly. We've got huge problems in British Columbia now. We see it surfacing in the Armed Forces, in the RCMP. They've just had to give a special bonus to members who are posted to the greater Vancouver region, because their cost of shelter, of housing, is so high. Well, if you look at all the costs that individuals or families might encounter with respect to their lives -- shelter, food, transportation, the basics -- we've probably got an advantage in terms of the cost of shelter. It's colder, so we probably spend more in heating houses. You need to balance out all of those kinds of things.

Finally, I always throw in this. I helped raise a few kids in a small town, and I've got to say that, quite frankly, I'd rather do it there than in the big city. I think that's an advantage that's hard to calculate -- the lifestyle, knowing people, all those kinds of things. So I think there are some non-cost advantages, as well.

J. Weisgerber: Just to conclude it, the minister suggested that he sometimes enjoys running into brick walls. I think, minister, what you probably enjoy is when you quit.

But there are some great advantages to living in the north, and there are some great disadvantages. We, for the most part, are here to try to resolve some of those disadvantages, and that's the purpose. I'm going to turn it back to my friend and colleague from Peace River North, and I thank you for the time.

R. Neufeld: I can relate to those same problems about the price of gasoline, propane and the cost of living in the north that the member for Peace River South brought forward. Usually when I talk about the cost of living in the north, people in the south tell me: "Well, your housing cost isn't anything like ours down here." I guess it crosses the whole province.

We're just about at the end of the day, and rather than get into another area that's going to take some time, maybe we'll just deal with a couple of the smaller issues. Maybe the member for Peace River South would like to stay and listen to this part.

One is the Vancouver Island pipeline. I don't intend to talk about the financing or any part of that; I'm not interested in that. What I am interested in is the fact that, as my colleague pointed out earlier, seniors who live in his community and seniors who live in mine heat their homes with propane. Lots of farmers do, because if they live out of town, they do not have access to natural gas.

[5:45]

Yet every year we see in the Ministry of Energy and Mines estimates an amount -- this year it is an expenditure of $1.1 million -- to subsidize people on Vancouver Island to change over from coal or diesel-fired appliances to natural gas. That's pretty tough for a guy from the north when I have, like I say, all kinds of people that live right beside the wells. They have the smells. They have the problems of the roads, where there are no roads left because they've been beaten by heavy traffic. They have to pay a high price to heat either with wood or with propane, and yet we see a program on Vancouver Island that will actually subsidize people and encourage them to change over from diesel fuel to natural gas.

Not that many years ago we had that program across the whole province, where it wasn't subject to just one part of the province. People in my constituency and in the constituency of the member for Peace River South could actually apply for some subsidy to help them hook into natural gas. Maybe the minister would just like to run through that a little bit and explain to me why we couldn't expand that program to cover the whole province.

Hon. D. Miller: During just the last part, I was looking for briefing notes. Perhaps the member might restate his question.

[ Page 7164 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No. Really, I think all members know the history of the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. The subsequent agreements that government made with respect to conversion are all well documented; I'm not going to get into that history. Suffice it to say, we're still in the program. There's not much money left, and my understanding is that with respect to the two major projects we've announced on Vancouver Island, there may in fact be the requirement for additional pipeline capacity to the Island. I'm going to say here and now, on behalf of the government -- without ever having consulted with my colleagues -- that we will not be doing what happened last time. There really is no current planning and not even any discussion on the point that the member raised.

To go back to the West Stoddart -- and perhaps I need to get up to speed; the member may want to get some more information. . . . But my information, as I recollect -- very sketchy at this point -- is that we could potentially, with the West Stoddart plant and an agreement by Centra, develop the delivery of natural gas to some areas of the Peace. To the extent that that might provide some relief on costs, I'll be paying attention to that question. I'm quite prepared to keep the member informed on any developments along those lines.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate those comments. I'm familiar with the West Stoddart project, and I guess it could help a few people around West Stoddart, but not a huge amount of people live close to where the plant is going to go. It will feed into some other lines and probably make it available for others in the northeast to be able to tie into natural gas. That is in fact true; I don't dispute that a bit. Without going into all the issues surrounding the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, I get from the minister that it's an absolute flat no and that we wouldn't look at any kind of subsidy program for anybody other than on Vancouver Island because of the financing arrangements that were made -- not that it's his fault -- for the Vancouver Island pipeline. It's unfortunate, but I guess people up there will just continue to pay the full cost of putting in the lines.

One other issue in the estimates book that we could probably deal with fairly quickly is under ministry operations on page 137, corporate services. Other expenditures are listed at $5.06 million. What does "other expenditures" represent?

Hon. D. Miller: That's the special account. We've discussed the bill, and in fact, we passed the bill the other day: the northern development fund.

R. Neufeld: Okay, thank you.

The other issue, just before we finish for the evening. . . . I'd like to ask the minister to explain a little bit more what he envisions Energy to include. In his opening remarks he talked about aluminum plants and hydroelectricity and all those kinds of things. I would like to get into some of those things as they relate to the north and those kinds of issues. I'm just asking the minister if we can actually look forward to that kind of questioning around those issues as it relates to Hydro, Site C and all those kinds of things, and as it relates to northern development.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm prepared to be flexible on questions. I don't want to fall back on the rules and be narrow in my view. What I would ask in return is equal consideration with respect to questions that members might ask on a variety of topics. As we talked about the issue raised by the member for Peace River South on special management zones, I was prepared to talk a little bit about the area that's under the purview of my colleague the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. I'm prepared to have some latitude. I don't have responsibility for B.C. Hydro, and therefore I would suggest that members consider that and what the specific responsibilities are in this ministry. But generally, looking at broader questions of industrial development, particularly in northern B.C., I would be happy to try to. . . . If I don't have the answer, then perhaps it could be referred to the appropriate minister.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that you're not responsible for BCUC and that B.C. Hydro is out of your purview and all the rest of it. But what is the interpretation of energy as far as you understand it? How much does that cover? I would hate to not be able to discuss something and expect to go to Hydro, and then have them say: "Well, no. That's in Energy." That's the clarification I want as to how far we may go. I understand that we don't go into Hydro, and we don't go into BCUC.

Hon. D. Miller: I have a fair amount of Energy. I'm happy to discuss the linkages, I would say, between some of the industrial potential -- smelters may be one -- but I don't purport to be an expert on the file. Therefore I would say, with respect, that while I'm prepared to talk to the limit of my knowledge in a general way, if it's a specific issue relative to B.C. Hydro, then clearly the appropriate minister is the Minister of Employment and Investment, and so on down the line.

I'm looking forward to further debate in my estimates, Mr. Chairman. But I think we've had some useful discussion this afternoon. With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 3:12 p.m.

[ Page 7165 ]

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

G. Plant: Before we broke for lunch and other things, the subject of freedom of information was raised. I had asked a sort of rolled-up question around FTEs, budgets or FOI requests within the ministry, and the minister was, I think, in the throes of giving the answer when we broke off. I have a note that the FTE count within the ministry now -- that is, the staff complement devoted to dealing with freedom-of-information requests -- is seven. I don't have any more information about dollars last year or dollars next year and whether there is to be a budget cut and how that will be implemented.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, it is, as I said earlier, unclear at this point whether or not the number of FTEs would be impacted adversely as a result of the cut. The cut is going to take place. It's about a 10 percent reduction, I believe, and it may have some impact, but we haven't at this point determined what that would be.

G. Plant: Am I right, though, that there will be a 10 percent reduction in the budget available to the ministry for FOI staff -- well, for dealing with FOI issues?

[3:15]

G. Plant: Thank you. I look forward to receiving that advice. For comparative purposes, could I have the budget number before the cut and the budget number after the cut?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the budget for '97-98 was $609,000. There is a significant cut, but that cut would be made up with some recoveries. As you know, some fees may be in the process of being imposed. I don't remember exactly where that is.

G. Plant: I understand that that's exactly what's going to happen. The edict has come from on high that ministries are to achieve cuts in two ways: by a reduction in actual expenditures and also by increasing recovery for FOI-related activities by increasing the fees charged to people who make requests, by increasing photocopying costs and so on. There are two components.

Is it possible to break down the components so that we know what the government has said the ministry has to absorb as an expenditure reduction? How much of that does the ministry hope to recover by way of additional fees? If my question makes any sense. . . . If it doesn't, I could try and make my point clearer. I already have the sense that I haven't succeeded in making myself clear. The idea, I guess, is that the government as a whole is intending to reduce the cost to it of dealing with FOI requests. There are two ways of getting there. One is to cut actual expenses, and the other is to increase revenue from the activity. Is the Attorney able to tell us now what his plans are within his ministry in respect of both sides of the equation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Here is another run at the figures. I understand that the total cut would be $220,000. However, if we're able to recover about $145,000 in terms of the additional fees, the cut would obviously be reduced by that amount.

G. Plant: Now I'm having trouble figuring out where the 60 percent came from. I'm inclined to think that the gross cut is more likely $365,000 and that the Attorney General's ministry intends to recover $145,000 of that, for a net impact, if you will, of $220,000. I wonder if that is actually the better explanation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: Just to clarify -- if clarification is needed -- one further point. I take it that the ministry has the increasing of fees under active consideration -- increasing photocopying charges and whatever other tools for cost-recovery that may exist -- in order to achieve the offset or the recovery of $145,000. Am I correct in that assumption?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The subject of violence against women in relationships was a subject that we talked a little bit about this morning, and my colleague from Langley has some questions on that subject.

L. Stephens: There are two tacks I want to take. First of all, I'd like to make a few comments and, secondly, to deal specifically with the policy on violence against women in relationships.

First of all, when we were talking this morning about the Chief Judge's report on the delay and backlog in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, the minister wanted to have read through the report more fully before commenting. I would like to make a few comments first about this, just on the preliminary reading that I have had. What I see in there is that the delay and the backlog is very bad news for women and children in the province of British Columbia. I think it was pointed out quite clearly in the report that women and children are waiting a very long time to receive maintenance orders, sometimes waiting over a year to obtain maintenance orders. I think all of us think that's simply not acceptable.

One of the other issues that he raised is that parents who are responsible for the care of their children can become destitute waiting for these maintenance orders. I know the minister is familiar with what happens with marriage breakdown and the women who leave to go to transition houses, sometimes with just the clothes on their back and very few resources at their command, particularly financial resources.

He also goes on to say that the economically, emotionally or physically stronger party can impose custody and access terms while the parties wait for a court date, and these terms are difficult to change when the case does reach court. That's another area that I know the Attorney General is involved in discussions on, particularly with the federal government. There is a federal subcommittee that's in Vancouver next week, dealing with custody and access issues. We've talked

[ Page 7166 ]

The other area that was raised is the apprehension of children. When children are apprehended, they may have to wait as much as a year before the court decides whether or not that child should be returned to the family. That's not acceptable either. There are a number of issues around child apprehensions that are front and centre in the news and are certainly of concern to the opposition. This is an issue on which I'm sure questions are going to be asked of the Attorney General as well. What he goes on to say is that children are suffering irreparable emotional harm, and I think this is something the Attorney General has to deal with very, very quickly. I think there have to be some concrete initiatives undertaken to deal with this report -- and frankly, the sooner the better.

Another area that I want to talk about generally and that negatively impacts women and children in the province is, of course, legal aid. I know that my colleague is canvassing legal aid quite extensively. I know that the stricter criteria for legal aid services, particularly for low-income women, means that they don't get representation. Those who are working and have some money can't afford to pay for their own lawyer. As a result, many of these women are representing themselves in court. Many of the judges are reluctant to make judgments because of that, and so the backlog perpetuates itself. The woman has to come back to court again, and that can go on and on. That's an area that needs to have a serious look at it as well.

Then there's the closure of the courthouses. This has had a negative impact on women in a lot of areas, such as transportation. A lot of women can't get to some of these regional courthouses. It's very difficult. It takes hours on the buses with small children, or having to go to a totally new community in order to access the justice system. That's really what it means: in combination with the stricter criteria for legal aid and the closure of courthouses, the delays in the justice system and the backlogs simply mean that women and children are not being served in British Columbia.

Having said that, I would like to hear what the Attorney General may have to say on those issues before I proceed to the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Do you have a question?

L. Stephens: Yes. I would like to ask the minister if he would respond to the issue of the backlogs in the justice system. I'm sure he doesn't need this report to tell him that it's there. So perhaps he could just comment generally on its effect on women and children.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Look, any delays that happen in the justice system have an adverse impact on anyone, more particularly on women and children. There are not two opinions about that. The question is: how do you manage such a massive undertaking? Do you continue to pour resources, which are millions of dollars? Or do you try and do something different which might take some time to come to fruition? I think it's important for us to recognize, in the first place, that when the Chief Judge raised this matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General very quickly appointed four new judges, gave $300,000 per year over three years to appoint retired and ad hoc judges and, as well, provided prosecutors and the like -- staff -- for those judges to be able to function. So it is important for us to recognize that some actions have been taken.

In terms of justice reform, many other actions are being taken. In terms of specifically addressing the issue of backlogs with respect to women's cases, there are some court locations where violence against women in relationships cases are being fast-tracked by the judiciary. That's an appropriate thing. I think it's important for us to recognize that they are trying to do the best under the circumstances as well.

[3:30]

In terms of the court closures, I think it's appropriate to note that there are about three court locations in British Columbia that are not functioning out of the 14 or so I talked about in the first place. West Vancouver is not going to resume; Langley is unlikely to resume; and Sidney is unlikely to resume. There's no question about that. You have to look at the issues comparatively. There are thousands of people in other regions of British Columbia that travel much longer distances under much more difficult conditions. It is important to recognize that people love to have a courthouse in their community. It's a symbol; sometimes it can be the centre of other activity, a focal point for attracting other activity. But the fact is that we can't have a courthouse in every community. So we have to consolidate, and we've been working on that issue. We've tried to iron out some of those difficulties over the last year or so, and I think we're succeeding.

In terms of the larger issue of justice reform, there are no instantaneous solutions to the problems that the hon. member has talked about. There is no instantaneous solution to the backlogs. Backlogs used to exist, then the Crown decided to stay some cases and not proceed with others. We had a full review of that, and more judges were appointed. The fact is, as I said when I was speaking in the other House just the other day, in 1991 there were -- if I remember correctly off the top of my head -- 437,000 criminal court offences reported in this province in 71 municipalities -- 71 towns and cities that are over 5,000. The population at that time was approximately 2.7 million in those 71 entities.

In those 71 entities in 1997 the population has gone up to 3.25 million, and the reported criminal court offences are about 437,000 or 438,000. We also noted -- and I talked about it yesterday -- that the Vancouver crime rate is going down, Surrey's crime rate is going down, and the crime rate across the province is going down. We're hoping that that will begin to show in the lower number of cases that might, then, eventually go to court. We have added more judges. We will look at the judges' recommendations -- all of them -- and see what we can implement and how soon. There's no question about that.

It is also important to recognize that judges alone, courtrooms alone, prosecutors alone aren't going to do the job. We

[ Page 7167 ]

On the family justice side we have appointed 20 family support clerks to assist women with respect to the new child support guidelines. We're hoping that the use of the child support guidelines will reduce the number of applications that would eventually go to court. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the chart, look at your situation -- particularly if you're a salaried employee or a salaried person -- and determine how much you need to pay. I am hoping that many of the long-drawn-out battles, particularly between people who sometimes don't have much means to begin with, will not happen. The courts have very limited capacity to deviate, in terms of making their decisions, from the child support guidelines. Once that point is driven home, hopefully that backlog will begin to be impacted positively as well, so it will go down.

We also have, in over 60 communities, voluntary parent education programs -- parenting-after-separation programs. We are now piloting a mandatory parenting-after-separation program in the New West and Burnaby areas, which I announced some time ago. We're going to evaluate that. Once that happens, we will hopefully be able to move that into other parts of the civil justice system in other parts of the province as well.

There are many, many issues that we're dealing with, on many fronts. I'm hoping that with all of these initiatives that we have undertaken, we will be able to make a dent in the backlog. The answer is not just to appoint judges. If we continue to do what we've been doing. . . . If what we had been doing was so successful, we wouldn't be where we are. We have to begin to look at alternatives and do things differently. We're trying to do that; we will continue to do that.

In terms of violence against women, I have talked about that issue over and over again. I have just recited all kinds of initiatives that we have done. The hon. member is very much aware of all of them, so I won't go through them. It is a cooperative effort on the part of the bar, the judiciary, the Crown, the Ministry of Attorney General and, in fact, activists in the communities. We all need to come to an understanding that we need to begin to provide alternatives for mediation, arbitration, conciliation and conflict resolution before matters end up in court, and we're doing that.

L. Stephens: Under the justice reform initiatives that the Attorney General has undertaken, there are a number of creative and innovative solutions that are being explored, and diversion is one of them. I'd like to know if the Attorney General would clarify the appropriate use of diversion. . . . Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use diversion in regard to violence against women -- domestic violence and aggravated sexual assault, for instance? Could he clarify what would be appropriate for the use of diversion?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I should reaffirm our position, firstly, and that position is that it is not appropriate to divert violence-against-women cases away from the courts, as a general principle. If those cases were ever diverted, it would be done under very, very exceptional circumstances. I can't even begin to imagine what they might be. Those decisions would be made in consultation with and under the guidance of a very senior Crown counsel -- perhaps the regional Crown counsel in a particular area.

I think that the hon. member can take comfort that those reports. . . . I am sure that there is a system by which those reports would come to the ADM's attention. We will track them, if there are any. If there is a problem, we will monitor it and deal with it.

L. Stephens: I want to move to talk about the policy specifically. I'll tell the Attorney General that I am going to be basing my questions on a document that was prepared by the Attorney General ministry and the Ministry of Women's Equality. It's a summary of the emergency intervention consultation with women-serving agencies around the province that was done in November. There were the two ministries that went out and held consultations -- from Prince George to Abbotsford, Victoria and Vancouver and other points in the province. They talked about the policy and whether or not it was in fact serving the needs of women and whether or not the policy was being followed. It showed clearly that there is a need for a consistent response in coordination in applying the policy.

Some of the identified gaps were that discretionary practices of the police. . . . We talked about that in last year's estimates -- that I was hearing reports from around the province that the police were practising very discretionary ways as to whether or not they charged, if they did investigations, and so on. The role of dispatch was another area, as was the lack of coordination of the file, the availability of police willing to assist women, police and Crown relationships with victim-serving agencies, dual charging, policy used by the abuser to manipulate the victim, and relationship definition being too narrowly interpreted.

There were some suggested responses, and I wonder if the minister has been able to go through this document and make some determinations as to what may be happening.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware of many of the issues, but I haven't read the report. It is being reviewed by the ministry, and the recommendations have yet to come to me from the ministry. There are many, many issues on which I have been spoken to by people from across the province. For instance, on the question of police discretion, we in fact seem to have the opposite problem, which is that police continue to tell us -- and they believe that they have no discretion at all -- that they are forced to charge as per the policy. When I go and talk to some women's groups, I get the opposite, which is that the police don't charge and that they use their discretion. I think we need to work on some of these issues.

Dual charging. I know it happens in exceptional and rare circumstances. Whether or not it's appropriate is a question that I can't direct the police on. If we direct the police on making sure that violence against women is pursued vigorously, they have the discretion in other areas to deal with issues as they see fit. I am concerned about those cases. I have heard about them; some women's groups have spoken to me about it. We would certainly look at those issues through the criminal justice branch, if need be. It is important, though, that we recognize that at the end of the day charging is not a police responsibility. It is the Crown's prerogative in this province either to allow the charges to proceed or to stay those charges. We have that discretion, and I'm sure the Crown exercises that discretion in appropriate cases.

L. Stephens: On the complaints that are heard, I think they are probably exemplified in the Vernon situation where there were a number of complaints. In one instance there were 12, and the police did not investigate -- they were not acted upon. I know that particular instance was probably the worst

[ Page 7168 ]

There's a suggestion that there should be the creation of a domestic violence response unit. Has the minister anything in this year's budget that would put some resources into creating a domestic violence response unit, as he has done for the youth prostitution unit in the province?

[3:45]

In terms of the Vernon issue, obviously we took some action right away and subsequently, and we await the report from Joe Wood.

L. Stephens: The other area that's identified is peace bonds and restraining orders. I think it was last week or the week previous to that that the Attorney General announced some changes to the registry and a 1-800 line. I have a question, and I don't recall seeing it anywhere. Do the orders that will be registered include all orders? Are there peace bonds, restraining orders and enforcement orders? Are all of these orders going to be on the registry, and has the minister an idea of what the time line is? Is there a protocol that they have to be registered within 24 hours or something like that? Could the minister give us some comfort there?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, all of those orders are covered by the registry. They are to be entered into the registry at the earliest possible time -- as soon as they're made and signed. There is no time limit on it. We haven't said: "You can do this in seven days." We're hoping that they do it within 24 to 48 hours, and that's. . . . Just hold on.

I'm told that they will be faxed promptly on the same day as they're issued, even if the person who is subject to the peace bond has not signed it as yet. That also speaks about other orders. That's the hope and that's the desire. As you know, sometimes in implementing it we can have problems. We're going to constantly monitor this issue because, as you know, some troubling disclosures were made in the process getting to this point.

L. Stephens: The other issue that continues to be ongoing is that these breaches are not always enforced. In fact, in some instances -- and more, rather than fewer -- the enforcement orders are placed on failed restraining orders. There was an instance in New Westminster. There were four restraining orders on this individual, and he still. . . . He'd go back and he would get another one and another one -- enforcement order on top of enforcement order, four of them. And he was still on the street. That's not unusual. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do understand that that is a problem. As a result of your concerns and others that have been expressed in the past, the ministry will work with the police to ensure that the police enforce those orders more appropriately and quickly.

L. Stephens: Many of these orders aren't effective in the rural areas and are very difficult to get in rural areas as well. Aboriginal communities. . . . And sometimes it takes a long period of time. The other issue around rural areas and sometimes in smaller communities is that everybody knows one another. It makes it very difficult for women who remain in the communities to obtain a peace bond or a restraining order and to feel safe, having obtained it. It's difficult to obtain in the first place, and secondly, everyone in the community knows. Because there are so few people, it makes it very difficult for her to distance herself from the abuser -- unless she leaves town, unless she goes to the lower mainland, which again brings in a whole bunch of other difficulties around that.

Are there any initiatives underway this year that would try to address that kind of situation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are some situations that sometimes have no solutions. If you are in a small town, it is difficult to protect the individual concerned. It is important to note that police cannot apprehend and keep somebody incarcerated without appropriate authority. These are difficult issues, and they are more difficult in smaller communities; there's no question about that. We all know that resources are much more readily available in larger centres than in smaller communities, and that's another problem. So you have a difficult issue. I don't have an answer.

L. Stephens: I think one of the solutions might be to have more intensive training for police officers in these smaller communities in order to sensitize them to those kinds of facts and for them to perhaps have a bit more responsibility for enforcing those orders or for at least being aware of what the circumstances are to try to mitigate any possible harm that may come to the woman and her children.

Are the justices of the peace available 24 hours? If they're not, is that something that the Attorney General is looking at: having 24-hour access to justices of the peace for restraining orders, peace bonds or whatever?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I understand that training, particularly in criminal harassment, has taken place in many towns across the province just this year, and there is some more to come. In terms of the 24-hour JP, yes, the ministry is looking at that. We're always trying to find ways of enhancing the powers and the tools in the hands of the police, as well as the women, so that they can work effectively to protect people from violence, particularly women. I think it's also important to note at this point that this review that the hon. member has been talking about did reject the approach that Saskatchewan has. I and the Deputy Attorney General and some others had a thorough briefing from the Saskatchewan officials on that particular approach. While some of us may have felt that the approach works, women's groups have indicated to us that their view is that that approach decriminalizes violence against women to a certain extent, and they're not in favour of it. We're trying to find ways of enhancing protection for women from violence without really being at odds with women's groups who advocate for that protection.

L. Stephens: There are a number of women's organizations who do hold those views, and I think it's primarily because they're concerned that it will be decriminalized and become civil. But I think that's because they're not really aware of what that kind of legislation can do and what emergency intervention orders can do and all of the other things that went around that particular piece of legislation in Saskatchewan -- which the Attorney General knows has a very extensive training program -- training police, judges and

[ Page 7169 ]

We talked a little bit about the legal proceedings and justice reform, we talked about the delays in the proceedings, and we talked about the use of diversion. The feeling out there with many people is that with the move to mediation. . . . Mediation is for the poor and litigation is for the rich. Many women, particularly those on social assistance who are being forced to go to mediation, have a lot of difficulty with that. I wonder if the Attorney General would comment on how well the mediation is proceeding, specifically dealing with domestic violence cases.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, as we've indicated, in the community accountability programs. . . . Those people who are accused of violence against women are not diverted into community accountability programs, as a matter of principle.

With respect to mediation, on the family side I recognize the power imbalances and inequities that exist. If there is a history of violence and any of those problems associated with abuse, we screen those cases out. They aren't referred to mediation at all. There is no mandatory mediation in place at this time; it is all voluntary if you want to go to mediation. But we also don't encourage people to go to mediation if there is that power imbalance. We screen them out.

L. Stephens: What is happening is that many women feel they are being pressured to go to mediation. If they don't go to mediation, they are viewed as being uncooperative. So that jeopardizes their case before the courts. This is what's happening out there with this mediation service. There's a lot of women who are feeling that they're pressured into going. There's a lot of women, where there has been domestic violence, who are still ending up in mediation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the hon. member has some information on these issues, and I would hope that she shares that information with people from my ministry. I would invite those women who feel pressured to come and speak to someone in my ministry on a confidential basis, so that I can be advised of what the problems are. I'd be interested in the details.

[4:00]

We've talked about this as well, a specialized court, a family violence court. There is one in Winnipeg -- and has been for a number of years -- that appears to be very successful. That was one of the recommended suggestions from this group; they thought that might be a good idea as well. Is there something that the Attorney General has to say about that? Connecting family and criminal matters is primarily what this domestic violence court does.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have considered that issue. No decision, obviously, has been made. But we have, as I said, judicial support with respect to fast-tracking some of the domestic violence cases. We're also going to be attempting to deal with them under the new case management rules and to start looking at ways of dealing with them. But I don't believe that a domestic violence court would be a reality, at least in the near future.

L. Stephens: That's unfortunate, because I think the experience in Manitoba has shown that the time between the charges and the appearances in court is very short. I think the average is about five to six months, as opposed to the year that the Chief Justice is talking about in British Columbia. More importantly, I think, the people who are involved in the court have specialized training around the dynamics of domestic violence. There are the police, the Crown, the judges, the prosecutor and the defence attorneys. So it seems to work very well there; their track record has been very good. That's something that I would really encourage the Attorney General to look at much more seriously.

Another issue that I would like his comment on -- and to look more seriously at, too -- is paralegal work in transition houses. The transition house worker is being faced with an awful lot of issues that were primarily in the justice system before. Now, with the rules around counselling notes and all of these other legal issues that are coming into the transition houses, perhaps some resources or training, working with the Ministry of Women's Equality, to provide training programs or some kind of educational opportunity for transition house workers to be able to properly inform women of their rights -- or certainly at least a place to go and find out what their rights are and the availability of the legal remedies. . . . If the minister could just comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Good news. I'm told that we are beginning to include them in our training, and they were included in the criminal harassment training I just talked about. We will try to include them in other training as well.

L. Stephens: Public education is a big part of all of this as well. As the minister knows, the Women's Equality ministry is largely responsible for the educational programs on prevention of violence against women. Is there anything in the Attorney General ministry, in this particular budget, that does some educational work around prevention of violence against women?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We do in fact do a lot of educational work on the issue of violence against women. That work happens as a result of many initiatives that may not necessarily be deemed to be educational. For instance, we just enhanced the protection order registry. I've been talking about criminal harassment issues right across the province. I've been talking about a pedophile registry. We've been talking about other issues. We're hopefully going to be translating criminal harassment materials into languages other than English, for those who aren't proficient in the use of the language.

If you simply looked in the budget, you would think we don't do very much. But I can tell you that much of the work that we do around this issue -- even in terms of training and all of those kinds of things -- involves education and raising of awareness. Specifically, there is about $40,000 in the budget to do educational work around the issues.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the ministry would be able to give me a breakdown of where that $40,000 is going to be spent and in what manner.

Coordination of policies and services in government ministries -- the intergovernmental work that goes on around this issue. . . . I am told that there is a gap between the policies and the practices, a lack of accountability within government and

[ Page 7170 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have Violence Against Women in Relationships coordination committees in various regions. They report to us how we sometimes veer away from our actual principles in practice. Of course, that is then remedied. They also can, and perhaps do, report on the conduct or attitude of various officials in other ministries. So that work does go on.

L. Stephens: A specific incident is that sometimes child protection workers will threaten the woman that if she doesn't leave the home, they'll take her children away. This has gone on in a number of instances. Perhaps there needs to be a protocol around this particular policy with other ministries to clearly define what the policy is, what it means and what they can and cannot do.

There's an awful lot of confusion in the Ministry for Children and Families. There's a lot -- a tremendous amount -- of anxiety out there around this new ministry and how it is being dealt with in the field at the community level. There's a lot of families and particularly women in abusive situations that have this extra added pressure, because there is quite a bit of that going on. They're being threatened that their child will be apprehended if they don't do something or if they don't leave. Of course, in many cases the transition homes or victim services people have been working with them to develop safety plans and all kinds of other options for these women to try and work around the situation. That makes it very difficult. So I highlight that for the minister, to perhaps look at this other ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: While I appreciate the sentiments which the hon. member is expressing -- that statement about child protection issues -- I think it's appropriate that the hon. member raise that with the appropriate minister during the estimates, because it is the statutory obligation of the Minister for Children and Families to protect children.

Sometimes what is perceived to be a threat is a caution that's been given to the mother to protect the children. If the children aren't protected, then of course the children have to be removed under appropriate circumstances, using the discretion of the social workers. That's not to say that any ministry always does everything appropriately. We all make mistakes. But I think those are balances that we have to have.

L. Stephens: Yes, I hear what the minister is saying. Yes, in many instances that is true. But I do have to reiterate that it's been very plain and very pointed; no one can mistake the intent or meaning of these statements. Perhaps that goes back to the training in that ministry. And yes, I am going to raise that issue with the Ministry for Children and Families. But because it impacts on the Attorney General's area, I want to make sure that the Attorney General is aware of that as well.

There are some equity issues as well, and I'd like the minister to talk about that. There are some challenges for immigrant women, who do not speak English or have English as a second language, older women, aboriginal women and women who are isolated or confined to the home. Many of these women are almost invisible. I wonder if the minister can talk about that -- perhaps if there's an outreach program that his ministry is doing to reach these women to make sure that they know what their rights are and that there are some protections in the law and some remedies for them, particularly dealing with the immigrant women, aboriginal women, older women and women of colour.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there are in fact a couple of training sessions set for April 30 to May 1 and May 7 and 8 in Prince George and Dawson Creek, which involve training in interviewing, investigation and prosecution for police and Crown counsel dealing with violence against women, with an emphasis on working with multicultural families and reluctant witnesses.

As well, we are developing a training module for September of this year on power balances and the dynamics of abuse, and a video and manual on working with women from diverse communities. There is that work going on and as well we are always attempting to translate materials into different languages.

L. Stephens: Translations are another area -- having appropriate translators for immigrant women who do not speak English or have great difficulty speaking English. I wonder if the minister is taking any direction at the police level, where translators would be available, and also in the court system -- whether or not those services are available to people who need to understand the legal ramifications. It is a very serious issue, and it's very complicated for most people.

[4:15]

L. Stephens: Not all individuals coming before the courts have victim services assistance. There are those who go directly to the court system. I wonder how widespread the availability of interpreters in the provincial courts is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Having an interpreter available if you're not proficient in the use of language is, I think, a right before the courts. If you are a witness or a victim who is participating in the trial by way of testifying and you can't speak the language, of course the court mandates that an interpreter be provided.

The only concern I have is that there is an ongoing struggle with respect to accreditation of those interpreters. They aren't always. . . . I don't mean to cast aspersions on the capabilities of the very good interpreters who are present throughout British Columbia, but there are a great deal of difficulties on that front.

L. Stephens: I just have a couple of other areas. One of them is counselling and client services, and I'm not sure if that's something that the Attorney General would have much

[ Page 7171 ]

There's also a lack of services when there's substance abuse or unmanaged mental illness. Again, I'll ask the Attorney General if that's something he is responsible for as far as the policy is concerned or whether that's something I should talk to the Ministry of Health about.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is a disparity in terms of the salaries that are received, and that's a problem I can't fix. At the same time, in terms of these services, we have -- if I remember correctly -- over 140 victim services groups serving communities. Out of those, I understand that 40 or 50 provide services to men as well.

You have to understand that there are far fewer men who need that kind of help. They are a vocal minority at this point as part of the groups that require services. They actually dominated an entire meeting calling for community accountability programs in New Westminster, and I don't resent that. I think that's their right -- this is a democracy -- but I think it's important for us to see it in perspective when men stand up and say that they don't have as many services. Well, there aren't as many men abused. Historically, it's the women who have been abused, and we've provided services. As we determine the need for services for men, they continue to increase.

L. Stephens: The abusive men I was referring to were the ones that were convicted, the ones that had already gone before the courts or the ones there was already some concern about, where there had already been incidents of violence. Some have gone to voluntary programs, and others have been ordered by the courts. There aren't enough of those kinds of treatment programs out there.

There's always the issue of whether or not the courts should mandate counselling programs. I know the judges do have that discretion, but there's got to be a way to send some messages that abuse is not tolerated. If we're not going to use the full weight of the law in sending some of these people to jail, then there has to be some other areas and other initiatives that are used as well.

I'm a big fan of intervention programs virtually everywhere on the social side. I think that's the way to go: early intervention and prevention programs. Why I'm a big fan of the intervention orders being given is that you can intervene at that point before the escalation of violence reaches a point where someone is seriously or fatally injured. It seems to me that there's a lot of room to bring in some initiatives that clearly say that we don't support family or domestic violence. Mandatory treatment programs are one way to do that; sending them to jail is another way to do that. There are lots of options that the Attorney General has. I would just like to encourage him to explore as many of those options as he possibly can, and I think everyone would agree that we need to have some more resources put around those.

Sentencing for abusers and for violent offences against women and breaches of protection orders is too light. Many women feel that is the case -- not just women but many people in society. There have been a number of instances that have outraged the public, and the one I always remember is the Glenn Williams case in White Rock. I believe he got five years. There are people lobbying the federal government to bring in a separate category of spousal murder for a wife-batterer, with a minimum sentence of ten years. There are people beginning to look very closely at lobbying for this kind of added way to deal with spousal murders. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member should perhaps talk to the ADM for the criminal justice branch on the sentencing options that are available for various charges. She might conclude at the end of the day that this third category of murder may not mean any stiffer sentence than what's currently available. That has been raised with me as well. I haven't looked at it, but I'm told by Mr. Quantz that in terms of the sentencing, you'd be no further ahead -- at ten years. But that's an interesting approach. I was first made aware of that approach on a television show I was on a week or ten days ago. I'm interested in looking at it myself, so maybe we can do that together.

L. Stephens: What I've been told is that the average sentence for spousal murder is about five to six years; that's about the average they get.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Yes. Well, manslaughter is the category now, or first degree or second degree. Usually you can't prove first or second degree, so most of them end up being manslaughter. That's why the sentence is five or six years. So the idea that there be a separate category for spousal murders with a minimum sentence of ten years is very appealing to a large number of people -- probably more all the time. Does the minister want to comment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm always worried about establishing limits or provisions for specific kinds of offences. Once we do that, then we might also move on to say: "Well, if you kill a young child who is totally helpless, or if you kill a disabled person who is equally helpless. . . ." I think it really is a slippery slope. I'm not suggesting that we don't. . . . I mean, I have probably been the most vocal Attorney General across the country. I shouldn't be flattering myself, but I can tell you that I was in Ontario two weekends ago, and people told me there that they heard more about me in Ontario than they heard about Charlie Harnick, who is a friend of mine and the Attorney General of Ontario. It's because I have been raising issues with respect to the Criminal Code, with respect to criminal harassment, with respect to the national registry for pedophiles -- issues with respect to the Criminal Code that cut across provincial boundaries and go right to the heart of Ottawa. I am interested in pursuing this thought, but I have a real hesitation, as I said.

L. Stephens: Those are all the questions I have. I want to thank the Attorney General and his staff for being forthright in answering them.

G. Plant: I want to pick up on the issue of Judge Metzger's report. I want to begin by observing the obvious. The introduction to this report says, simply, in one sentence: "The Provincial Court of British Columbia is in crisis." There are a host of reasons for why that is so, many of which are beyond the control of the Attorney General or the government but have to do with things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fact that society is becoming more complicated in a whole host of ways. Some of these problems result

[ Page 7172 ]

If the Attorney General has an opportunity at some point to read Judge Metzger's report, there is an area where he talks about policy and practice changes which are some of the causes of the delay that exists in the Provincial Court system. When I look at that list -- which, admittedly, is only part of the picture, but an interesting part -- I see a number of those kinds of issues. There are situations where, for example, ICBC institutes a policy around the kinds of claims that it's going to honour in the motor vehicle world. The result is a greater demand on the court system, because ICBC has said they're going to crack down on. . . . You know, if there's no crash there's no cash, so people end up litigating those things.

[4:30]

I don't want to have a debate about all of the causes of the problem. It seems to me that there is a political aspect to the problem in the sense that the system would not be in crisis if politicians had responded better before it became a crisis. We could revisit and second-guess the history. The second aspect of the politics, if you will, is what politicians are going to do now to respond to the crisis.

Let me give the Attorney General this: those solutions absolutely have to be found in a context of extraordinary fiscal constraint. Even if the solution was proffered -- which it's not -- to build three new courthouses in British Columbia, everyone knows about the challenges that would be involved in doing that. The Attorney General probably has more bruises from going to Treasury Board than most people do.

In the context of problems in the judicial system and in the court system, the Attorney General speaks frequently about the need to find new and creative solutions, the need to get cases out of the courts. To use an image which I've heard people use before, if you think of the justice system as a funnel that brings all kinds of cases in and lets a few out, at some point we have to figure out how to get some cases out of the funnel.

I take into account the fact that the very kind of community consultation which the Attorney values so highly in a whole range of issues was the kind of community consultation -- the consultation across stakeholder groups, the consultation across the experts -- that led to this report. It seems to me that there is a theme around resources; there is a theme around the need to ensure that in some places in the system there are adequate resources.

I think that's why, for example, Judge Metzger says -- to put it in colloquial terms -- thank you very much for the four judges that were appointed last January; thank you very much for the money for ad hoc judiciary to deal with the backlog. That's not enough; we need more judges.

It seems to me that it's fine both to talk about those needs and to be, shall I say, eloquent and forceful on the need for creative solutions. What I am concerned about is: that the effective alternative, creative solutions are going to take time to develop. We know that because, for no other reason. . . . I mean, to pick an example: community accountability programming. You're not going to reproduce Sparwood and Maple Ridge tomorrow, next week or even this year; it's going to take a long time. If we do a good job of it, it will have the effect that the Attorney wants. What are we going to do in the meantime? What are we going to do to the cases that are at risk of being thrown out because of Askov delays, which we still don't have an accurate picture of because the minister still doesn't have the information that tells us how big a problem this is? What are we going to do in the meantime about the family court cases, where children are waiting because they don't know what the courts are going to do about them, and where husbands and wives are waiting because they don't know what the maintenance dispositions are going to be in their cases?

I don't want to stand here and say that the solution to the problems that face the justice system is to increase the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General. It seems to me that there must be -- I hope that there is -- a way to look at the issue in terms of reorganizing priorities and to see the importance of this problem as a priority. If we can't fix this problem, there is, to go back to an earlier theme, a whole host of other problems that we're going to have to live with. We're going to have to live with people being on the street who shouldn't be on the street, with families that are breaking up that shouldn't break up and all of those other problems.

I don't expect the Attorney General to have answers. I've read the press release that he issued upon his first look at the Metzger report. I'm asking the Attorney to say that there is a need to look at additional resources for the Provincial Court system as well as at the creative solutions that he talks about. I invite the Attorney's response to that comment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes to both.

G. Plant: Does the Attorney General have in place within the ministry -- or is he going to establish -- some kind of formal review process for consideration of the recommendations made by Judge Metzger?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In both the criminal and the civil streams, the appropriate branches of the ministry are reviewing this report. As I said in the press release, although very briefly, we are looking at these recommendations. I agree with the hon. member that resources alone can't be the answer. But there is some need for additional resources, and as I said in my comments to the press, I'm going to have to go to Treasury Board to take a look at that aspect of it while we continue to work on other solutions as well.

G. Plant: Am I right to take from that answer that all of the judge's recommendations are being given consideration, in keeping with the principles and the constraints that we were talking about?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Each and every recommendation of the Chief Judge would be looked at very seriously. Those that we can implement quickly will be done, and we may not be able to implement others that quickly -- or at all -- depending on what the circumstances are. But they're all being considered.

G. Plant: That's good to hear. When people go to the trouble and time to do the work that is obviously required for a report like this, it's appropriate that their recommendations be taken seriously. I'm glad to hear that they will be.

Let me focus in on one particular aspect of the issue, and that is the data-gathering question. This is really to put on

[ Page 7173 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions about the court services branch, unless there's more to be said on the subject of the Metzger report.

Interjection.

G. Plant: When Mr. McCandless provides information, I'm always reluctant to lose the opportunity to. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, let me just ask this.

Interjection.

G. Plant: No, I'll defer to my colleague from Chilliwack, who has one other area to explore in criminal justice.

B. Penner: I have a question to be directed towards the Attorney General. It does concern the issue of dangerous-offender designations. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of the issue that arose earlier this year in the Fraser Valley concerning a gentleman by the name of James Armbruster. He was the person who had, I believe, 63 previous criminal convictions at a time when he was on conditional release. Six days into that release, he sexually assaulted and robbed at knifepoint a woman working in a health food store.

Fortunately for the community, Mr. Armbruster was apprehended by some quick-thinking police not far from the scene. I think it's also noteworthy -- and it should be said here -- that the victim of that assault showed remarkable poise and deserves our credit as well for providing the police with a very detailed and accurate description moments after this traumatizing event. It was so accurate, in fact, that a police officer driving down the road, hearing the description on the radio, instantly twigged when he saw a gentleman matching that description walking on a sidewalk down the road, and he apprehended Mr. Armbruster.

The next day Mr. Armbruster pled guilty to sexual assault with a weapon and armed robbery. Sentencing was adjourned to give Crown counsel time to consider their position. It came as a surprise to many, including myself, that the decision of the Attorney General's staff -- I realize it probably wasn't the minister himself -- was not to seek dangerous-offender designation. Through unofficial sources I heard a number of suggested explanations for that, one being a shortage of court space -- that it would require court time, it would require financial resources in terms of paying for psychologists to perform an assessment. For all those reasons -- plus, no doubt, additional ones, but those were some factors that were mentioned in the discussion -- it was determined that the Crown would not seek to have Mr. Armbruster classified as a dangerous offender. That decision is important because according to, I believe, section 753 of the Criminal Code, a judge cannot on his own motion find somebody to be a dangerous offender. The Criminal Code is very clear, and it requires the Crown to make that specific application.

I took some time and I met with the victim of this incident as well as the victim's husband -- a remarkable couple who are trying to do their best in very trying circumstances. They also felt let down by the system. They felt it had not in the least been adequately explained to them why Mr. Armbruster, a person who had a previous record of sexual assault and numerous convictions for indictable offences -- including, I believe, assault causing bodily harm as well as robberies, break and enter, impaired driving and a host of other breaches of various court orders -- was not determined, in the interest of the Attorney General's ministry anyway, to be a dangerous offender. On behalf of the public, I would ask the Attorney General to provide a bit of a statement as to what, in his ministry's view, is an appropriate offender to be classified a dangerous offender. What are the criteria? I did write to the minister on this matter not that long ago, on March 3, 1998, but I have not yet received a reply.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I actually wanted to get up and stop the hon. member from talking about the specifics of the case, because the case is before the courts. The gentleman has appealed his life sentence. I want the hon. member to know that the decision that was made by the Crown had nothing to do with either financial costs or court time. I think it's appropriate, and I have been assured by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal justice branch, that if the hon. member and the justice critic desire to have a briefing on this issue with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, he would be happy to take you through some of the issues that he can discuss with you. It is inappropriate for me to make any comments.

In terms of the policy on dangerous-offender designation applications, I understand it's a thick binder, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General would be happy to take you through it as well.

B. Penner: I will endeavour to take the minister up on that offer and to meet with his assistant in that regard. It probably won't happen while the House is still in session. Perhaps it will, but certainly not during the estimates, because we're all too busy right here. I look forward to that briefing, because I feel that the general public has a sense that somehow people aren't looking out for the public's interest, that somehow the government is letting them down. Now, I know that people are doing their best within the system -- the police officers, the prosecutors and everyone else associated with that process -- but my concern is that the public appears to be losing confidence after many of these types of decisions.

[4:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate what the hon. member is saying. I want the hon. member to know and, through Hansard, the public to know that this decision was very thoroughly considered by the Crown, including the Assistant

[ Page 7174 ]

G. Plant: I'll ask some questions about court services. Last year, before estimates, I think. . . . I'll just wait for a moment. Mr. Quantz is being as helpful as he ever is. I'm waiting until he leaves before I ask all the really hard questions.

Court services. Last year, before estimates began and during estimates, there were public concerns raised about the increase in probate fees. I'm told by the minister's staff that the revenue from the probate fee increase and from probate fees generally for the fiscal year just ended is expected to be in the order of about $21 million, which would represent something around a doubling of the fee revenue from years past. Perhaps I could begin by just confirming that that's generally right.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: What I want to do is sit that in the context of what might be described as the possibility of a user-pay model for the civil court system in British Columbia, which I think is an interesting idea. The idea of whether our civil court system should be a user-pay system is probably one that we could discuss pleasurably for a while. I want to, though, monitor the extent to which it has become so. First of all, there are a couple of different sets of numbers. I'm going to see if I can get these on the record more or less correctly. The first is that I understand that within the court services branch, an analysis has been undertaken of fee recovery for civil court process as an offset against the provincial government's expenditures in operating the civil justice system. If you're trying to compare civil court fees against the cost of operating the civil court system, and if you take salaries for Supreme Court judges and Court of Appeal judges out of the equation, I understand that the cost recovery percentage is now in the order of 92 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I understand that that figure takes into account fee increases of a year ago, including the probate fee increase as well as the fee increases for small claims court and the other fee increases around jury trials and so on that are intended to take effect as of May 1 of this year. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: So that's sort of a going-forward number for the fiscal year that we're now in. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I've had some correspondence, probably less than the minister has had, with an individual who is a fairly vociferous opponent of the probate fee increase, a gentleman who lives in Victoria. He has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of a letter which the Attorney sent to him back in September. There were a couple of points made in that letter that I think are interesting. One is a more technical one. Of course, this individual is unhappy with the probate fee increase. This individual has made the argument that the probate fee increase is a form of taxation, an argument which I understand is now on its way to, or has arrived at, the Supreme Court of Canada. In terms of public policy, the issue is: why does the government need more fees to operate the court system? I'd be happy to show this if the Attorney needs to see it. In response, the Attorney pointed out that the costs of administering the justice system in British Columbia are higher than in any other province in Canada and so on. Then the point was made that fees contribute only 40 percent towards the cost of the provincially funded court system.

Am I right that that comparative analysis takes the fees across the entire provincially funded court system and offsets them against the entire cost of operating the system? That would bring into the picture the cost of operating the criminal court system and also family courts. Or was family included in the 92 percent figure?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Family is not included in the 92 percent figure, but it is included in the overall figure that was given.

G. Plant: That figure was valid as of September 1997. We're some months down the road. Has that number changed in terms of what the ministry expects the percentage of cost recovery to be across the entire provincially funded court system for the fiscal year we're now in?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the figure would change slightly upwards as a result of the increase in fees.

G. Plant: The next point that is made in this letter that I want to bring to the minister's attention is perhaps slightly less numerical and more interesting. The observation is made by the Attorney General that the reason that probate fees were selected for an increase a year ago was because they would cause less hardship than court fees on services used more frequently by the average British Columbia citizen. Then the Attorney said this, and I'll quote: "Implementing new fees in the provincial family court or raising fees in small claims court would have caused a greater impact on the public."

In light of that, I'm wondering if the Attorney General could explain how he can now justify the fee increases which are to be implemented in the small claims court. In that context, I'm also interested in exploring a little bit the disparity between a fee increase in a civil branch of the Provincial Court, which I think in part was motivated by the need to address the backlog issue, when it is really a more critical problem in the criminal division of the Provincial Court.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the change in the small claims fees happened several months later as a result of the budgetary matters being dealt with. Those changes, as you know, happened.

G. Plant: One of the advertised reasons for those changes -- the set of changes that are about to take place -- is the notion that by raising fees for access to the court system, the government will be encouraging potential users of the court system to find alternative means of resolving their disputes. I guess I'm concerned about the rationale. As much as anything here, I'm concerned about what might be called truth in advertising. That is, if the expressed rationale for increasing small claims court fees was simply that we needed to find money somewhere because times are hard, I might have been a little less concerned than I am with an argument that says that we're raising fees in the small claims court because we're

[ Page 7175 ]

But in small claims court we have a tribunal that deals with claims that for the most part would not be economical to arbitrate. While mediation is obviously the preferred alternative for an enormous number of civil disputes, at the end of the day the problem with mediation is always the risk that one party or the other will simply walk away and not be forced to conclude an agreement. So for the users of small claims court it doesn't seem to me that the proposition, "Go elsewhere to find a solution to your problem," is a terribly persuasive one. Maybe the Attorney General can persuade me why it is that he was right to put that forward as the rationale for the increase in small claims court fees.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it is appropriate to remember that sometimes if you have a little bit of a cost for taking a step or two, it does make you think whether or not it is appropriate for you to bring a particular claim. Now, I'm not suggesting that the bulk or majority of cases that go to small claims court are not worthy cases. But there's no doubt in my mind that some of the cases end up there because there's no cost attached to being there. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. It was with that in mind that the fees were raised -- so that for anyone wanting to bring an action into court, there is some momentary pause to reconsider and review whether or not there is another more creative way of dealing with it, or whether the cost that they're going to have to put out at the front end is merited, keeping in mind the merits of the case.

G. Plant: This is one of those situations where I, while I find statistics sometimes to be more harmful than helpful. . . . I have this feeling that the vast majority of claims that are actually filed in small claims court are claims where there is really no doubt at all about liability. They are simply debt collection matters. So my intuition is that this is not a terribly helpful way of explaining a problem that I think doesn't exist. If I had this sense that important and pressing constitutional issues were being litigated every day in small claims court, then maybe there would be some rationale for explaining the fee increase along the lines that the Attorney General has explained. But I don't have the statistics.

So in the absence of those statistics, I want to engage in a little bit of lateral thinking for a moment. I want to take two propositions and put them together and then ask the Attorney General a question. The first proposition is this: in determining the price of access to a court system, it's legitimate to set fees and so on for the purpose of giving people momentary pause to reconsider their options or to making them think twice. The second observation is that the civil aspect of the provincially funded court system has reached the point of something like 92 percent cost recovery -- leaving aside for one moment the superior courts.

Given those two observations, I marry them together with this question: what is the fee recovery percentage for the operation of the Human Rights Tribunal?

[5:00]

G. Plant: I am going to suggest that the apples are pretty darned close to oranges. First of all, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, cases are constantly litigated that are not about money. In fact, cases are litigated about issues like human rights. The price of access to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.. . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yes, but I understand the 92 percent figure to be a figure that applies across the court system. That is, it includes all of the operation of the Supreme Court trial registry and all of the operation of the sheriffs in respect of the Supreme Court system. The only cost in respect of operating the superior court system that has been removed is the cost of the judiciary. Now, perhaps we could establish if I'm right on that. If I'm not right, then clearly I am talking about apples and oranges.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: You are correct on that, but I assumed that you were talking about the small claims court and then comparing that to the Human Rights Tribunal and the commission. I'm saying that the questions that go to small claims court may be apples; and if they're apples, questions that go to the Human Rights Tribunal are oranges. You'd agree with me on that.

G. Plant: I will agree with you on that. That's why I called it lateral thinking, which is a dangerous exercise for a prisoner of linear thinking like me.

Here's the point, though. The point is that when you look at the civil justice system in British Columbia, the people who run it are increasingly looking at it on the basis of (a) there's a price of access, and (b) that price is pretty close to the cost of operating the system. It's not quite entirely there, but it's pretty darned close. Now, if you were someone who was to advocate a user-pay system for access to the civil court system in British Columbia, you'd be moderately happy to know that in fact we're at a 92 percent level for the civil court system. So for people who have civil disputes in British Columbia, whether that be a money issue or an injunction issue or whatever the issue is -- including litigating issues of fundamental rights -- there is a price for access to that system.

Now the question is -- and I pose it without necessarily knowing myself what the answer is: why is it that we don't make the same assumption about the operation of the Human Rights Tribunal? There is no price of access, other than the cost of a telephone call, to engage the entirety of that process. It strikes me that there is some incongruity in the approaches. I'm not sure where that incongruity takes us, but it does seem to me that at some point the people who are going to advocate -- and do advocate -- a fee-recovery, user-pay system for the civil court system need to think about what their explanation is going to be for other aspects of quasi-judicial processes in British Columbia. To be honest, I haven't thought about or done research into the Labour Board, the Employment Standards Tribunal or any of those other things, most of which are not within the scope of the Attorney General's ministry. But I have thought about the Human Rights Tribunal because, as the Attorney well knows, there have been workload issues around that tribunal. The Attorney has for the second year in a row given a fairly significant sum of money to that body to

[ Page 7176 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that the hon. member has certainly thought about the issue. I haven't. There is, on the face of it, incongruity. Whether or not it's justified, I think one would have to consider that. Obviously that is the case throughout the country. I understand that human rights panels or commissions, whether they are federal or provincial. . . . If my memory serves me correctly, they don't have any fees to lodge complaints. That may have developed over time, because these were new institutions. They're more recent creations. Courts have been in place for a long time. Many of the cases that do go to the courts, particularly the civil courts, may involve constitutional questions. Apart from the family cases, many of the cases that do end up there are cases to do with debts and commercial transactions and the like.

I understand the hon. member's point. It's an interesting point, and I would certainly think about it. But when we're dealing with these rights, because they are a more recent statutory creation. . . . All of the jurisdictions that I'm aware of have chosen to go the route of providing some rights for those who didn't have rights. You always had a right to go to court, but you didn't have the right to go to a human rights tribunal, because none existed. That might be the explanation, and I would be interested in pursuing it and thinking about it.

G. Plant: I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General will give some thought to this.

Let me move to another court services issue. I don't want to revisit the entirety of the debate around the courthouse closures and their impact. I do, however, want to visit one issue very briefly and another perhaps at somewhat more length. I understand that it is now the ministry's intention to operate satellite courts in Ashcroft and Ganges -- in effect, to somewhat reverse the decision to close the court facilities.

By a satellite court, I understand that the intention is to move to something like the old circuit model, where the justice system will come to town for a day every once in a while on an as-needed basis. If I haven't summarized the intention correctly, I invite the Attorney General to correct me or to elaborate. I am also interested in a timetable for the implementation for these initiatives. When can the good people of Ashcroft and Ganges expect to see a judge in their neck of the woods?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. These are anticipated to be satellite courts as described by the hon. member. With respect to operations, we're working with the judiciary on that. We're hoping that we will be able to commence operations in September or October of this year.

G. Plant: The minister wrote me a letter in which he explained the financial impact of the closure decisions. He also explained the principles behind the decision and then made the point that his ministry continues to monitor the impact of the closures on access to justice. I think we are probably speaking about Sidney, Langley, Mission and West Vancouver. Could the Attorney General briefly indicate exactly what he is doing, in a formal sense, to monitor the impact of those closures on access to justice?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The utilization rates of the receiving centres where the courts were consolidated have gone up since some of these courts were closed. Other than that, I think the monitoring is in the way of what I hear from people when I go around the province. I went to Kamloops. I believe it was in Kamloops that people stood in a public meeting and said that they were having extreme difficulty without a court in Ashcroft. I said that I would certainly take a look at it. I came back, and then there was a discussion. Actually,. I was on my way to Vancouver on the ferry, and someone from the Ganges area said to me: "We're prepared to assist you. We want our court back to the extent that it's possible." I said: "I will direct my ministry to take a look at that as well." Because these are two areas where there are distances involved and it's difficult for people to travel, I was very open to looking at those options. That's the kind of monitoring I'm talking about. People are free to call our office and talk to me and tell me what they think.

G. Plant: I'll try and restrain myself from doing that right now. No, I'm only kidding.

I should have said that I expect that the member for Chilliwack may have questions around the Fraser Valley issue. I understand that there has been public discussion around the process, and we'll see what his questions are.

Before I go to the next specific aspect of the issue, listening to the Attorney General respond around Ashcroft and Ganges, and acknowledging that the decision that's been made there is to take a model that is different from a full-scale courthouse and move to the model of a satellite court or a circuit court, I want to say -- for whatever my two cents is worth -- that I think part of the key to access to justice in terms of court facilities in British Columbia for the foreseeable future absolutely has to include a consideration of alternative ways of delivering court services in communities. To the extent that the Attorney General shares that view and is willing to think creatively here as well as elsewhere, I think that enhances the ability to deal with the access issues that exist in rural British Columbia within the fiscal constraints that I know exist. The Attorney General is nodding to that, so I take it that those are views that he concurs with.

It seems to me, though, that Sidney has created special problems, and perhaps I will push down the Sidney road just this much further. The Attorney General has probably seen the statistics that have been collected by the folks in North Saanich and Sidney -- the civic governments there and the RCMP. I have in front of me an article from the Sidney Beachcomber on March 4 of this year. The local staff sergeant in North Saanich, in making a report to the council there, talked about the tremendous increase in travel time spent by the local RCMP and the standby time spent by the RCMP who now have to come down to Victoria to attend criminal court.

[5:15]

[ Page 7177 ]

There are a whole bunch of implications of that, one of which, of course, is increased costs to the municipality or whatever the entity is that's paying for the delivery of police services. It seems to me that those numbers call for some more enthusiastic commitment to a review of the problem in Sidney than I think the people of Sidney feel that they've had. This is not just a community that is thinking only in terms of, "Gee, we've lost our courthouse; we're unhappy"; it's a community that can document the financial impact of that -- leaving aside the public safety issues that are involved when you send a relatively small number of RCMP officers down to Victoria all the time. I mean, they're obviously not in Sidney or North Saanich serving the public and keeping the community safe. Those numbers, when I saw them, made me really quite concerned, frankly. I understand that the Attorney General is probably not going to reopen the Sidney courthouse tomorrow, but what I think is called for is some leadership around addressing that problem. I invite the Attorney General to tell me what that leadership is going to be.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there are several options. One is currently being worked on with other municipalities, such as Saanich. I understand that there is an individual within the criminal justice branch who is willing to coordinate the arrangements between the police and the Crown so the police don't waste their hours travelling unnecessarily and waiting in the courts. I would encourage Sidney to contact the criminal justice branch. That individual can assist Sidney police and the Crown to sort out these matters in a creative way so they don't have to travel unnecessarily and wait for cases when they aren't being heard. That's better management and coordination between Crown and police. There is an individual that is willing to assist within the criminal justice branch. They need to speak to Mr. Quantz on that.

The other option has actually been talked about with respect to other locations. Many of these cases are traffic cases. Perhaps we need to look at a satellite traffic court once a month or once every two months, so that most of the time spent by police officers going for traffic court matters from one place to the other can be dealt with more appropriately and in a less costly way. There are many ways of looking at these issues, and we're always open. We're thinking about them.

B. Penner: The minister won't be surprised that I'll now proceed to ask a couple of questions concerning the state of the review of the Chilliwack courthouse.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought it was settled.

B. Penner: The minister indicates that he thinks it's settled. If that means that he's going to keep the courthouse open and perhaps consider expanding it, then I would agree with him that the case is settled. But anything less than that, in my mind, leaves things very unsettled.

Last fall the Attorney General was quoted -- I think it was in the Province newspaper -- as saying that closing courthouses was amongst the most difficult things he's had to do in his time as minister. Taking him at his word, I would say that it's not surprising, given that he is a lawyer and has practised in courts and presumably knows how important it is that members of the public have access to courts. I also know, from speaking to him previously, that he has spent time conducting a significant family court trial -- a five-day trial -- in the Chilliwack Supreme Court facility. So I know that the minister has some background and some experience, and I appreciate that. I think that benefits our community.

Notwithstanding the minister's remarks that he didn't want to see any further courthouses close in British Columbia, I'm left with the impression that the closure of the Chilliwack courthouse is still considered an option by the ministry. I just wonder if, to begin with, we can confirm that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it would be in fact impossible at this point to directly respond to that question and do so candidly, because as the hon. member knows, there is a committee reviewing this matter. The terms of reference of the committee have been changed, and the hon. member is aware of that. The committee may recommend two courthouses for the two communities that we're talking about -- Abbotsford and Chilliwack -- in that region, or the committee may recommend one justice centre. If the communities can come to a consensus and if we have the resources in the years to come, my view would be that we should have a central location in that area and build one justice centre with all the facilities attached to it. That is my view, and that would of course mean closing one or the other.

But in the near future, until those decisions are made, the courts are there to stay. The community is working, I understand, and there is a ministry committee reviewing the issue as well. The community committee is going to bring recommendations to me, and their recommendation could be that they want two courthouses -- or one. That's why we amended the terms of reference to make sure that we accommodate the possible desire of the communities in that area.

No one wants to lose a courthouse, particularly in Chilliwack. The courthouse, although it's not in a very good state, is a historic building. It's been there for a long time, and I know the kind of attachment people have to those kinds of things. These are difficult issues.

B. Penner: In fact, Chilliwack has had a Supreme Court presence since 1884, I believe it was -- the first time Judge Begbie, also known as the hanging judge, frequented Chilliwack. It was in August 1884 that he held an assize court. That started the tradition, and Chilliwack has traditionally been the Supreme Court seat for the upper Fraser Valley, servicing areas not just immediately in the vicinity but extending up on both sides of Harrison Lake, which is an active logging area, and the Fraser Canyon. So it's not just the Chilliwack community itself that has come to rely on that service. That's a bit of the history. The first courthouse in Chilliwack was built in 1894, about ten years after the first sitting, and it's been on the map ever since.

I know that last year, after the minister announced plans to close 14 courthouses in British Columbia -- the Chilliwack courthouse being one of those -- there was a community protest in Chilliwack, and minister announced a two-year reprieve. Coming out of that in the media reports were statements that there would be a committee struck consisting of community representatives and presumably some ministry staff, as well, to help supervise things. That is what we were left to believe would be happening.

What happened, in fact, was that three different committees have been struck, only one of which consists of community representatives. But even that one committee has a significant number of people representing the ministry on it. Then there is a further committee which is entirely made up of government employees, there's and a third committee made

[ Page 7178 ]

What this has done in the community is send a message -- that was perhaps unintentional -- that the bulk of the committee work will be directed or at least closely monitored by representatives of the Attorney General ministry. That's because one full committee is entirely ministry staff, the so-called regional committee with local representatives has a number of ministry employees on it, and the third committee is a diverse group which, again, has some government representation on it.

That has raised legitimate concerns in Chilliwack about the independence of the committee and what kind of freedom members of that committee will really have to come up with innovative ideas about saving money and still providing a very important service to people in a large part of the province. I'll let the minister respond to that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The regional committee is obviously there, and that is the most important committee. They can consult with the users committee. The government representatives are there simply to assist the local representatives with information and advice that might be sought from them. The regional committee, upon consultation and deliberation amongst its own members, is free to make any recommendation. There is no fix on this issue. I can assure the hon. member that if that were the case, we wouldn't have put together a regional committee and given it broader terms of reference than was previously intended. If there is one thing that has become clear to me over the last many years of political activism, particularly around the justice system, it is that if you make major decisions that impact the lives of people and if people aren't with you, you might as well just quit.

B. Penner: Certainly a significant number of people from the community are participating in one of those three committees. That's the regional committee, which will, hopefully, be the dominant committee in terms of their voices being heard.

There was considerable concern, though, because the initial terms of reference indicated, for example, that they would not make recommendations directly to the minister; rather, they could only make their comments to Matrix Planning Associates, the consultants retained by the ministry to oversee the consultation process. When members of the regional committee asked Matrix Planning to broaden the mandate and allow them to make recommendations directly to the minister and to make recommendations other than closing one or the other courthouse, the initial response from Matrix Planning was that they had gone back to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General had said no.

I was immediately suspicious of that response from Matrix Planning Associates, for two reasons. First, I don't think the minister would be so unwise as to do that, for the very reason that you just stated: when you get involved in public life, you start to have a sense of how these things get going with the public interest behind it and what can happen. The second reason I didn't believe it is because they wrote us the letter saying that the minister had said no to changing the mandate at the same time that the minister was in India. So I told members of the committee, who were -- I'll say it here -- very close to resigning in protest en masse, that I had grave doubts about the veracity of that comment for the two reasons I've just stated, but primarily because I didn't think the minister was here. I thought he was in India. When faced with that revolt, Matrix Planning said: "Okay, we'll ask again and see what he really thinks." Then they came back to the committee and said: "Maybe the Attorney misspoke himself or had a change of heart; it's okay to change the mandate."

I'm just saying this so you can get a sense of where we're coming from and particularly why I, as a representative for the community and feeling the pressure on this issue, will react the way I do when we see things developing and when we get the impression, to use the minister's term, that the fix is in. I certainly hope that's not the case, the people in my community hope that's not the case, and I'm sure the minister hopes that's not the case.

[5:30]

B. Penner: Maybe just a bit of advice -- not so much for the minister but perhaps for some staff in his ministry and particularly Matrix Planning Associates. They probably couldn't have drafted more inflammatory terms of reference if they had tried. These are people in the community who have a lot of other things they can do with their time, including a recently retired Provincial Court judge, Barragh Vamplew -- whom I have a lot of respect for, because I've appeared in front of him many times -- and the inspector of the Chilliwack RCMP, to name only two people.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I met with them, didn't I?

B. Penner: Yes, you would have met with those individuals almost exactly a year ago, so you know the people I'm talking about. My suggestion is simply, in trying to be constructive in opposition, to make it clear to people that their views will be valued. Initially, that was not the impression that was left. I don't know where the breakdown in the line of communication was, but certainly the consultants were saying: "Nope, this is our show." You report to us. It's not the consultants working for the committee; it's more the committee working for the consultants. That was certainly the discussion. Even the flow chart contained in the binder that all members of the committee got seemed to put Matrix Planning at the centre of the wheel, with these various committees feeding into Matrix Planning. A year ago, when the two-year reprieve was announced by the minister, there was no public statement that we would have a process with consultants at the middle. We thought that the committee would be at the centre with some local representation.

That was where things started going off the rails, and a lot of people lost a fair bit of sleep over the way that they felt things were going. I do appreciate the fact that the minister and Mr. Scigliano have been actively involved in this matter and helping to get it back on the rails. I do think that there is some good will from people on the committee and that they

[ Page 7179 ]

I have a specific question. I hope your staff are able to answer it. There's some construction work currently taking place at the Chilliwack courthouse, along the lines of tenant improvements, I suppose. I've noticed that air conditioners have been installed in virtually all of the offices, and perhaps some electrical upgrading work has taken place. I wonder if the minister can confirm the value of those improvements that are taking place.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the total value of those tenant improvements is about $200,000.

B. Penner: I believe that was part of the minister's commitment at the time the two-year reprieve was announced, so I congratulate the minister for honouring that commitment. The reason I asked the question is that I've received a number of inquiries at my office. Rumours are running rampant, as they tend to, about the value of those improvements. I've heard figures anywhere from $200,000 to close to $400,000, and I hadn't been able to get a clear answer on that. If your staff are able to provide any further clarification on that, I'd be happy to receive it.

Of course, Abbotsford has a Provincial Court which is swamped; I think I can say that quite accurately. According to the report that my colleague from Richmond-Steveston referred to early -- the report by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, Judge Metzger, on court delays -- it's taking about 14 months on average to get a Provincial Court matter to trial in Abbotsford. Looking at the chart towards the end of that report, I saw that over a three-year period -- I believe it was 1992 to '94 -- there were just over 10,000 criminal cases that proceeded into Abbotsford Provincial Court. In comparison, Chilliwack had about 7,500 cases in the same period of time. Clearly both courts are busy. I had heard that there were improvements of a short-term nature being made at the Abbotsford courthouse, but I'm also hearing reports that now that work has stopped. Staff at that courthouse have asked me if this is an indicator of things to come. They're wondering if it's some foreshadowing. Perhaps it's an indication of where morale is at when people start worrying every time a janitor or a painter shows up, or doesn't. But they're now wondering about the significance of work that appeared to be getting ready to start and then suddenly stopped.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hopefully, that work would continue. Obviously we have to take that matter to Treasury Board to deal with the issue. We're hoping to make those additions and renovations to the Abbotsford courthouse if Treasury Board so approves.

B. Penner: I'll just pursue the Abbotsford courthouse improvements for a moment, if I may. It was late last year that the Attorney General ministry announced the appointment of four new Provincial Court judges, I believe -- one of whom was going to be based in Abbotsford. I forget the woman's name, but I have it here somewhere. I've heard since that it caused a bit of confusion in Abbotsford, because there simply wasn't the physical space for her to occupy another office dedicated to a judge. That may have prompted some of the workers showing up to do some interim improvements. I wonder if that issue has been resolved, because at least what I'm hearing through the grapevine is that it hasn't yet been resolved satisfactorily.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it has not been resolved satisfactorily. That's what we're working on.

B. Penner: To further clarify: there is no actual construction work presently taking place at the Abbotsford courthouse, aside from putting dividers in the Crown counsel library so they can put two more staff in their makeshift office space, which used to be the library.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The work underway is to create a facility for videoconferencing between Surrey and Abbotsford.

[G. Janssen in the chair.]

B. Penner: Is that actually going on now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is currently going on, and it will go on. The rest of the work would wait.

B. Penner: I see a number of hand signals here. I'm not sure if that means we're running short of time.

The Chair: No, no. I'm just here for one second. Go ahead.

B. Penner: I'll ask the minister if he can quantify, first of all, the cost of the videoconferencing improvements that are apparently now taking place at the Abbotsford courthouse. Secondly, what is the anticipated expenditure required to accommodate the new Provincial Court judge appointed for that area?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These questions are usually appropriately directed to the ministry. This information is always accessible to you; you don't have to wait for the estimates debate and waste our mutual resources and time. The total renovations and addition for the judge would cost $1.2 million. The work around videoconferencing requires about $40,000.

B. Penner: I want to thank the minister for that.

Just before leaving the issue of courthouses generally, I'd just point out for the record that the latest figures for Chilliwack indicate a population of approximately 65,000 people, and in the Abbotsford area -- it depends on who you talk to -- it's 105,000 plus. Between 1991 and 1996, both communities grew by roughly the same rate -- around 23.5 percent. When you compare other communities of much smaller sizes in the province, they have court facilities.

Again, looking at the total number of cases started in Chilliwack in '92, '93 and '94. . . . According to the Metzger report, referred to earlier, more than 7,000 Criminal Code of Canada cases commenced in the Chilliwack law courts. That is more than in New Westminster, somewhat less than in Coquitlam -- but not much less -- and significantly more than in many areas of the province. I just point that out for the minister's reference.

I'm not sure how late we want to go tonight. Perhaps we'll just get some guidance from the Chair or from the minister on what the appropriate time is.

The Chair: Usually the adjournment time would be quarter to six. So there is time for a few more questions before we report out in the House itself.

[ Page 7180 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think there's anybody here who could give us the answers on photo radar at this point. So why don't we just. . . ?

B. Penner: But I can ask some more general questions which I don't think the minister will need to rely on his staff for, hopefully. In recent months -- not even all that recent; going back several years -- there has been an apparent increase in the number of violent incidents involving the use of pepper spray by civilians. That's not the use of pepper spray by police, who are authorized to use pepper spray. I'm not referring to the APEC protest last year at UBC; that's a separate matter. I've been keeping a collection of newspaper accounts of break-and-enter offenders using pepper spray when they do a home invasion. I've heard reports of school children using it on a bus to attack one of their colleagues, having the effect of impairing the ability of the operator of the bus to drive the bus safely. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on regulating the sale of pepper spray in British Columbia. Currently you don't need a licence. It seems to be quite wide-open, although I recognize that it is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada to use pepper spray in an assault. That constitutes assault with a weapon, I believe. But there's no restriction on actually purchasing it, as far as I know.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is correct with respect to the law. I have been asked that question before. There is a concern that I have in terms of banning the substance. I know that many women carry it with them for defensive purposes. Banning it would require that they might have to get special permission to get it. It is an offence to use it for assault and for offensive purposes, but I'm not clear whether it is an offence to use it for defensive purposes. I'd let the lawyers deal with those issues. So that's a concern that I have. I think we should keep that in mind when we're debating this issue.

[5:45]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

My curiosity is whether there's some potential here for a middle ground -- something beyond the wide-open sale of pepper spray but short of the other extreme, which is an outright prohibition. What I'm thinking of is perhaps an age restriction for people purchasing it and maybe restricting the number of places that sell it. A number of individual constables have spoken to me on their own initiative in Chilliwack about a particular corner store that's located close to the high school in downtown Chilliwack, and which has a big sign: "Pepper spray for sale." It's literally only a couple of hundred metres to the school yard. Their question is: isn't there some way to restrict the sale of pepper spray?

Maybe there's a number of things we could think of: restricting it to sporting goods stores or to certain types of hardware stores. I believe that if it was more difficult to buy, it would be less likely that a high school kid would say: "Hey, it's a good idea." If you make people go out of their way, the legitimate user -- women who are concerned about their safety and back-country users -- would no doubt make that effort. But perhaps the casual user -- the school kid -- who may say, "That would be cool to have that as a potential threat," wouldn't have such accessibility to that substance.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the issue is a complex one. I mean, you can't place age restrictions. If older women would need it, younger women might need it.

These are difficult questions. I have read the material with respect to the police association's position. I am somewhat hesitant to say what the conclusion would be, but this is obviously future policy. The member should feel free to come and speak to me -- other than during estimates -- so that we can pursue it, if the member is interested. I don't have any firm conclusions in my mind at this time.

Hon. Chair, noting the time, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada