[ Page 8021 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm really pleased to introduce Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998. This bill is. . . . [Laughter.] My apologies, hon. Speaker. I think this is Friday morning.

The Speaker: I think this is Friday, yes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Court Rules Act, Crown Proceeding Act, Employment Standards Act, Evidence Act, Health Professions Act, Hospital Act and Tobacco Tax Act. Of course, we will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 24 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.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: Just with the levity of the morning, I am reminded that this is the birthday of the hon. critic for the Attorney General ministry. I thought the House would want to recognize both his levity and his birthday. Please join me in congratulating him.

The Speaker: Indeed, many happy returns of the day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

MANAGING DISABILITIES

Mr. Ali Taqi spoke briefly after the signing, acknowledging the significance of the project in examining the ILO's interest in disability management initiatives. Despite favourable legislation and regulatory environments, the availability of vocational rehabilitation and other services, and the existence of special positive measures and programs, persons with disabilities everywhere continue to experience major barriers to employment. While returning to work is not the full solution for the equitable integration of people with disabilities, it does achieve positive social and economic results for workers, employers and society at large.

Brian Payne, vice-president for Western Canada of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, spoke about his support of the memorandum of understanding between NIDMAR and the ILO:

"Individuals who are unable to return to work often feel alienated, lonely and abandoned. The alternative is effective disability management and reintegration. When it's done right, you have success. From my perspective as a workers' advocate and someone who has worked for many, many years to move this issue along, this signing will have huge significance for workers and their workplaces, here in British Columbia, in this country and internationally."

"The business case for disability management is compelling. But it is not the statistics, it is the inherent worth of the people. This agreement will allow us to address some major barriers and find some best-practice solutions with international applicability."

"I believe that what we're seeing here today is the beginning of something extraordinary for working people, not just in British Columbia but around the world. The joint project that the institute is undertaking with the ILO will be expanding our opportunities to learn and adopt the best practices from other jurisdictions, and will also be sharing B.C.'s expertise and contributions with the global community."

"Through this project, valuable information will be gathered. We can all learn from the successes and failures and, hopefully, with determination and partnerships, we can discover ways to improve disability prevention that will result in more effective ways of getting injured workers back to work."

Forest Renewal B.C., the Canadian government, the British Columbia government, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and private industry together established a $7 million endowment fund to ensure the ongoing work of the institute. The B.C. and federal governments have been supportive of NIDMAR's work for many years, organizing and

[ Page 8022 ]

The Premier, speaking at the signing ceremonies, pointed out the impact of disabilities in B.C. He said:

"Our own statistics show that last year alone, 4,000 British Columbia workers suffered permanent disabilities on the job. Many of those individual workers -- the vast majority of them -- will never work again. Only 6.1 percent of workers who are injured and off the job for one year are able to maintain employment if they return to work. That, to me, represents a tremendous loss of talent."

"Returning disabled workers to the workplace isn't just good social policy, it's very good economics, because every time a disabled worker goes back to work, we're increasing our competitiveness by reducing compensation costs for employers and the cost to society in general."

Mr. Taqi expressed the feelings of all participants and NIDMAR supporters in his closing remarks: "Let us strive to make our joint project the first step in a vigorous new campaign towards equality of opportunity and treatment for people with disabilities."

[10:15]

There is a recent study that was done by the organization the member mentioned, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, which is based in the hometown of the hon. member, Port Alberni -- which is actually the place where I was born as well. It's interesting that their study shows that the direct and indirect costs of disabilities in British Columbia is totalling $3.6 billion annually. It is a huge amount of money, hon. Speaker. But as the member noted, it's not something that we can put in statistics or in dollar terms. We're talking about people's lives, about their ability to have pride in the contribution that they're making to our society. Certainly over the last 20 years we've made some enormous strides in enabling those with disabilities to function and to become full participants in our society, but we obviously have a long way to go.

I think that we have to be very cognizant in this chamber, as we develop new legislation and new rules, of some of the spinoff effects that some of those rules may have. I note, for example, that if we start looking at the employment standards legislation and the regulations that have been brought in in this chamber, we wind up. . . . What we do in order to give certainty and rigidity to the workplace, on the one hand, causes inflexibility that is to the detriment of those with disabilities, on the other hand.

I note in the report NIDMAR has produced that they talk about some of the structural barriers that those with disabilities have when it comes to being able to get back into the workplace as fully functioning individuals. One of the things they talk about is the need for assistance devices to help them fit back into gainful employment. They talk about modified hours, something that would be vitally important to those with disabilities. Yet what we have done, on one hand, is to reduce the flexibility towards modified hours. Certainly as we stand up and advocate for those with disabilities, we have to look at some of those issues -- changes that we can make to existing regulations -- to ensure that those with disabilities can take their rightful place.

Also, when it comes to the number of job opportunities there are, I think that what we have today in British Columbia is a declining number of jobs all around. Clearly it is those who are the most vulnerable that pay the first price. It is the young and the disabled who pay a much higher price for the lack of job opportunities than does the rest of society. One of the things that we can do and that I think will be of benefit to those with disabilities who are seeking to get back into the workforce is to ensure that we have generally more job opportunities in this province. That obviously is a very large problem that we have to solve in this chamber.

I will wrap up by just saying that I think the sharing of information, as a result of the initiative with the ILO, is very important. We have an opportunity in British Columbia to make a very valuable contribution to the world in terms of the research that is being done in this province. Certainly I support that initiative. We look forward to some very positive benefits for the disabled in the years to come.

G. Janssen: I thank the hon. member for his comments and support. Some 15 years ago an organization met in the basement of the IWA hall in Port Alberni. They met in the basement because the upstairs was not accessible. They formed the injured forest workers of British Columbia, the forerunner to the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. Attending that meeting was Wolfgang Zimmermann, now the director of the institute. He was there on crutches. There were four people in wheelchairs, including Sven Fredrickson. Also there were Bob Skelly, then the member for Alberni, Earl Foxcroft of the IWA and Henry Nedergard, the president of the labour council.

They produced a film called Every 12 Seconds, which was shown at Independence '92, the disability conference that was held in Vancouver, and started the institute off in its role as a leader in Canada in its research and management of disabilities. In 1994 the institute was formed, and various levels of government, private industry and some Crown corporations came on board and formed the endowment. Now Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba have signed on. The institute is going to expand, I believe, across Canada and have a leadership role.

In just six years we see provinces and countries -- Germany, the United States and Australia -- involved in research activities with the institute. It has been a long road from Port Alberni to Geneva, but I'm very proud today to stand as the member for Alberni and congratulate the institute and congratulate the community. Even though the institute has gone to an international standard and international recog

[ Page 8023 ]

NEW GAMES FOR A NEW CENTURY

The Pacific Games 2001 program features a triple thrust: the 2001 Pacific Games, the Pacific Economic Forum and Sport Exposition and the Pacific Cultural Festival. Forty-three countries, with 46 percent of the world population and 56 percent of world GNP, will compete. The games include 13 sports and up to 4,000 athletes. All sports have high Pacific TV appeal. The sports include athletics, aquatics, badminton, basketball, boxing, gymnastics, judo, rugby, rowing, soccer, skating, softball, triathlon, table tennis and volleyball. Again, selection is subject to confirmation from the International Sports Federation.

The games will be athlete-centred, gender-balanced and fully accessible for persons with disabilities. The Pacific Games will be green games. It's interesting, having heard from the member for Alberni. . . . Indeed, I was present when our disabled athletes went off to Nagano. What's appealing about these games is that those athletes will be in attendance at the same time as the other athletes. It won't be something that happens as a follow-up. All athletes will receive the accolades of their spectators at the same time.

Top competition is assured. Pacific countries win 44 percent of Olympic medals and comprised four of the top five countries in the 1996 Olympics in popular sports. B.C. athletes will have the rare opportunity to compete at home and inspire our youth. To me, that is a remarkable event, for individuals who wish to represent Canada and British Columbia will have the opportunity to do so on home soil.

Existing facilities will be used. Ten million dollars in construction and upgrading is needed: pools, athletic stadiums, a rowing venue, a canoeing basin. Most of the seating and spectator amenities will be temporary.

The Pacific Cultural Festival will highlight first nations as the original host culture and will feature guest performances from both the Pacific region and the diverse cultural groups of Vancouver, B.C. and Canada. A celebration of the Pacific will be held on Canada Day, July 1, 2001.

The Pacific Economic Forum and Sport Exposition will foster improved ties across the Pacific and among Vancouver's many Pacific cultures. This capitalizes on the hidden advantage provided by our new citizens of Asian-Pacific descent and can help improve Canada's share of the trade with Asia. The Asian business style is based on strong personal relationships, both formal and informal. The synergy of the games, forum and festival will strengthen the ties between Canada and Pacific countries. The Olympics and other games are proven winners for corporate hospitality. Sport is possibly the single best informal entrée to Asian decision-makers.

Vancouver is fast becoming a Pacific city, with 33 percent of the population now of Asian background -- up from 10 percent in 1986. Cross-cultural relations arising from a large change in Vancouver demographics have been respectful, but the self-image of the new Vancouver has not been established. This Pacific Games program can do more to build cross-cultural understanding and bonding than any other initiative. The games will be managed to foster ethnic and gender balance across all games, committees, objectives, programs and activities. Through these triple thrusts, the many cultural threads of Vancouver can be tightly woven into a magnificent multicultural, first nations, European and Asian tapestry -- unique in the world -- to help form Vancouver's and Canada's new identity and position for the twenty-first century.

The focus on youth, in which I believe very strongly, includes youth employment with the organizing committee, curriculum support, greater cross-cultural appreciation, inspiration for B.C. youth by B.C. athletes competing in popular youth-focused sports, opportunities to volunteer, opportunities to perform in the opening and closing ceremonies, and the Pacific youth sport legacy fund.

It is projected that 15,000 foreign visitors will attend, including 10,000 from overseas and 5,000 from the United States. The games family will total 17,000 visitors, including 9,000 from outside of Canada. A conservative estimate of 100,000 television spectators is projected, of which 85,000 will be from B.C., 9,000 from other provinces, 4,000 from the U.S. and 2,000 from overseas.

The economic impact of these games, the forum and the festival will provide a conservatively estimated $247 million from direct games budgeted spending and indirect off-budget spending. This is good news for our province. The games will provide $15 million in GST and $13.5 million in PST from direct and indirect spending. Conservative estimates of visitation project an incremental $38 million to the B.C. economy, with $2.7 million in PST and GST revenues.

I'm here today because one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Dhillon, is a member of the steering committee for these games. I can only applaud his energy and commitment in terms of taking these private sector initiatives forward. I think these games will do some wondrous things for British Columbia and Vancouver. Certainly we have all been part of the wondrous events that followed the 1986 Expo in Vancouver. So if these games can build upon what will happen for the next Olympic Games that come to this country, to Canada, that would only be to the good, from my perspective.

I await my hon. colleague's comments.

J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member from the other side of the House for her comments on the upcoming plans for the Pacific Games. I certainly agree with many of the benefits that she has outlined in terms all of these kinds of games that come to our communities, whether they are Summer Games, Winter Games or the Games for Athletes with a Disability that each of our communities host, or the larger Olympic-style games, such as the Pacific Games that are being talked about. Yes, there is a tremendous interest in these kinds of sports, as I know from my own community of Burnaby, which hosted the B.C. Summer Games last year. It can be a tremendous coming together of communities to host and sponsor visitors from all over the world or all over British Columbia. It is also an opportunity to build sport facilities -- enhancements or a legacy that is left behind.

But on the very basic element behind sports, we also need to hope -- and work hard to maintain -- that the skills and character-building aspects of sports are reflected in games at all levels. In that sense, I'm talking about the sense of self, the growth to full potential, sportsmanship, the sense of fair play, the sense of team play -- in addition, of course, to the

[ Page 8024 ]

[10:30]

In closing, hon. Speaker, I just want to say that I certainly agree with many of the points that have been raised by the hon. member in terms of enhancing trade with Asia, through many kinds of dialogue. There are still a great many details to be worked out. As we know, in games of this nature we need to wait and encourage the federal government to take some leadership role here. In British Columbia I think our government, on a very basic level of encouraging the value systems that community sport can engender, has demonstrated that we are prepared to support those kinds of community sport values. I hope that we can bridge the gap that perhaps has occurred between the aspects of sport that we all want to encourage and some of the darker sides of sport that have come about in the last few years.

L. Reid: I would like to thank my colleague opposite, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, for her comments, particularly around ethics in sport. I think that's fundamental to the success we will experience as we go forward into the next century. Certainly I think people's perceptions of what is required and what is decent and proper in terms of sport proceedings will continue to be evaluated. So again I thank the hon. colleague.

Hon. Speaker, I want to end with a number of quotes, the first from a five-time Olympian, Charmaine Crooks: "I think any athlete that has the chance to carry the Canadian flag into the stadium right here in Vancouver will forever feel a sense of pride." "There are not that many opportunities when we as Canadian athletes get an opportunity to show our stuff to the Canadian public." That is from Lori Fung, another of our Olympians. "The potential of the games will be extraordinary. The economic impact and the spending when the games are on, the follow-up trade and tourism that will happen years after, will leave a legacy in the hundreds of millions of dollars." That is a comment from Rick Antonson, president and CEO of Tourism Vancouver. "I think the games have the potential to bring the diverse ethnic and cultural communities in our city closer, with a feeling that we all live in a smaller world." That quote is from Mason Loh, the chairman of SUCCESS. "Cultural ties are a very essential part of developing the business relationship. These cultural ties create an element of trust and from that spawns the business relationship. It's a very essential part of doing business with Asian countries." That quote is from Milton Wong.

The legacy of the Pacific Games. "When you bring people together for a common goal and a dream, it has a powerful impact on the community. It goes far beyond just the dream itself. I saw that happen in the Man in Motion World Tour, and the legacy has been such a powerful thing. The legacy of the Pacific Games will be very, very powerful. It will make such a difference to the city of Vancouver." That quote is from Rick Hansen.

I will close by saying that sport allows all nations to come together as one. I believe we will bond as a city and as a nation and, frankly, will have the opportunity to embrace the games, the Pacific and the future.

SAVE YOUR LIFE -- QUIT SMOKING!

Our goal is to expose the truth about the dangers of tobacco and the behaviour of the tobacco industry in pushing this lethal addictive drug onto our children; to pursue the matter of holding the tobacco industry accountable for the first time ever for the damage it's done in targeting kids and hiding the true danger of tobacco; and also to achieve improved public health by protecting young people from tobacco addiction and by helping smokers to quit. This kind of approach has been successful in the United States and has brought that country to the verge of very significant change in how the tobacco industry does business and ultimately in how young people are protected.

Legal action is the key to this success. Legal action will force the industry to (1) admit the truth about how it portrays itself as a good corporate citizen while actively working to get young people addicted, (2) pay the future costs of prevention, cessation and treatment programs, and (3) change its behaviour and its products so the health of British Columbians is better protected.

British Columbia's ultimate goal is a public health agenda that is no longer undermined by the tobacco industry but supported by it. The British Columbia government is inviting partners across Canada to join us in going after the tobacco industry to get at the truth, achieve justice and change the industry's behaviour forever.

To change the behaviour of the tobacco industry, we must begin to (1) challenge the industry's influence in Ottawa, (2) initiate or expand provincial smoking-prevention efforts, including strong measures against the tobacco industry's marketing to children, (3) take legal action to hold the industry accountable for the damage it's done in targeting kids and in hiding the true dangers of tobacco, and (4) work with public health organizations to determine how the tobacco industry and its lethal addictive products must change so the health of Canadians is better protected.

Hon. Speaker, there are certainly a number of hazards related to smoking, and I'll just name a few of them here. Heart disease: smoking is a major cause of heart attacks. Lung cancer and emphysema: if you smoke, you're as much as 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer. Mouth cancers: smoking is the main reason people get cancer in their tongue and mouth. Throat cancer: four out of every five cases of cancer of

[ Page 8025 ]

Also, scientists have identified about 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes and cigarette smoke; many of them are deadly. Every year almost 6,000 people in B.C. die from smoking. These are some of the thousands of chemicals smokers inhale: turpentine, which is very toxic and is commonly used as a paint stripper; acetone -- the tobacco industry refuses to say how it gets into cigarettes -- which is one of the active ingredients in nail polish remover; benzopyrene, which you'll find in coal tar and cigarette smoke, is one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals in the world; propylene glycol, which the tobacco industry claims it adds to keep cheap, reconstituted tobacco from drying out, but which scientists say aids the delivery of nicotine, tobacco's addictive drug, to the brain; arsenic, a deadly poison which makes your lips burn and gives you bad breath; butane, which is highly inflammable and is one of the key components of gasoline; methoprene, a chemical used to get rid of fleas on your pets; cadmium, which causes damage to the liver, kidneys and brain, and stays in the body for years; lead -- lead poisoning stunts your growth, makes you vomit and damages your brain; ammonia, which the tobacco industry says adds flavour and scientists have discovered helps you absorb more nicotine, keeping you hooked on smoking; formaldehyde, which causes cancer and can damage your lungs, skin and digestive system, and which embalmers use to preserve bodies; benzene, which is a cancer-causing chemical used to make everything from pesticides to detergent to gasoline.

Those are just a number of the problems with tobacco. I also want to mention that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in British Columbia. As I mentioned earlier, close to 6,000 people die every year as a result of tobacco-related illness.

Hon. Speaker, I see the red light is on.

T. Nebbeling: Let me first say that I share with the member opposite many of the concerns that he has expressed in speaking on the use of tobacco and on the availability of tobacco to groups of people who we just do not want to be exposed to tobacco.

When I travel through the province, one of the most appalling things I always find is the area outside theatres where people mingle during the interval to get a quick puff of a cigarette. It's a public display. One of the things that is really a concern to me is that it is often young people that are involved in the use of tobacco in the 15 minutes they're given between movie performances. What that says to me is that when we talk about tobacco use, we should primarily focus on young people at this point. When I go to an airport I see the same type of public display of people sitting in a little cubicle getting the last smoke into them before they have to enter a plane. It clearly shows how serious the tobacco addiction is for people. Anything that we can do in this House to stop people either from being introduced to tobacco or from getting involved with tobacco is worthy of our attention.

I have listened carefully to the member, and one of the things that actually surprises me is that the speech he made today is very much like the speech he made last year when he introduced a bill that I thought was a good bill. It was a private member's bill -- Bill M203, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act -- that would have stopped tobacco manufacturers from flavouring chewing tobacco in order to make it more tasty for users. Chewing tobacco specifically targets the young people's market. I thought it was really worthwhile to introduce that bill in the House. The member talks a lot today about all the damage done by tobacco and how we have to get involved as members of this House to stop that. Well, it is surprising that the bill that the member introduced never came back. I would suggest, as one of the recommendations for the member to deal with the problem he is concerned with, that indeed he bring back that bill. I can guarantee that this side will support that bill. I think the time of making speeches and talking about how we're going to stop the evil consequences of tobacco. . . . Let's walk the walk, and let's get this bill back into the House.

[10:45]

We know there are mechanisms: the patch, the chewing gum, acupuncture, hypnosis. There are ways of helping people to get off tobacco use, but it's a costly exercise. This government today has not in any way, shape or form committed a dollar to assist people to get the tools that are available today to wean themselves off tobacco. I would suggest that the member opposite start focusing on that element, as well, so that the money taken from tobacco companies, if that worked in the past, does not become just profit-sharing for this government in revenue derived from the use of tobacco.

These are the two points I want to make. I am committed, like the member and like my caucus, to do anything we can do to effectively use our powers to reduce the use of tobacco and reduce the exposure of tobacco products in a manner that entices young people to start using it. If we in this House can start taking that leadership role, I think we will make a difference. That's what I ultimately hope will happen.

F. Randall: I'd like to thank the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for his comments and certainly for his support in appreciating this serious problem. He did mention the private member's bill that I put in last year with regard to chewing tobacco. The reason I did not put that in yet is that private members' bills have a tough time getting dealt with in this Legislature, and I have been endeavouring to convince the Minister of Health that it should be included in a tobacco package that is coming. I'm not sure what's happening with that. If it's not coming forward, I will be introducing it again.

The other matter raised by the member with regard to money. . . . I know that money for educational purposes about tobacco has been increased from $2 million to $5 million this year, so there has certainly been a substantial increase in money available for education. I think a lot of members have seen the ads that are on TV, etc., and the province is certainly doing an excellent job with those ads in making people aware of the dangers of tobacco. I know that when I went to school,

[ Page 8026 ]

I feel strongly about the issue. I have, in effect, been out on a sting operation with two 14-year-olds to see if we could buy tobacco, and I can tell you that there was no problem in buying it with 14-year-olds, which was interesting. Arising out of that, there was a manager of a Shoppers Drug Mart who made the comment that they keep tobacco only as a convenience to the customers and that there's no money in tobacco. It's interesting that Shoppers Drug Mart is owned by Imasco, which is Imperial Tobacco -- and they say there's no money handling tobacco in their drugstores.

The other thing I want to mention briefly is the matter of the lobbyist who was working for the tobacco industry, a Mr. Robert Parker. He has made the statement that with the comments about all the costs of health care related to smoking, the cost of smoking to our society is not high when you consider that smokers die early and therefore can't collect pensions. This is the rationalization of the tobacco industry.

HAVE A HEART

I can assure you that I'm not related to him. I wish I could take some credit for that, but unfortunately I can't. I can say, however, that we do have a couple of things in common. Harold lived in Alberta and Saskatchewan before moving to Kelowna, and he has a very strong interest in helping people with heart disease. On April 3, Harold Hawkins started a five-month, 4,000-kilometre journey that he often dreamed of doing and that he proudly calls his Wagon Trek for Heart. Harold's mission is to drive his horse-drawn covered wagon across the three western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan in an effort to raise awareness and funds for cardiac research. Wagon Trek for Heart began in Victoria on April 3, and it was officially launched on April 6 in front of St. Paul's Hospital by Harold's original cardiologist, Dr. Dodek. A couple of weekends ago, I had the pleasure of joining Harold on a wagon ride from Winfield through to Oyama.

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit with Harold on his Wagon Trek for Heart. I learned that Harold has a very personal interest in helping heart patients. Harold is 64 years old, and he's been living with heart disease for 28 years. He had his first heart attack when he was only 36 years old. He has twice survived heart surgery: he had a double bypass in 1977 at St. Paul's Hospital, in Vancouver, and ten years later he had a quadruple bypass. His experience with heart disease gave him an inside view of the progress made in new equipment and procedures, and Harold feels that he's a living example of the benefits of cardiac research.

He felt the need to give back to those who helped him, but he wanted to do that in his own personal way that would promote the benefits of cardiac research and also raise awareness of heart disease. I guess it only seemed natural for Harold to use horses for his mission because he's been around animals all his life: he was raised on a ranch; he had a very accomplished career in rodeo; he won first prize in the chuckwagon races in the Calgary Stampede; and he is, apparently, a cowboy known worldwide.

His Wagon Trek for Heart has been a labour of love. He personally built the covered wagon and trained the pair of horses that pull him in it. He's worked hard to raise support from sponsors for food for his horses, and he's lined up barn dances and fundraising events across the three western provinces for his heart research fund. Harold is doing all of this on a shoestring budget because he wants all of the money to go to his chosen charity. He tells me that he sleeps in his wagon most nights.

His wife Carolyn and his good friend Walter Woolridge have accompanied him on parts of his journey. I think it's important to recognize the significant and extraordinary contributions that ordinary citizens make on behalf of their community and on behalf of all of us. I believe that Harold Hawkins is one of those special people who decided that he wanted to make a real difference for people with heart disease in his community and then actually put his plan in action. He apparently has been dreaming about doing this since his first heart attack and has spent a lot of work putting it all into play. I understand that he has written to the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to the Premier here, to join him on a wagon ride. I know that several of the MLAs have taken him up on it. In fact, I understand that the MLA for Okanagan-Boundary has been on the wagon ride with Harold, and I took the opportunity. I'm sure he's written to some of the others, and I hope they will take the opportunity to ride with him. He tells some very interesting stories about his cowboy days and about how he was able to continue with his chosen path of working with horses because he was able to get his surgery and his cardiac treatment.

Well, I'm really proud of Harold for his commitment to help people with heart disease. I'm very, very grateful for people like him. I think our communities are a better place because of people like him. With that, I'll receive comments from the member from the other side.

G. Bowbrick: I thank the member for Okanagan West for her comments. It sounds like Harold Hawkins truly is a credit to the people in his community -- to all of us, really -- and he's made a substantial contribution to a cause he believes very dearly in. It raises in my mind the broader issue of service to people -- service to people in need, in particular -- and service to our communities.

In my community of New Westminster, there are also people who contribute greatly to our community and who I have a great admiration for. We have service in so many sectors. We have, as I mentioned, service to people in need. In my community we have New Westminster Family Place, which is an organization that devotes itself to helping young mothers, in particular -- single mothers who are low-income and who often do not get much of a chance to get out and have much support in the community. They provide that kind of support, and I, as a member of a community, am very proud of the work they do. Century House is a seniors' community house that provides recreation and a social life for seniors. It provides public education on the use of pharmaceuticals, personal safety and issues of that sort.

Also, along the lines of service to people in need, we've just acquired funding for a transition house for women in need -- for women who have been battered, and their children. While I was involved at the tail end of that process, the only reason it's happening is because of people in my community who worked long and hard to make the case that it was a service that was needed and that they were willing to be a part of that. We also have in my community, fortunately, many people who are prepared to provide service to young people. They volunteer their time for two sports in particular that I'd like to highlight. We have a swim club, the Hyack

[ Page 8027 ]

On the subject of young people, we also have service by young people in my community. I'm very proud of the fact that at New Westminster Secondary School, we have students who are very, very active in a number of causes. Just recently there was the 30-hour famine which was put on by students to raise the issue of famine relief and to raise money for that cause. I think it's extraordinary that young people are willing to do that. It certainly goes against the grain of those -- and the media in particular -- who have almost nothing but negative things to say about young people.

We also have people in our community who are committed to a broader sense of civic duty. We have nine residents' associations. All of those people do essentially what politicians do: they take flak because they believe in their community. Unlike us, they don't get paid for it.

I wanted to draw some attention to the issue of volunteerism and service in my community, but I think it's very much in keeping with the same theme that the member opposite raised, which is certainly. . . . I have to acknowledge the contribution that Harold Hawkins has made. It's an important issue, and I'm pleased that the member has raised it today. I think it's an important issue that a constituent of hers, I believe, has raised.

[11:00]

When I talk to people like Harold, who knows people that have died waiting and people that are stressed waiting. . . . He's very grateful for the opportunity to have had his surgery, ten and 20 years ago, within a fairly reasonable amount of time. He's hoping that his contribution and his Wagon Trek for Heart will result in some good things and in patients getting the treatment they need when they need it. Harold hopes he can help others with his Wagon Trek for Heart. I fully support his efforts, and I encourage those MLAs who do get the opportunity to ride with him to take advantage of it. He's a very colourful, delightful and very intelligent man. He is absolutely talented with a horse and wagon. We had a lot of traffic going by us on the highway, and it's just amazing how competent he is in his wagon. A few times I was a little frightened that the horses might actually run off the road into the lake, but he kept it on the straight and narrow. He hopes to complete his journey by Labour Day, and I want to wish him happy trails and a very safe, successful journey. I'm sure all the members in the House wish him the same.

The Speaker: That concludes private members' statements for today. I call on the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply B; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE

I hope that we can deal this morning with the liquor distribution branch and questions around that and the estimates. I have some remarks I'd like to address just to that. But before I do -- and I see my hon. colleague the Liberal critic there, across from me -- I want to just take about two minutes, if I might. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. Sorry to interrupt you, but I think it would be appropriate if you moved the vote first and then made your comments afterwards, so that we can begin the committee.

Hon. I. Waddell: Vote 57 -- resolved that a sum not exceeding $373,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, minister's office.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Well, I just didn't want the vote going through. I'll yield to the minister, who'd like to make an opening comment, hon. Chair.

On vote 57: the minister's office, $373,000.

Hon. I. Waddell: I just wanted to say something -- since we are in the big House here and we are available to people who are watching all across the province, as well as in this House. . . . I just want to take two minutes to talk about a part that we will no doubt come to later on in these estimates, and that is sport fishing and the tourism industry.

We have a crisis today in the sport fishing industry as a result of the decision by the federal minister to restrict coho salmon fishing. Many of our tourists come up from the United

[ Page 8028 ]

I want to tell the House and my colleagues opposite that I've instructed Tourism Vancouver to meet on Monday with the sport fisheries industry. They'll meet in Vancouver with the key stakeholders in sport fishing. I believe the Canadian Tourism Commission will also be part of that meeting. This is very positive news, because this is the beginning of a strategy which I think we all share -- I don't think this is a partisan matter -- to tell tourists coming to British Columbia that B.C. is still open for fishing. Let me repeat that -- B.C. is still open for fishing. There are species other than coho: spring salmon, sockeye -- a whole slew of species that people can fish for.

Tourism B.C. had allocated $50,000 to market the sport fishery this year. I've asked them to look at increasing that amount. I'm encouraged that the Canadian Tourism Commission -- because really it's a B.C. question, but it has national implications -- appears to be interested in putting in some money as well. So we have to market the message. Let me repeat the message again for a third time: we still fish in B.C. There's still sport fishing in British Columbia, and Americans and other people -- Europeans -- can still come here and fish. We've got a problem with the coho species. We're responsible conservationists -- as are many tourists, you know. We have a much more sophisticated world, and tourists who come to British Columbia understand, too, that conservation and the environment are very important. Indeed, that's what B.C. is famous for.

I just want to say strongly today that B.C. is indeed open for sport fishing. We're going to have to make some adjustments. It might cost some money; we're going to have to do more marketing. We want the federal government to help us with this. We want to work together cooperatively, and we want to get that message out.

Having said that, I'd like to now proceed to deal with the estimates generally. I don't know if my friend wants to reply to that. I wouldn't mind yielding the floor to him to reply.

The Chair: The member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and through you to the minister and to the British Columbians that are watching today and will watch later today.

First of all, I'm very, very encouraged by the minister's comments. I think that what all British Columbians want from their elected officials, no matter if they're from the government side or the official opposition side, on urgent issues that are so important to all of British Columbia is that all elected officials work together to solve the problem and not use it for political advantage either within the province or within our country.

I was encouraged this morning by the early press coverage. Both the federal and the provincial solutions and assessments of this issue apparently mirror each other, which is also a sign of encouragement. I believe the minister made a comment that Tourism Vancouver would be meeting on this issue; I believe it will be Tourism B.C., as our provincial marketing organization.

Sport fishing is open for business in British Columbia today, tomorrow, for the rest of the year and for all of the years to come. There are lots of fish off the coast of B.C. for the people in Alberta, British Columbia, Washington, Idaho and all over the United States to come to British Columbia and catch. We have a great tourism industry here, and we should be supportive.

The official opposition is fully supportive of Tourism B.C. and the sport fishing industry of British Columbia. In that regard, I think it would be very important that both the minister and the official opposition critic forgo their estimates on Monday to attend those meetings in Victoria, to show that this Legislature can work together in a non-partisan way to solve problems for British Columbians -- to solve problems for British Columbia business operators and tourism operators. I would ask that the minister talk with his House Leader, and I will talk with my House Leader, so that we can show British Columbians on Monday that we will work together in a non-partisan way to ensure that everyone knows that sport fishing is open in British Columbia.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for his remarks. That's exactly what I was hoping he would say. I said Tourism Vancouver; it's Tourism B.C. He said the meeting is in Victoria; it's in Vancouver. It's a good suggestion, and I'll look into it. We can show some solidarity and non-partisanship here. I think we both agree to that, and I'll see what I can do apropos of attending that meeting on Monday.

I'd now like to deal with the liquor distribution branch. I have a few remarks to make on that before we begin. I'm pleased to report that the liquor distribution branch achieved its revenue target for fiscal 1997-98, with a net income of $606 million -- subject to the completion of a year-end audit. This is a 3.2 percent increase over last year. That was $606 million: the fiscal target. Sales during the past fiscal year were approximately $1.6 billion, up 3.5 percent over 1996-97. The liquor stores and the other sales associated with liquor stores -- the sale of spirits in British Columbia -- were $1.6 billion in total. This is an excellent performance given that operating expenses increased by slightly over 1 percent, and year-end results showed increased sales revenue in the major categories of spirits, beer and wine.

[11:15]

[ Page 8029 ]

The vision of the liquor distribution branch is to be consistently regarded as a superior retailer through its excellent product services and relationships with customers and stakeholders. This is the biggest retailer in the province. The LDB business strategies are based on the four pillars of customer service, business effectiveness, workplace cooperation and social responsibility. Adherence to these principles will ensure the success of the branch's major business initiatives for the coming year, such as recycling wine and spirit bottles and meeting the challenge of the year 2000.

In the coming year, I have every confidence that the liquor distribution branch will continue to offer the best service to the public in a socially responsible manner, while contributing significantly to provincial revenues. With those opening remarks, my officials and I will be available to answer any questions that members may have with respect to this branch.

R. Thorpe: I'd just like to make a few brief comments. First of all, there's no doubt that the LDB generated $606 million or $608 million -- whatever it is. And yes, part of that is due to the very good organization they have. But we must also remember that British Columbians pay the highest markup for beverage alcohol in North America. Yes, the service and the organization are excellent; it is run in a very professional manner. But we must remember that British Columbians are taxed very heavily for beverage alcohol, and we cannot forget that.

My first question, hon. Chair. At a May 12 function, the minister made the comment that he and his staff were committed to cutting red tape for brewers in British Columbia. Could the minister be specific on what red tape they are going to cut for the brewers?

Hon. I. Waddell: With respect to the general remarks that my friend made about the high markups and the high taxes, yes -- but we do have the best education system and the best health care system in the country, and we're working hard to finance that. That's where part of this money is going.

With respect to the red tape, we are in discussions with the brewers to see what specific concerns they have with forms and with dealing with the liquor distribution branch. This is part of the government's overall policy of our task force on red tape -- of which I am a member. Basically, the philosophy, as I say to my friend, is to try and get the stakeholders to tell us what the forms are, what the better ways are that they think they could deal with government. Is it electronic filing? Is it eliminating forms and so on? We think the red tape's pretty good -- pretty good, meaning not a lot of red tape. My friend and I share this: we don't like red tape. I don't like red tape, and I'm committed, as is the government, to cutting it down. That's why we have a task force. So the short answer to the question is: we're working with the brewers to accept any recommendations they have so that we can serve them more efficiently.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On behalf of the Minister of Women's Equality, the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, I have the pleasure of introducing 48 grade 5 students from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary School, who are in the gallery with adults and are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Blaine. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: In this estimates process I want to try to keep it at a higher level, but the minister will appreciate that if we could deal with the LDB issues without making reference to the highest taxation, the best health care and the best education. . . . I don't want to get down into that debate -- how bad health care and education are in British Columbia today. I'd like to stay with the estimates of the LDB.

With respect to the commitment that the minister made on May 12 at a brewers' function, that was a statement in generality as opposed to a statement related to specific issues.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, it was a statement in generality. I didn't give a figure. I noticed that the hon. member. . . . If he wants to present a figure about how much red tape would be reduced, I noticed that in the Cariboo Observer on April 26 there was an interview with the hon. member and one of his colleagues. He said: "There's one thing a Liberal government would do: cut red tape by 33 percent." And he was asked how they came up with 33 percent. The answer was: " 'I don't know. How did we come up with that number, John?' '' -- this is the member's colleague -- "asks Thorpe, who is sitting at Wilson's desk. 'We made an educated guess,' says Wilson, who is sitting on the visitor's chair holding a cup of coffee."

The Chair: Minister, please don't refer to members' names, even indirectly, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm just quoting the article. All right, I won't.

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not introducing a set figure, because I don't like picking figures out of the air. It appears to me that's what's been done in this instance. So it's a general statement.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, the minister mentioned a surname which is that of the member of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. If the minister would make it clear that he was not referring to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in his remarks.

Hon. I. Waddell: I certainly would make it clear. The name in the article is with reference to another Wilson who is also a member of this House, a member of the Liberal Party. I'm not sure what his riding is, but it certainly wasn't the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

R. Thorpe: Well, you know, I said in my opening remarks I wanted to keep it up at the highest level, but the minister keeps wanting to go down, and I can't understand why.

You know, there's one thing about this government. I believe it was on March 30 -- not that long ago -- in the budget speech. . . . Someone sitting over there made a statement about a commitment to cut red tape. Then, 15 days later, 1,400 pages of WCB regulations: more red tape. Then we had Bill 14 introduced: 57 pages, 200 sections of more red tape.

Yes, the official opposition is committed to cutting red tape, and we will cut red tape by one-third in the first three years, when we form the next government of British Columbia. The way we're going to do it is by working with stakeholders on a daily basis, to understand their issues and

[ Page 8030 ]

We should be a very successful province. The students who are visiting us today should have hope and a vision that they can aspire to the same things that we had the opportunities to aspire to. And they will, if we work on certain issues on a non-partisan basis. I would ask this minister that we approach this without trying to clip newspaper articles -- because we can all do that if we want. But if we want to stay constructive and solve some of the problems that British Columbians are facing today, then that's what we can choose to do.

With respect to the recent appointment of this minister and the change in cabinet responsibilities, I am wondering if the minister can enlighten me and perhaps other members who are sitting in this House right now: what is his role and responsibility with respect to liquor policy in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: I understand what the member said, and I listened. . . . Thirty-three percent -- I point out. . . . "How did we come up with the number, John?" Well, it was an educated guess.

Let's get specific. Let's talk about specific policies and I'll answer specific questions. The question was about the role of the minister, me, and the implication of who's responsible for what in the government with regard to liquor policy. I'm responsible for the liquor distribution branch and the practices and policies coming out of that.

R. Thorpe: An educated guess with respect to some comments the minister made earlier is always -- where I come from -- better than an non-educated guess.

With respect to the liquor policy that this minister is responsible for, not too long ago -- I think it was a year and a half and $100,000 ago -- this government had what I think they referred as the Enemark report. Could this minister tell us which of the five or six key items in that report his office will be dealing with?

[11:30]

R. Thorpe: Am I to interpret that the two ministries are working hand in hand on this? Or is your responsibility just to look at certain items and the Attorney General's ministry, which is responsible for the Liquor Licensing and Control Act, looks at certain things? Are you working at it together, in a team spirit?

Hon. I. Waddell: The Attorney General is responsible for the liquor control and licensing branch, and that would be the area that I mentioned: the U-brews and the U-vins, the billiard halls, entertainment, games, licensed restaurants, and so on. The area that the LDB would be interested in includes credit cards and openings.

The answer to your question is that we are working cooperatively together -- that's the whole point of the way we're working on this. I'm coming from a Tourism and Small Business point of view, and my friend the Attorney General does a great job in looking after licensing and is one of the senior ministers in the government. So we're working together on this.

R. Thorpe: So here we are -- 16 or 17 months and $100,000 later. All kinds of questions remain unanswered, and small business operators. . . . I can remember February 26. I believe it was in Kelowna: "Advocate for small business -- and I hope it's not downhill from here." I remember that statement.

I guess people want to know yes or no and not a whole bunch of maybes, because they know that when it's maybe -- especially with this government -- it's going to cost them more money, because we're going to have more studies. So with respect to the two issues that this minister is responsible for, or at least that he's said he's responsible for -- credit cards and Sunday openings -- when can British Columbians, when can small business operators in British Columbia, expect answers on these subjects?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the study is not $100,000; it's $25,000. With respect to going downhill, I was making reference to my skiing -- which is all downhill, I hope -- and hopefully everything else will be easy.

With reference to the small business aspect of this, let me put this to the hon. member: here's the problem. You say that you want liquor stores open on Sunday. You've got a whole group of beer and wine store owners who say that they do 25 to 35 percent of their business on Sunday, so they're not going to be particularly happy if we open liquor stores on Sunday. But you know that as the overall policy, you should, because of the consumers, because of the public. Should you only open a few on a trial basis? These are the kinds of issues that you have to consider from a small business point of view.

Does the hon. member want to put the beer and wine stores out of business? I don't. But those are the considerations that you have to look at.

R. Thorpe: I believe, hon. chair, that the minister misspoke. I never said once that stores should be open Sundays, as the minister said. I hope that my remarks are clearly, clearly recorded in Hansard.

It looks like these estimates could be downhill. I'm patient, and I'm going to try to keep it at a higher level here,

[ Page 8031 ]

They want less government. They want some leadership from this government. So why isn't this government showing courage and calling the interested parties together and having open round-table discussions in a non-partisan way, if you will? If he's concerned about the political liability of the issue, he should say it. But let's bring the people whose investments are at stake, whose family livelihoods are at stake, whose employees are at stake. Let's get those issues on the table. Let's work together in a round-table discussion, in an open forum, so we can find common ground instead of having people in conflict with each other all the time, as this government apparently wants.

Let us be very, very clear about who is committed to the entire beverage alcohol retailing industry in British Columbia. It is the official opposition in this House. I would like some real answers from this minister on when we're going to deal with some of these issues. In last year's estimates, it was said: ". . .on Sunday openings. . . ." Perhaps the minister, with his new responsibility, didn't have the opportunity to read Hansard and check back. A consultation process would take place with the very capable executive group from the LDB, and working together with industry, they would attempt to find solutions. People understand that the marketplace changes. People out there in the real world don't continue to hold the smokestack approaches of this government. They understand change. They understand about serving the customer. But they want, as I thought the minister alluded to earlier, some protection, some understanding and some security about their families' investments. So let us have some clear answers today on how this process is going to move forward, who's going to be consulted in this process and when this meaningful consultative process is going to begin.

Hon. I. Waddell: I've only had the job for -- what? -- a couple of months. I am trying to consult and be open with all the players in this industry. It is a multifaceted industry. I'm sure the hon. member is aware that there are 222 government liquor stores, two warehouse distribution facilities and 3,300 staff in the LDB, mainly in government liquor stores. They have a view on things. The unionized employees and employees of those stores have a view.

We also have a number of beer and wine stores as part of our industry, which operate separately and have their own views. We have hotels and restaurants, and we have stores that sell wines exclusively. So we have a number of players, and it's sometimes a delicate balance. I believe that a good minister consults all the people and listens and is aware that people have made investments and have moved because of certain policies that have been laid out. So you don't go in there like a bull in a china shop. You listen to everyone, and that's what I'm doing.

R. Thorpe: I don't know where the minister got the notion about a bull in a china shop. But these issues have been out there for some time. If the minister is having a hard time learning his new job, which he's had for only a couple of months, perhaps he could rely on the expertise on his left and on his right. Perhaps he could rely on some of the expertise that lies in this industry, in all of the sectors. In my earlier life, I have called upon many of the 222 liquor stores in British Columbia and know many of the employees personally. I know where the coffee rooms are, where the back rooms are and where the empty beer cans are stored.

So let us be serious here. One of the ways the minister could get up to speed really quickly would be to call a round table -- a non-partisan, open forum meeting -- to see what everyone has in common. Why do we have to dwell on people's differences? I think everyone aspires to be successful, and I think that's what the minister should try to encourage. What I'd like to have is an answer to my specific question about how and when a meaningful consultation process is going to start on the two items that are specifically under his jurisdiction with respect to the Enemark report.

Hon. I. Waddell: We are consulting. With respect to the hon. member's suggestion of a round-table open forum, I will consider that.

R. Thorpe: When can we expect some form of resolution to these two issues that fall under the minister's authority?

Hon. I. Waddell: We're working on the issues. I would hope that by the fall we can resolve some of the questions with respect to credit cards and Sunday openings. As I said, sometimes you have different interests playing the. . . . I share the hon. member's view that we should try and get them to work together and come up with solutions that everybody feels comfortable with. That's what we're trying to do.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the potential of Sunday openings, can the minister advise this House on what kinds of capital expenditures have taken place during the past year and are anticipated to take place this year in an effort to equip their stores to provide cold beer and wine?

Hon. I. Waddell: There have been no expenditures in the last year to equip stores with cold beer and wine.

R. Thorpe: I notice the minister said there were none in the last year. I would like clarification about the current budget year, being 1998-99. At this point in time, are there any dollars in the capital budget, any pending presentations to Treasury Board or non-approved budget items that would be contemplating such capital additions?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are none.

R. Thorpe: I just thought of something. I wouldn't want to catch myself on a technicality either. When I'm asking the question about capital, I'm also asking about leasehold improvements or leasehold expense items. None of those are taking place with respect to the areas I just canvassed. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.

[11:45]

[ Page 8032 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: That's really an item that falls under the liquor control and licensing branch. It's a question that should have been put to my colleague the Attorney General, who is responsible for that.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise the House if there has been any recent change in any policy in his area of responsibility with respect to the granting of licences to special wine sales stores?

Hon. I. Waddell: There has been no change in policy.

R. Thorpe: Since there's been no change in policy, has there been what I would deem a new interpretation or a fresh look at guidelines with respect to such activities?

Hon. I. Waddell: We have guidelines for the issue of licences under my control. It's under the sale of VQA wines. Those are the kind of high-grade, if you like, good -- very good -- wines. B.C. wines are all good, but these, called VQA, are the very good ones. The minister can grant a licence under section 18(5) of the Liquor Distribution Act: ". . .may appoint a person as agent" to sell VQA wines. We have guidelines. I've recently appointed a person to sell here in a store in the Victoria area, and I believe I followed the present guidelines in so doing.

R. Thorpe: Before the minister answers this next question, perhaps he would want to consult with his staff. I'm talking specifically about the 1.5 kilometre guideline. Has this minister taken a new, fresh look at the interpretation of the 1.5 kilometre past practice?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a number of criteria in appointing a person to sell VQA wines. Remember, we're talking about selling VQA wines. These are high-quality B.C. wines -- not other B.C. wines, not foreign wines, not spirits. We're talking of a very narrow area.

The 1.5 kilometres. Usually you don't grant an appointment to sell if it's within 1.5 kilometres of another seller. Now, there have been some exceptions to this in different circumstances. I recently exercised my discretion and gave a Victoria store -- very close to here -- the ability to sell VQA wines. I weighed all the considerations, including the fact that the store was in a tourist-oriented area. There are 3.5 million tourists going by this particular store. I'm just trying to get the location of the store. It's on Broughton Street. The store was restricted to VQA wines. There were to be VQA wines brought in from up Island to help the small producers here, to encourage them and to have this kind of synergy between them. There were letters of community support from the city of Victoria, the Victoria chamber of commerce, two cold-beer-and-wine stores and a number of B.C. wineries. The area is unique. There's a liquor store nearby, but it is downstairs in the basement of the Eaton Centre.

Looking at all these considerations and considering the fact that I thought this was good for small business and tourism and that it was substantially within the guidelines. . . . The only exception to the six guidelines being the 1.5 kilometres, I exercised my discretion under the policy to grant the licence. I think it was a good decision, because it's a decision in favour of tourism and of small business. That, I believe, is my role, and this was a particularly good case. Had it not had the community support, had it not featured the connections with the wineries, had it not been a unique location, perhaps I would not have done it. But it seemed to me that here was an opportunity to showcase B.C. wines, to expose things to tourists and to help tourists. I believe that's a good decision.

R. Thorpe: I don't believe I was ever questioning the minister's decision. I asked for an interpretation of whether there had been a fresh look at guidelines. Let me assure the minister that some of my own constituents in this city were tied up in government red tape on the 1.5 kilometre issue for a long time. In fact, they said: "We surrender; we've had enough." And they went away. That's why I asked the question about whether there's a fresh look.

I'm not questioning the support for selling British Columbia VQA wines. I think the minister may be aware of my personal background. I have the privilege of having a number -- a very strong number -- of British Columbia wineries, and a new one will open this afternoon at a quarter after five in Naramata. I happen to be the past president of the Okanagan Wine Festival, which supports and features VQA wines. So I'm a strong, strong supporter of the British Columbia grape and wine industry. But I wanted to have some clarification of whether the government is taking a fresh look at this interpretation. If the minister could just give a short answer to that.

The other area I'd like addressed is with respect to these licences. It was my understanding -- and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong or updated on the current status -- that this was one of -- I can't remember if it was 12 or 13 -- the licences assigned to the B.C. Wine Institute a couple of years ago to be used to help develop the British Columbia wine industry. I'd like just a quick answer on the fresh look or fresh approach and whether this is in fact one of the licences that falls under the scope of the B.C. Wine Institute.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to the second part of the question is yes. One of these licensees is the Wine Institute. With respect to the first part of the question about the fresh look, the member can call it what he likes. I follow the policy that's laid down there. And I look at cases on an individual basis.

R. Thorpe: I just finished canvassing this issue for now. So would the person or the individual or the business -- who, by the way, has been a reasonably strong supporter of British Columbia wines over the years; I think I met the individual at the Okanagan Wine Festival -- to the best of the minister's knowledge or on the advice of staff, have to enter into a business relationship with the B.C. Wine Institute? Would that business relationship then govern the operation of that store?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, that's correct. I'm approving a licence for the Wine Institute.

R. Thorpe: So in the interpretation of the minister, it's a B.C. Wine Institute licence. Will the applicant now have to have a formal, contractual, operating relationship with the B.C. Wine Institute?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.

P. Reitsma: A couple of opening comments to the minister. I want to congratulate him on his appointment, of course. I

[ Page 8033 ]

I had some questions about two ministries, the Attorney General's ministry and your ministry, involving the issuing and the approving of licences. My colleague, of course, has canvassed that already. Maybe the minister would repeat that. Is there any possible way that everything when it comes to licensing, issuing and approving. . . ? Can that not be done under one ministry only, rather than two ministries? Applicants are going from one ministry to the other, although I do understand that there is some cooperation. Has the government looked into encompassing it under one ministry only?

Hon. I. Waddell: It could be done under one ministry, I suppose, but one has to look at the law with respect to the enforcement mechanisms that are already in place. That's under the Attorney General. My responsibility is basically for stores. That's why this licence came up -- a store was doing VQA.

[12:00]

To give an example: for a dozen regular-priced bottles, the gross price -- net to the consumer, actually -- in Canada is $15.60 on the average. In B.C. it's $16.15, and then you deduct $1.20 for deposit. So net to the consumer, the average price in Canada is $14.40, and in British Columbia it's $14.95. The provincial taxes are much more than the cost of a dozen beer to the brewer. The net cost to the brewer in B.C. is $5.95, the federal taxes are $2.03, and the provincial taxes are $6.97. That's the information that's been provided to me. In percentages, the provincial taxes are 46 percent, federal taxes are 14 percent, and net to the brewer is 40 percent. In Canada, instead of 46 percent provincial tax, it's 37 percent. The federal tax of 14 percent, of course, applies across the board. Net to the brewer in Canada is 45 percent, rather than the 40 percent in B.C.

The share of the retail revenue from 1989 to 1997. . . . In 1989 the brewer got 44 percent, the province got 41.5 percent and the federal government -- though taxation, of course -- got 14.5 percent. In 1997 that came down for the brewer from 44 to 40 percent -- 10 percent down. The provincial government went up from 41.5 percent to 46 percent, according to the information given to me by the Brewers Association -- that's up 10 percent -- and the federal amount stayed the same.

I would like the comments of the minister on what's gone to the brewers, which has declined, and particularly the taxation, which has gone up. I might tell the minister that it is extremely hard for the hospitality industry, given the fact that other happenings such as the ban on smoking, etc., have really had a devastating effect. I'm not arguing for or against smoking, although I think there should be some designated areas, for that matter. But particularly the ban on smoking in public places has had a devastating effect, as well as the increased taxation and the lesser amount to the brewers.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for his question. He put a lot of figures there, and I want to have a look at them. I'll give him a more detailed response, perhaps, when I have a look at them.

I tried to get some figures myself to judge how we compare with other provinces. You mentioned our prices, and I note that if you buy 12 bottles of Labatt's -- I think it's 12 bottles here -- it's $14.95 -- not that I ever go and buy that. Occasionally.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: No, I pay for it, thanks. That's higher than in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I tried to track some of the figures. I noticed that if you drank some Smirnoff's red label, it's actually more expensive in Alberta than here. The same with Bacardi rum. If you're that kind of drinker, if you like that product, it's more expensive in Alberta. If you like that same Labatt's Blue by the can -- say you bought six cans -- it would be more expensive in Ontario than here. So the prices for different products vary from province to province. For some, we're higher; for some, other provinces are higher. It's hard to get an exact handle on where we stand.

But you know, people say to me, especially Americans: "We like coming up to Canada, but we wish you had cheap booze and cheap gas." Well, their gas prices are going to go up soon. We do have more expensive liquor and beer than in the United States, but we have medicare in Canada, and we have a very progressive education system. We put a lot of money into the environment in Canada. Yes, we take money from liquor; we take a lot. I just announced earlier that we took $600 million from this. The government puts it back into other aspects of making a good life for people in British Columbia.

That's a general answer to the member's question. I appreciate him putting his figures on there, and I would like to have a look at them. I'll get back to him in a week or two with a response directly on those particular figures.

P. Reitsma: With tongue in cheek I was going to mention to the minister that those figures have been obtained independently, I suppose. Having said that, I don't think the minister has really addressed the fact of the provincial cut, if you like. I'll give the minister the amounts: $6.97 out of $14.95, which is just slightly under 50 percent, goes into provincial taxes. That is significantly more than the provincial tax medium in Canada, which is $5.33. I appreciate that the minister will throw in and use the examples of medicare, schooling and what have you. Those can be used, I suppose, at any time for any of those

[ Page 8034 ]

I'll give the minister some numbers on a pricing model for a B.C. wine. For one and a half litres of B.C. wine, the selling price per bottle to the British Columbia liquor distribution branch -- the BCLDB -- is $4.52. If you add the federal excise tax of 77 cents, that makes it $5.29. Then there's a volume markup of 12 cents a litre, which is 18 cents, which makes it $5.47. Then the markup at the BCLDB is 110 percent, $6.02, which makes it $11.49. Then you add the PST of 10 percent and the GST of 7 percent. That makes the current retail price, rounded up by one penny, $13.45. Yet the selling price of that litre and a half, the pricing model for a B.C. wine, is $4.52. It's about one-third the cost of the wine from the brewer to the BCLDB. That's a huge cost to, ultimately, of course, the consumer, who pays for that. I wonder if the minister would want to comment on that.

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a lot of figures there. As I said, I would like to see them in writing, see them in Hansard, and then I'll respond in a more detailed way. Again, yes there are markups, and yes we make money, and yes we use the money for public services -- specifically in the two areas of medicare and education, which are priorities of the government. I think our government spending in these areas is leading Canada. When I have a look at those detailed figures, I'll get back to the hon. member.

P. Reitsma: A little change but still, of course, with this subject. . . . Where I was born in Europe, particularly in western Europe but even in eastern Europe, where I've been, and in the U.S.A., of course -- and it was touched on a little bit peripherally -- many stores are open on Sundays to start with. The wine and beer stores, of course, are open on Sundays in B.C. But many of the retail stores or specialty stores are able to sell particular brand names that their customers have come to like. Many stores -- grocery stores, other stores -- do sell spirits: wine, beer, hard liquor, and what have you. Again, as I mentioned, this is done in most of Europe, Mexico, the United States, etc., as well. Is any consideration anticipated to be given in terms of permitting wider distribution of alcohol through stores, other than the regulated cold-beer and wine stores and the liquor distribution centres, the government liquor stores? If that is contemplated, is there any discussion going on? Is the minister maybe considering a roundtable discussion by the particular stakeholders to discuss this possibility?

Hon. I. Waddell: I've been to Europe; I've seen that. It's interesting. We've evolved a different model here. There is at the moment no movement towards or discussion of putting beer and wine in grocery stores.

P. Reitsma: Has there been, to the minister's knowledge -- and I appreciate that he's just been the minister for a couple of months, and that's fine -- any pressure from either the business community or a particular segment of the business community or even a suggestion that particular stores be allowed to be set up to sell any type of spirits? Again, I refer to what I'm used to in Europe. There are particular stores that are so specialized in certain brands according to the wishes of their customers that they have developed a very specialized product and marketing tool. Has there, to the minister's knowledge, been any approach to the government from any business organization or big retail outlets to sit down and talk about the potential of allowing that to go through or at least to have some initial discussions?

Hon. I. Waddell: We do have stores that specialize in beer and wine. We have the government liquor stores, which have all the products. We have wine stores that are specialty wine stores, if you like, and we have VQA outlets. We have outlets at wineries, at wine museums and at the source, if you like. But there's no discussion or pressure at the moment to change the system to the European model that you've mentioned.

P. Reitsma: Is it within the realm of the minister's responsibilities to talk about the U-brews as well, or is that more the AG's department?

Hon. I. Waddell: No, that's the responsibility of the Attorney General.

[12:15]

Concern has been raised by pub owners and restauranteurs about the proliferation of U-brews. I don't have particular difficulties with that. That's consumer-driven, of course. Their concern is that they're not paying for any liquor licence and they're not paying any liquor taxes into the general revenues when it comes to sales off-premises. They have the freedom to advertise with no restrictions, and there's some concern that they're not regulated by the liquor control branch and local authorities. If that's not in the minister's purview, that's fine. I'll direct those questions later, in writing, to the Attorney General.

Hon. I. Waddell: I've heard the same concerns raised by the breweries with respect to the U-brews selling their product, or that product coming out and being unregulated. It has been raised by some vintners, who are saying the same thing: "We're regulated; you're not. We're paying mark-ups; you're not." Of course, it was part of. . . . My hon. friend across the way in the Liberal Party raised the Tex Enemark report, in which that was one of the instances. As I answered to him and as I'll tell the hon. member, that's a matter under the Attorney General. We were under the liquor distribution branch, talking about whether or not to do retail on Sundays, the method of retail -- the credit cards or not -- and so on. So the U-brew issue is under the Ministry of Attorney General.

P. Reitsma: A last question. Again, it probably comes under the AG's ministry, but it applies, of course, to the retail business, the retailers and the hospitality industry ultimately, because rules and regulations and red tape are not only extremely disruptive but stifling. It's unnecessary work, and I applaud anything that can be done -- being in small business myself -- to reduce the red tape. It provides work for other people, I suppose, but. . . . Is the minister aware. . . ? Again, it filters to the hospitality industry -- quite greatly, actually. Is any review of the liquor laws anticipated, or are there any new liquor acts forthcoming, particularly with a view to some relaxation and making it easier, with less red tape?

[ Page 8035 ]

One is that in their survey of their customers. . . . One of their customers is the industry -- the restaurants, the pubs, the people who are getting the liquor from them, not from the stores -- and that group seemed to be happy that they were getting their supplies on time. They could open the restaurant; they had the wine there to serve. They had the beer in the pub. That's really important. So I looked at that, and I'm looking at any other instances of red tape. As I said to the other members across the way, be specific on red tape. Bring it to me, and I will have a look at it and deal with it.

R. Thorpe: I think some of the questions that the member for Parksville-Qualicum was raising were out of a recent document that I believe all members of this House, including the minister, received from someone in the neighbourhood pub business. I would ask that the minister read this document carefully and have the officials that are with him read it carefully. I really think it is a plea: "It's time to listen to us; it's time to meet with us." And since the minister said in his earlier comments that he wants to be an advocate for small business. . . . There are small businesses out there that are struggling. This particular constituent of British Columbia had written a letter -- it happens to be a government member, but I won't mention from where on the Island -- on March 6, 1997, outlining concerns and has yet to hear a response.

When someone takes the time and effort to gather the information that they gather, to put a package together and send it to 75 members in this House, I think we should take that as a signal that there are some concerns out there. I would just simply ask that these concerns be addressed as soon as. . . . I realize that the minister doesn't have a copy with him. I understand that, and I accept that; I'm not being critical of that. But as soon as you can track it down in your office -- because I know you're inundated with mail -- these issues can be addressed. Maybe they can't all be resolved today or tomorrow, but we can show people that take the time and effort, that have concerns about surviving in their business, that we do care and that we could address some of these issues in a timely manner. So I would just ask the minister to comment briefly on that, and then I'll move on to the detail.

Hon. I. Waddell: Certainly, if the hon. member wants to get me a copy of the letter, I'll make sure that it's replied to. I have my deputy minister right here. Under this system, he can't speak; if he could speak, I'm sure he would tell you that he responds very quickly. I instruct him to respond very quickly. We try to respond to any letter that we get, and we try to deal with these issues. Some are more complicated than others, and it takes a little while, but we will respond.

R. Thorpe: If we could now move on to the liquor distribution branch and its operation, could the minister please tell me what the three key strategic issues are that the LDB has to address this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: In response to the hon. member, I would list the three as these. First is business efficiency. I've talked about this earlier -- getting those orders out on time and making sure that the largest retail operator in the province operates efficiently. If you've got any complaints, let me know, and I'll make sure that they're remedied. The second one is a responsibility to our customers -- meeting their needs and being responsive to any changes or any concerns that they may have in terms of dealing with the liquor stores. The third is a social responsibility. Alcohol, when it's taken in mild forms, can be very pleasant and very sociable. We all know that; that's why we don't have prohibition. But when alcohol is abused, it can have disastrous and costly results for the province: spousal abuse, accidents on the highways, tragedies in families, tragedies with individuals. We all know that. So I would put that as the third area. I want to see our liquor stores in the province making sure that people don't, for example, drink and drive. Advertise that and have that right up front and talk about social responsibility in the use of liquor. The vast majority of customers of the liquor distribution branch are responsible. It's a very small minority that can abuse alcohol, and I think that's part of the responsibility of the branch as well.

R. Thorpe: Obviously those are three very broad-brush. . . . Now, if we could maybe funnel it down just a little tighter: what are the three key issues the LDB has to deal with in its current fiscal year?

Hon. I. Waddell: Specifically, I would list these three. First, the new beverage container issue. As the member would know, there has been a direction to recycle spirit bottles and all sorts of things in British Columbia. I think this is a very positive initiative, but the LDB has to decide: "How do we play a part in this, and how do we get the most efficient system working for this expansion of recycling?"

Second is the year 2000 issue. I mentioned that earlier in my opening remarks. That's a computer issue. It's not a problem for the liquor distribution branch alone; it's a general issue in our business society.

Third is achieving the budget. All businesses and all branches of government must come within their budgets and estimates.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Government must do too, and we're trying very hard.

R. Thorpe: Well, the minister did leave me an opening, but I've been the one advocating all day to take the high road, so I'll stay on the high road for now.

With respect to the issue of the year 2000, can the minister advise on the status. . . ? I'm going to give you about a four-point question, and then we can deal with it and move on as best we can. Is the year 2000 issue under control? Are the management group and the LDB confident that they have it totally under control? If not, when will the problems be corrected? How much is budgeted this year to fix those problems?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm going to make reference to my notes on this, if the hon. member doesn't mind. It's a very good question. Those of us who aren't kind of computer wonks -- I'm computer-literate, but barely -- wonder what all this year 2000 problem is about. Well, it's apparently a very real problem, and here's what the liquor distribution branch is

[ Page 8036 ]

The scope of the plan includes renovations of systems, system re-engineering, system sunsetting, contingency planning, personal computers, the system software, third-party software, embedded systems, business partners year 2000 compliance readiness verification and any other changes required to ensure that the LDB can continue to do business as a result of millennium changes. I've heard people say: "Well, the airlines have to do it, but we don't want to be in an aircraft in the year 2000." This is perhaps a little less serious, but people still want to be able to come to the liquor store on January 1 -- it better be January 2 -- in the year 2000 and make sure it's still open for business.

[12:30]

R. Thorpe: The other issue that he brought up was the beverage container expanded deposit. I'm just wondering what the current status is. I stand to be corrected here, but it's my understanding that in fact the LDB is the designated steward of beverage alcohol containers in British Columbia now, with respect to the stewardship plans that were filed on February 15, or whatever. So what is the status of the workings that are going on at the LDB, and how are they going to deal with this issue? I believe it is scheduled to become actionable on October 1 of this year.

Hon. I. Waddell: The LDB is working with the wine, spirit and beer industries to ensure that the beverage container collection system is convenient, is customer-friendly and operates at the lowest possible cost. It's actually through the brewers that work in the present system of recycling the beer bottles and the beer cans. As I'm sure the hon. member knows -- since he outlined before that he knows a lot about the industry -- the current system of recycling beer bottles and cans is highly successful. We estimate that 93 percent of the bottles and cans are recycled. That's a good system. I understand that to do the spirit bottles it will mean only 10 or 11 percent more volume that we'd have to do in the stores. It may necessitate some expansion of the area -- you know, when you take your bottles and cans to the back of the liquor store. I don't know if the hon. member does that, but I'm sure that if he buys it, he does. In any case, I know that when I take my beer bottles back, I go back there. They take it from me, and it's recycled. We may have to expand the premises a little bit, and we're looking at that.

But other than that, the LDB has filed a plan under the Ministry of Environment rules, and I understand that plan has been approved. We're talking about bringing back spirit and wine bottles to liquor stores.

R. Thorpe: It sounds like the LDB's plans are well advanced, and I guess they should be if we're going to be implementing them on October 1. I think October 1 is the scheduled date.

Since for all intent and purposes we're at the first of June, could the minister outline for us the capital cost -- that is, estimated; I know things aren't finalized and can't be finalized at this point of time -- that's involved in this project at the present time?

Hon. I. Waddell: It is $2 million to $2.3 million.

R. Thorpe: Since we have an estimate of our capital cost -- albeit not a final estimate, I'm sure, and I understand that; but directionally we have an estimate -- could the minister then advise what the best guess for cost now is for a container -- or, if you want, a dozen beer bottles or a 7.5-litre wine bottle or a 1-litre rye bottle, whatever? Just advise the general parameters of what those costs are going to be to the individual industries that are going to have their containers recycled through the LDB.

Hon. I. Waddell: I appreciate the member's question: in other words, what's it going to cost the customer to recycle the wine bottle or the. . . ? It's a bit too early to have the costs. We'll know within a month or before. As soon as I get the figures I'll make sure the hon. member gets them.

R. Thorpe: On the assumption -- and I know that sometimes making assumptions is not the best thing to do, but let's just do this. . . . Is the mode of operation. . . ? Let's say it's going to cost a nickel per container. Is the approach the LDB is going to take is that it will be buried in the price, or will that be a separate charge? And will it flow through at actual real cost, or will the government attempt to make a markup on this?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we're looking at all options. They're looking at all options. I think they will pass it back to the manufacturer. We're not planning on any markup on that particular fee. In other words, we're looking at the cost of doing it, not at making money on it.

R. Thorpe: So I guess the consumer, then, can expect a cost increase on this in one form or another. If, for argument's sake, it's going to be a nickel a bottle and there are millions of bottles flowing through, one could expect that the manufacturer would eventually pass that through to the consumer. Is that the understanding in the work that the LDB has done in understanding its customers and its past practice in dealing with its suppliers when such cost increases are incurred?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that I don't know as of yet. When we've worked that out, I'll get back to the hon. member on it.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the beverage alcohol industry, and trying to find the most efficient and cost-effective approach to this, is it the intent of the LDB -- at this point in time, realizing plans aren't finalized -- to try to bring people together to try to find a unified system for removing the recyclables, if you will, out of the stores?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: With the LDB working with the suppliers on this side and then the handlers of recyclable goods on that side, has the LDB in fact worked with people to understand in what form goods have to be returned, so that they can be further processed? Have they worked with people -- i.e., glass companies -- to understand that if recycling or crushing is required on site, it has to be done in certain ways so that it can be recycled into finished product?

[ Page 8037 ]

R. Thorpe: With respect to the expanded container deposit, I believe we have an undertaking here from the minister that within a month we should have some answers with respect to the cost factors related to this project -- because, quite frankly, we'll be near the end of June, and with July and August, it doesn't give us a whole bunch of time. Is that the correct understanding?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct. I don't like the word "undertaking." I'm a lawyer, and undertaking has a particular meaning in law. I want to say that that's what we're going to do. You have my commitment.

R. Thorpe: I was hopeful that we were going to be able to finish today. We'll keep moving here.

Let me just ask: is any work currently being done or contemplated with respect to what some other jurisdictions have done with respect to what's called in the industry "flat tax application"?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we looked at it. Alberta has a flat tax system. We think that the flat tax model would generate about $225 million less in net income if we were to adopt that. I'm a little bit concerned. It seems that in Alberta it raises the price of lower-priced products but it dramatically reduces the price of very expensive products. Very Alberta, you know -- help the upper types. I'm a little concerned about that. In other words, the prices of the high-priced products go down quite a bit and the lower-priced products go up a bit. I'm not sure that that's what we want to have in British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: I was just asking where it stood; I wasn't putting forward a position. But with respect to my interpretation of the minister's comments about Alberta, perhaps we should aspire to some other economic development achievements, some other taxation achievements, etc. Let's not just give that impression that Alberta is not doing very well, because I think they are doing very, very well.

With respect to the LDB and achieving its third stated goal of achieving its budget, I wonder if the minister could advise us: in their estimates when doing their business plan, what is the impact of the sale of illicit beverage alcohol in British Columbia on their bottom line? What are their estimates?

Hon. I. Waddell: What the member is asking is how much revenue we are losing because people are selling it illicitly. The answer is: we don't have a reliable estimate on that, and it's very difficult to get, because it's illegal; it's under the table.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that factual numbers are hard to get, but we are very fortunate at the LDB to have a very solid management team, a very solid organization that approaches business planning in an extremely professional manner. What would be the educated estimate of the management group? Is it $50 million? Is it $100 million? Is it $200 million?

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I can tell the hon. member that that very solid management team, the chief of whom is sitting beside me, says that they could pull out any number. They just don't have a reliable number, or indeed any numbers. I can't respond to that.

[12:45]

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is. . . . I don't have the figure, but I will do this for the member: I will work at exploring that matter -- hopefully with the member's assistance -- and get back to the member with any reliable figures or estimates that we have. I'll look into that and get back to the member on it shortly.

R. Thorpe: Just before we move from this issue, which I didn't know was going to take so long, can the minister confirm or deny that we should, and in fact do, have concern about the sale of illicit beverage alcohol in the province?

Hon. I. Waddell: I would say that that's absolutely right. We should have concern, and we do have concern.

R. Thorpe: Moving into the current business year. . . . I guess you're into it already; you're into your second month. You must be thankful for the great weather we're having. What are the sales estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99, in dollar terms?

Hon. I. Waddell: Could the member please repeat the question?

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what the estimated dollar sales are for the LDB for the period of 1998-99? The comparable figure for the previous year is $1.59 billion.

Hon. I. Waddell: It is $1.636 billion.

R. Thorpe: So we're looking at an increase in sales -- quickly here -- of about $42 million for the coming fiscal year. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, it's a 2.6 percent increase.

R. Thorpe: Without going through all of the different lines -- commissions, net sales, etc. -- does the minister expect the same business ratios or percentages? For example, gross margin runs around 48.2 percent to 48.6 percent, net operating profit runs between 37.7 percent and 37.9 percent, and net income runs around 38 percent. Does he expect those ratios to be maintained for this current fiscal year?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

[ Page 8038 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not sure it's $15 million to $20 million, but I can tell the hon. member this: we're going to do our best to achieve our 1998-99 net target of $635 million. Now, in order to achieve that, we're looking at some efficiencies in the branch. We're looking at an increased volume. Our costs are stable, and we're going to look for further efficiencies so we can come in within our target.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister confirm that currently in the business there seems to be a substantial amount of price discounting going on in the marketplace? Does he have any concern that that is going to have an impact on the profitability of the branch this year -- in attaining its goals?

The Chair: Minister, noting the time. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: At this point, we don't anticipate a problem, as in past years.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

The Chair: Perhaps the minister could make the motion.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that we 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. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the 1998-99 fiscal year. First, I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are here with me today: Suzanne Veit, my deputy minister, who is sitting to my right; Ken MacLeod, assistant deputy minister for local government, sitting in the back; Lori Wanamaker, assistant deputy minister for corporate services; and Harry Diemer, acting assistant deputy minister of the safety and standards department. These are some of the people in the ministry who make it possible for the province to meet its commitments to British Columbians and their communities.

The work of the ministry is felt in every village, town, city and regional district in the province. The ministry's mission is to work with the people of British Columbia to create and sustain the kinds of local and regional communities in which they live. We fulfil this mission through programs which enhance local stability, promote safety, strengthen local and regional planning and support good administration.

The ministry has specific responsibilities in two broad service areas: developing and maintaining a strong foundation for the local government system and supporting the safety infrastructure system of this province. To support a strong local government system, we provide the legislative framework for regional growth strategies, oversee municipal finances, administer local government grant programs and regulate local government structure. On the safety side, the ministry plays an important role in many areas of public safety, including fire safety, safety of provincial railways, aerial tramways, gas and electrical installations, boilers and pressure vessels, and elevators.

These two areas constitute our core business activities. Included within our core business is responsibility for public libraries, the University Endowment Lands, the property assessment system and homeowner grant administration. Certainly the most visible of our programs involve grants and contributions, which account for more than 95 percent of the ministry's budget. Administering these programs is crucially important, but it is just one aspect of our work. We're also the first point of contact for many local governments, no matter what the issue is. They turn to us because there is a positive, constructive working relationship between ministry staff and the local government clients.

The ministry's priorities for the year are designed to strengthen our partnership with local government, sustain livable communities and improve public safety. They include restructuring the financial and legislative relationship between the province and the local government, developing, implementing and sustaining an accepted system of regional growth management and implementing a comprehensive review of the ministry's safety programs. We'll also continue to improve our ministry's programs by looking for more cost-effective methods of service delivery.

The key element in supporting strong communities is our partnership with local government. We can make local government more effective by giving them the powers they need while preserving the openness and accountability that residents expect and deserve. The current Municipal Act does not work for the province or for the local government. It is too constraining on local governments and creates excessive paperwork and red tape for the province.

My predecessor, the Minister of Employment and Investment, began the Municipal Act reform process. He established a spirit of cooperation and partnership with local governments, and I intend to build on that spirit as we overhaul local government legislation. In the 1998 session, I will introduce major reforms to the Municipal Act, including provisions relating to public-private partnerships and broader corporate powers. But legislative reforms aren't enough. Local governments have asked for increased stability on the fiscal side, and I think they have a valid point. Local governments need more

[ Page 8039 ]

I want to briefly touch on housing. Although this ministry no longer has primary responsibility for housing, it remains involved in a number of housing-related initiatives. Local governments play a key role in housing, and we will continue to work with them on a variety of issues, such as secondary suites and special needs housing. We have maintained a housing policy section in the ministry to continue the province's housing partnership with local governments and to assist with the coordination of housing initiatives with the various ministries involved in housing issues.

Another area where we work closely with local government is the development of regional growth strategies. Our growth strategies legislation helps local and regional governments find ways to work together to manage growth, so they can achieve the benefits of growth and preserve the special qualities of their communities and regions. Urban sustainability issues, supported by integrated regional and local community planning, are a major initiative of this ministry. We know that expanding public transit is essential in order to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion and protect green space. Initiatives such as the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and the Broadway-Coquitlam light rail transit line will lead to better service and increased transit ridership in the lower mainland. Growth is a challenge in many parts of the province. We are working with high-growth communities, such as Nanaimo and Kelowna, to help them maximize the job creation opportunities associated with growth in a sustainable manner.

Let me now turn to our role in maintaining the safety infrastructure of the province. Exactly one year ago, my predecessor received a major report on the renewal and improvement of British Columbia's safety system. This report was created by a joint public-private committee established by the ministry. The report was the accumulation of two years of work by representatives of all the major stakeholders in the safety system, and it recommended 31 changes that will result in an overhaul of the safety system over a period of time. We have moved forward on a number of these recommendations and have established an implementation advisory group to assist us in making sure that we proceed in a careful, effective and successful manner.

We are also taking steps this year to address the leaky-condo problem, a complex issue that has resulted in financial hardship and emotional strain for thousands of British Columbians. It requires urgent attention. I have appointed an independent commissioner to look into the matter and provide recommendations. Once the commissioner submits his recommendations, I will make it a priority to review his report and respond quickly in order to address this issue.

Before I close, I would like to touch on a number of other initiatives the ministry is undertaking this year. I will introduce reform to our assessment appeal system, which will cut red tape and promote the speedy and just resolution of appeals. This will support our government's three-year plan to support job creation and improve the business climate in British Columbia. In addition, we'll continue to assist local governments that wish to modernize their governance structures. I believe the priorities I have identified will help us achieve even more, in partnership with other ministries, local government, community groups and individual British Columbians.

In closing, I would like to thank the staff in the ministry. I firmly believe they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in the country. I would like to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation. I look forward to the comments and questions of my colleague the member for Richmond East, who is my critic. I hope this will be a stimulating and constructive debate that will contribute towards a common goal of improving the quality of life of all British Columbians.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for her opening remarks. There are a number of issues that I wish to canvass as a result of last year's estimates and a number of issues that I wish to place on the table in debate today.

Certainly we talked a little bit about the joint council. I'm aware of the composition, but I would ask the minister to indicate the kinds of decisions that they may reach in the next number of months regarding the future of the ministry. I understand that the minister is bringing forward legislation, but could the minister kindly comment in terms of the validity of that group?

[11:15]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. J. Kwan: In answer to the member's question relating to the joint council, there are a number of areas in which we work with the joint council. One item that has been at the top of the agenda, if you will, is the changes to the Municipal Act legislation. We're working through the joint council and the UBCM to look at the sequence of things that need to be dealt with -- looking at how we need to proceed in coming forward with the changes. It's a mechanism of a place where we can exchange ideas and hear each other in terms of the different opinions around these issues.

Another area that we are working very hard on is the municipal finance review. Through the joint council, again we work towards agreeing on issues that need to be worked on. An example of an item that has been identified through joint council meetings is the traffic fines revenue component -- trying to work towards a mechanism and come to an agreement that is workable for local governments and that ensures that the provincial interest is also protected.

Other related issues that are not necessarily specifically related to the Municipal Act changes or the municipal finance review are also discussed from time to time at joint council meetings. What is particularly highlighted through joint council meetings is the importance of the local government protocol of recognition, which establishes a framework in the partnership that is in place between the provincial government and local governments. It's really, in some ways, a new mechanism, if you will, that is in place to bring in local government issues, to provide the opportunity to discuss issues with the ministry and also to link other ministries' issues through that forum.

We have established our next meeting to be sometime in the middle or end of June. As well, for the member's informa-

[ Page 8040 ]

L. Reid: I thank the minister.

In terms of the protocol framework, I understand it was signed by Joanne Monaghan on behalf of the UBCM and on behalf, I believe, of the previous minister.

In terms of the issue of financial burden. . . . Let's take the example of auxiliary police. That's an issue for local municipalities, in that they are, in many cases, withdrawing their service across the province. They will experience an enormous financial burden in their view, in that they anticipate they will indeed have to hire regular officers at an enormous cost -- particularly for this summer. In that the Attorney General sits at the joint council table, is that an issue that has been dealt with successfully at that table?

Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of the joint council is to give the opportunity to the local government to identify issues of concern to them. With the Attorney General ministry, there are many issues that will have impacts on local governments. Precisely, it gives us the opportunity to engage in discussion around these issues. The issue that the hon. member identified has not yet been resolved, but the Attorney General was at our last joint council meeting, and the matter was raised. That's the process that we hope, through the joint council meeting, will enable the various ministries to hear the concerns and to work with local governments to attempt to resolve these matters.

L. Reid: If I might ask the minister what the decision-making power of that body is, with respect to. . . . Let's take the auxiliary police discussion. If a decision is reached, is that a recommendation to cabinet?

Hon. J. Kwan: The joint council is an advisory committee, not a decision-making committee. It's an opportunity for the two levels of government to come together to discuss issues, to get advice and to hear and communicate with each other.

L. Reid: Following that up, if indeed this advice has been sought and received on both sides, would the minister's role at that juncture be to take a recommendation forward to cabinet?

Hon. J. Kwan: On the issue around the auxiliaries, that's the Attorney General's decision. Having received and exchanged communication at the joint council meeting, it would be the Attorney General's decision whether or not he wants to bring that to cabinet or what the next steps might be.

To give an example of how that process might work, one concrete example would be the traffic fines revenue issue. That issue was identified as a concern for local governments. The mechanism through the joint council meetings had been in place to allow for the two levels of government to discuss this issue. At our last meeting, a report was tabled in terms of suggestions and recommendations on steps to move forward. It is my intention to bring forward those recommendations to cabinet.

So in some instances, where it falls into various related ministries, it will be up to that minister to decide how they want to move forward. But the process is in place for recommendations that can come out of the joint council to go to cabinet.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for her response. In terms of the revenue-sharing around traffic fines, what is the time line on a decision? I understand from your comments that the decision or recommendation has been discussed at joint council and goes to cabinet at some point. When might that decision be public?

Hon. J. Kwan: I can never bind cabinet in terms of their timing in decisions.

L. Reid: Oh, speculate.

Hon. J. Kwan: But on this particular issue, I hope to bring this to cabinet in the next several weeks and have the matter discussed within cabinet.

L. Reid: The minister will know that predictability and certainty around funding is the number one issue for municipalities in terms of their long-term and short-term plans. So any expediency around that question would certainly allow them to make some decisions in the near term as opposed to, from their perspective, having it on hold for years. I mean, they see this decision and discussion as having been ongoing for many years.

One of the other issues that a number of municipalities brought to me is the question of support that they receive from the ministry when they call. It's particularly around legal advice. They tell me that over the years they have actually received advice when they call the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They tell me today that oftentimes they are directed to their own solicitor; they see that as an issue.

Frankly, I'm querying it because I wonder at the skill set, if indeed it's not possible to recommend those individuals to legal advice within the ministry. It's an enormous cost saving to them if those individuals are employed -- and we believe they are. If indeed it's not possible for them to offer that advice directly to the municipalities, in many instances they see it almost as being snubbed: "We're not responding to that. You'll need to seek counsel from your own solicitor." That's not something that I believed would happen at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I thought -- and certainly my dealings over the years has been -- that they offered that level of advice. Has that changed?

Hon. J. Kwan: Just referencing the issue of municipal finances for local government, I do understand the issue of stability for local government and the question, to some degree, as best we can on the issue of certainty, which is why we're working with local governments on the municipal finance review: to precisely address the issue, to alleviate some of those pressures faced by local government. Having said that, I also want to clearly say that at all levels of government the budgeting process is one that we all work hard to get as much certainty as we can, although sometimes there are a lot of issues beyond the control of government that could impact us with regards to budgeting.

On the issue of legal advice, the legal advice coming from the ministry is one thing that the ministry tends not to provide, because legal advice is something that is suited to be provided by the legal community, especially on issues that relate to potential court cases, etc. What the ministry is striving and working towards doing is establishing a best-practices guide, a framework that could provide assistance to local government on various matters. That is the direction the ministry will be taking in the future.

[ Page 8041 ]

[11:30]

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm advised by staff that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has never offered formal legal advice to local government. In fact, we don't have in-house staff lawyers within the ministry. What we do offer is expert advice from time to time. We provide support and assistance to local governments from time to time. One example, in terms of expert advice that has been provided to local government, would be the freedom-of-information component: advising local government with respect to the act and procedures in dealing with requests through that act.

The other piece I'd like to offer, as well, is that if legal advice was given by the provincial government to local government, in some ways it would put the provincial government in the position of being the guarantor of a particular issue, which would compromise the provincial government when it is a legal opinion in that light.

The final piece I'd like to offer to the member opposite is that the matter of providing legal advice to local governments has not been identified as an issue by the UBCM, through the joint council meetings. But if the joint council members would like to bring forward the issue of ensuring expert advice is provided to local governments, I would be happy to discuss that matter at the next joint council meeting with them.

L. Reid: I thank the minister, and I trust they will take you up on that offer.

On MEVA -- the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act -- my understanding of the situation is that it has rarely been used in the province. Is it anticipated to be used in this session?

Hon. J. Kwan: MEVA is used almost every year -- in fact, in every session relating to Municipal Affairs items. Generally speaking, I'm advised that it's used two or three times through a session or a year. Likely this year, we will also utilize MEVA to bring in some items relating to local government issues.

L. Reid: The only one I'm aware of is the fluoridation question in Prince George. Are there others before the ministry?

Hon. J. Kwan: We're working on a number of different things. We would be happy to offer to brief the member, as we have been doing, on any legislation we will introduce in the House when we are at that stage.

L. Reid: I thank the minister.

In terms of reducing the regulatory burden, the minister and previous ministers have made much of the importance of doing that for municipalities, in that certainly their costs will be reduced. My thinking is that this MEVA discussion will no longer be necessary under a new municipal act. Is that your understanding as well?

Hon. J. Kwan: It may well be that the usage of MEVA will become less and less as we move through the reform of the Municipal Act. The regulation reform issue is a key issue as we work towards reforming the Municipal Act. Streamlining the process is also key to the work that is being done on the Municipal Act. But we may still need it from time to time on different issues that might pop up. I look forward to seeing how the new act will work as we work towards bringing new clauses and the broader powers that can be given to local government through the Municipal Act reform process.

L. Reid: Certainly the Minister of Finance talked about reducing regulation and red tape and has struck a task force. Are there individuals assigned to that task force who will be there representing the perspective of municipal government?

Hon. J. Kwan: On the issue of representation at the table, as a start, the Minister of Finance's deputy has struck an interministerial team, and my deputy is actually on that committee. Our task, of course, is to ensure that local government issues are tabled and that we have an opportunity to raise those issues around that.

L. Reid: That pleases me greatly. I don't know if it's a job this deputy would wish, but I think that to have someone at the table who's truly responsive to the needs and understands the burdens that municipalities currently experience is only to the good. So I'm delighted that's happening.

In terms of the staff comment earlier regarding offering best practices guides around a number of issues, whether it's DCCs or a number of other issues, I think for the most part that that's a good thing. Having had constituents who have followed these best practices and run into the arbitrary outlook from a variety of municipal inspectors, as an example, my question is: is there any plan B? Is there any fallback position for those individuals? They did their very best. They followed the best-practices guide and at the completion of the project were told: "Sorry, we don't have to honour that best practices guide." It was alarming to them, frankly, because they thought that was the best and latest information of the day. How does that work?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm somewhat alarmed, as well, to hear that the member opposite identified. . . . Perhaps there are some instances where the best-practices guide is not being followed with respect to DCCs, because the relationship to the ministry in that instance is that we prioritize the process in expediting the approval process for DCC issues if it's followed through the guidelines of the best-practices guide.

So if the member opposite has specific examples of concrete issues where she's aware that the guidelines relating to DCCs have not been followed, I would be very interested in talking with the member to see what those issues are and where it is occurring so we can see how the ministry can deal with those items.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that offer. I will certainly have individuals contact your office directly. The concern they raised with me was: does that document have the strength to be enforced?

Hon. J. Kwan: The guide in itself is expert advice, if you will. It's not statutory in nature. The best that the ministry can

[ Page 8042 ]

L. Reid: I thank the minister. I certainly don't need to belabour this point. But where there's difficulty. . . . There really isn't any way to enforce the guideline -- it's permissive, then. They will have the choice as to whether or not they follow those guidelines. That's what I believe I'm hearing, and that certainly seems to be the difficulty some constituents have run into. Is that the case?

Hon. J. Kwan: It is important for the province that when we work with local governments we not take away their authority to decide how they want to engage in the business of local governments. I'm often told by local governments: "We are an independent level of government within our jurisdiction, therefore we have and should have the authority to make certain decisions within our jurisdiction." So we're constantly mindful of that.

[11:45]

L. Reid: I thank the minister and I do agree. I think that's the essence of the discussion when it comes to issues that have some kind of provincial overlay. I think my comments are valid if issues are strictly municipal, because then they truly do have the ability to carry on at will. Again, I will have those individuals make contact with the ministry.

I think we agree that local government municipalities should have the right to make some decisions that directly impact upon their regions of the province. Certainly some of the issues over the years have been decisions from Victoria placed upon them at will, which has not often found favour. They all believe they have unique situations and issues that need to be decided by individuals who live in those communities. I have an abiding respect for that. I think that is the way to proceed. The minister will know that the opposition has a community charter that in fact recognizes that level of interaction. It sees some necessity for interaction with Victoria, but it has an abiding respect, I think, for local governments continuing to provide services to their local constituents.

Most of the concern that has come from this discussion over the years has been around whether or not they can proceed without having Victoria second-guess them or without having to second-guess Victoria. I think that where the minister is perhaps headed in the new legislation is towards clarifying a lot of those decision-making relationships and putting in place more best practices guides. The guides will indicate to municipalities, in the most gentle way possible, that this is the way you wish them to proceed, but should they not proceed that way, they may not in fact be prioritized for X -- whatever X happens to be. I think that's probably leading more towards a partnership in terms of their interactions with local government. I would support that. Indeed, I think we would wish to have municipal governments believing they're in partnership with the provincial government, and not just around the public-private partnership discussion but also around the entire package of governance -- whether it's municipal, provincial or federal government.

I think we've all learned over the years that none of this works well in isolation. There is not a great deal to be said for the comment that repeatedly comes up in government: "Well, it's not my direct responsibility; it's this level of government; you might want to blame this person." All of that, to me, is about downtime. The mud thrown is the ground-lost discussion, no question. So I would applaud the minister, if indeed I am assuming the direction correctly: that the future of municipal affairs in the province of British Columbia is about partnership. Am I correct in that?

Hon. J. Kwan: Indeed, the member opposite is correct in that the aim of the provincial government is to work more closely with and to engage in partnerships with local governments. The whole thrust around the changes to the Municipal Act is to enable local governments to have broader authority and greater powers to make their decisions. Clearly there are still items from time to time where there is a broader provincial interest, if you will, being mindful at the same time that the local government has the tools available to do the day-to-day work that is required. That is indeed the direction that this ministry is moving forward on. I thank the member opposite, as well, for her support for the direction of this ministry.

L. Reid: Probably at this juncture we're into some kind of interministerial discussion. I want to come back to the minister's opening remarks regarding special needs housing.

One of the issues that will be before us in the Legislature in the next number of days will be the Mental Health Act. Probably the biggest component of that, in terms of moving services to communities, is housing. The minister has talked about special needs housing. Will there be some commitment, some extra emphasis, if you will, on housing for the mentally ill?

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue of social housing, affordable housing and special needs housing -- specifically in terms of capital funding -- falls under the Minister of Employment and Investment, who has the housing portfolio. While that is the case, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as well has a very active role on the broader housing issue, especially as it relates to the coordinating or managing process. By and large, we coordinate and work with different ministries to raise and highlight issues for their information, and we work with them in trying to address some of these issues. Within my ministry there is a staff team -- the housing policy team -- and they are very involved in housing matters with the minister responsible for housing.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for the clarification. This is the first time I've heard the minister reference special needs housing. Certainly I've heard her talk in the past regarding co-op housing, in addition to the secondary-suite discussion.

The minister will know that I'm particularly interested in this area, because it seems to be an issue that is always about the most vulnerable in society, whether it's the mentally handicapped population or the physically handicapped. Those are the folks for whom housing is not readily available, and many are turned away from what would be useful housing opportunities for them. So if the minister -- and I recognize that she's indicated that it's a coordinating role. . . . But I would hope that the focus would be on the vulnerability of those populations. I'm hoping, based on the minister's remarks

[ Page 8043 ]

I'm not suggesting that these projects be exclusively housing for the disabled; I don't support that notion at all. I think we've made enormous mistakes in the past by attempting to ghettoize populations. I think it makes much more sense, and it's much more humane, to have a strata of housing. I'll give you a good example of a housing development in my riding that was originally to be a housing situation for single moms with babies. A lot of them were very young women -- teenage women with babies, if you will. The decision was taken to make that a strata in terms of grandparents, families, two-parent families and these young women with these very young babies. I applaud that. It was probably the finest decision the province has ever taken around housing, because it put in place some support systems for those young women with babies -- women, who were, in most cases, babies themselves -- 14, 15 or 16 years old. They actually had grandmothers who had been parents; they had two-parent families; they had people who could look out for them, who could give them some respite, who could assist them in parenting. Those kinds of compilations make far more sense to me than having housing that's just strictly for a particular population.

Again, to be really clear, I am not advocating housing that's strictly for the mentally handicapped or strictly for the physically handicapped. I want this minister, in her coordinating role, to ensure that all the ministries who have a responsibility for housing fold that into their thinking. There needs to be some reflection of what typical communities look like when governments are still involved in the building of housing.

We've all been to the social housing areas that are of a single strata -- where everyone has an income of less than $10,000. It's not prudent fiscal policy, it's not humane, and it does nothing for people's human dignity. I will simply put on the record that I have enormous concerns about how we've done it in the past. I'm trusting that we can do the job better with a better handle on how people wish to see themselves, how people wish to live their lives and how people wish to aspire to do things differently. To do that they often need much healthier models. I would simply ask the minister to comment.

Hon. J. Kwan: As the member opposite has identified, there are indeed very many different models of affordable housing in our community. Special needs housing is clearly one of them wherein taking a combination of residents or tenants, if you will, is one approach to addressing this issue. More and more we're becoming aware of the broad needs of different communities and thereby ensuring that their housing needs are met -- within the means that we have. Clearly if, in the ideal world, we could build a lot of affordable housing to meet everybody's needs, that would be wonderful. But the reality is that with financial constraints, we can only do so much, especially in light of the fact that the federal government has pulled out of providing housing dollars to the provinces. British Columbia and Quebec are the only two provinces who continue to build housing.

The points the member identified are valid points, and I'll ensure that the Minister Responsible for Housing will have those comments for his information.

L. Reid: Again, I believe the minister talked earlier about this ministry still being responsible for affordable co-op housing. Is that a responsibility that extends only to a coordinating function?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes. This ministry, through the housing policy section, works to come up with corporate housing policies, if you will. We work in a coordinating fashion with the different relevant ministries where they may have a role to play with housing aspects. I know that the Minister of Employment and Investment takes a lead role in housing, but he has also been working hard to bring in other ministers or ministries who may be of assistance in ensuring that housing needs are broadened and met in our communities. By and large we don't provide capital dollars for housing projects, including co-op projects. We do not provide for those kinds of programs within the ministries, but we do provide the policy advice and the coordinating role within the ministry.

L. Reid: The capital expenditure would flow through the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- is that correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm sorry. It's my eagerness to answer, hon. Chair, because housing is indeed an issue that's very close to my heart.

The financial component of it is under the Minister of Employment and Investment.

L. Reid: What is this ministry's role when it comes to secondary suites? I appreciate the issues around taxation and the issues around public safety. Does the ministry's role extend beyond a coordinating function?

[12:00]

We're also looking at piloting with some municipalities to address the secondary-suite issue. What I think is critical from all sides is to ensure that we can put tools in place for local government that could work for them in supporting secondary suites and, at the same time, in managing the growth issue. On the other side -- particularly from housing advocates, if you will -- we're looking towards bringing forward affordable housing units in a way that provides for safe, secure units in our communities and at the same time saves government dollars.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for those comments, and certainly I appreciate the discussion about growth strategies. If the minister would be so kind as to apprise me of when the GVRD forums occur, that would be a wonderful thing. My sense of the secondary-suite issue has been that many munici-

[ Page 8044 ]

In terms of transportation, again, from the minister's opening remarks, reducing traffic congestion is a priority. If that's the case, the minister has to know that not having a reasonable transit system to the Vancouver International Airport is an enormous concern. Millions and millions of individuals will continue to use that airport, and that number will only increase as we head into the next millennium. The airport expansion has not been met by reasonable transit expansion. Frankly, that growth has been unfettered in lots of ways. Those million more passengers every quarter are using the exact same roadway to move in and out of the airport. It seems to me that we're one of the last jurisdictions in Canada without a reasonable transit system to an international airport. I am hoping that the minister, when she gets on her feet, will talk about the plan to do something about that.

The minister knows that the airport is on an island and that the ability to move on and off that island was particularly constrained during rush hour without the advent of increased volume of airport traffic. So a solution is required. The problem is enormous and will only continue to grow. If the minister could indicate to the MLA for the area, indeed, what plan is in place. . . .

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm also looking forward to working with the member opposite on the secondary suite issue. It is a key issue within the different local communities. We'll ensure that my staff informs the member when the forums are taking place and that we work cooperatively on this important issue.

With respect to the transit component, the ministry or minister that has. . . . I have to say "ministry," because I can't say the name, can I? The Ministry of Finance has direct responsibility for transit issues.

While that is the case, once again the local government, through Municipal Affairs issues, has a role to play relating to the transit issue, especially as it relates to the regional growth strategies and as we are responsible for the implementation of the growth strategies. The Livable Region strategy that has been identified and adopted is one that is compatible, I believe, with the work that the newly formed GVTA is working on in enhancing transit within our local communities. As well, through the newly formed GVTA, local government representatives are at the table. The thrust of the GVTA is indeed to move the transit authority back to the local governments, closer to the local governments or local people, to ensure that transit services are provided for in that manner.

Another ministry that may have a role to play with transit issues is, of course, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I would encourage the member to ask specific questions to those ministers responsible.

L. Reid: I can report back to the minister that those questions have been asked. But I can tell you that both ministers said: "You want to ask these questions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs." That is in the Blues; you can check that yourself. The Minister of Transportation and Highways was particularly emphatic that roadway devolution was not his responsibility. I continued to ask him a series of questions on the off chance that you indeed gave the same response -- but no, it wasn't you; it was the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But in terms of my earlier comments about partnership, I think there are some responsibilities probably shared by both ministries.

Certainly I simply want to spend a few moments this afternoon on some questions around the process, because I do believe that the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- this was prior to your assuming your current role -- has been actively involved in a program that was not particularly well handled. I think, in fact, that your predecessor has acknowledged that -- that it has been the on-again, off-again program around arterial roadways. It ties into my comment about air traffic and the roadways into the airport, because how that is determined is a significant issue for the city of Richmond.

Will those roadways be considered in the provincial interest or not? The Minister of Transportation and Highways had no thoughts on that question. It's a huge question for Richmond in that these are commuters who, for the most part, are landing in Richmond and moving to all parts of the province.

The issue around roadway devolution is significant. In that he has been so kind as to send it back to you. . . . I know that it has been in the works and in discussion since December 1996, and that it is an issue that doesn't appear to be well clarified at the present time. That's probably the kindest characterization, in terms of a variety of municipalities negotiating what they see as deals beneficial to their municipalities and leaving other parts of the province on their own hook. I will make the same comments to you that I made to the minister. The fact of the matter is that the GVRD has negotiated a 4-cent fuel tax, and as part of that they have assumed responsibility for roadway devolution.

The concern from the majority of mayors around the province is that they were not in a position to negotiate that type of deal, and frankly, no offer was made to them. They indeed get the gift of those roadways without any revenue sharing, without any ability to generate revenue to maintain those roadways. The questions outstanding are certainly around seismic upgrade, snow removal, ongoing maintenance and capital construction. A lot of those roadways have apparently come to the end of their useful life, so it's like giving someone a very damaged gift. To return it to any kind of usefulness is an enormous financial question.

In terms of putting the issue on the table, I would simply ask the minister to give me some sense of her responsibility, her authority, on this question and where we might proceed.

Hon. J. Kwan: Just to be very clear in terms of responsibility with the devolution of arterial roadways, if you will, in the province, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has absolutely no role in classifying or declassifying highways. That role clearly falls within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We have no financial programs to provide assistance to municipalities in terms of capital upgrades or rehabilitation. That falls within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well.

Insofar as what role do we have to play, our role is to facilitate discussions regarding these matters at the joint council. Where a local government wishes to connect with a ministry within the government, our role is to work, as best as we can, to facilitate the opportunity for dialogue so that issues can be tabled through the joint council meeting and can be discussed. However, our ministry does not have the responsibility for roadways in the province.

[ Page 8045 ]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for her comments. I would simply ask if this minister believes she has a role to play in advocating for the municipalities outside the lower mainland, who are simply not privy today to that funding windfall of the 4-cent fuel tax. It's an issue for mayors beyond the greater Vancouver regional district -- an enormous issue. As the minister responsible for the mayors of the province -- let's expand that to municipalities, because I wouldn't want you to actually take personal responsibility -- there has to be some advocacy role, I would hope.

Hon. J. Kwan: The role of the Minister of Municipal Affairs is to listen to local governments, to hear what issues or concerns they may have and to act as an advocate, to some degree, in bringing issues back to my colleagues for their information and consideration -- and that's on a whole range of issues, by the way, not just strictly related to this matter. So I, as a newly appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs, have made the commitment to play that role to ensure that their concerns are brought back to the respective ministries for the ministers' consideration and information. I'll continue to act in that capacity as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But where a specific issue falls clearly with a specific ministry, the decision rests with that ministry. They have full responsibility for those particular issues.

[12:15]

L. Reid: I will end this discussion by putting on the record the comments of the mayors of the UBCM, because I do hope that the minister takes these comments forward to the joint council:

"It has been a while since we have encountered such an example of how not to develop and implement public policy."

"It stumbled out of the starting gate in December of 1996. Discredited because of the poor quality of information about the devolution costs, the Minister of Transportation and Highways retreated in January of 1997."

"The intended follow-up program of consultation with municipalities never really did get off the ground and had to be restarted in the fall of 1997. Delays in that process simply ran out the clock, and the December 31, 1997, deadline had to be extended to April 1, 1998. Again, promised consultation early in the new year never materialized and finally, three days after the April 1 deadline passed, the ministry issued yet another extension, and a consultation period was announced. The consultation period was now just 14 days and the intended date for devolution was the municipal budget deadline of May 15.

"In the interim, GVRD had, on behalf of its municipalities, negotiated a comprehensive deal on transportation governance and financing. The ministry tried to use this deal to force devolution elsewhere in the province, despite the fundamental differences. GVRD gets roads and revenue -- 4 cents of gas tax -- and the rest of the province just gets roads."

I know I have correspondence from the majority of those mayors; I trust that the minister does as well. It will be a significant financial burden for them, for the very reasons I mentioned -- whether it be seismic upgrade, snow removal, road surfacing, resurfacing -- in that the majority of those roadways are not in the best condition. So that issue will continue to confound the government. As the person who should advocate on behalf of municipalities, I trust that their concerns will fall on fertile ground.

In terms of financing local government, I appreciate the minister's comment when she talks about ways to hopefully improve the mechanisms that will allow them to make some decent decisions. One of the issues, I think, that's relatively recent is the Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Works program. My contention simply is that the reduction in the grant of $20 million this year. . . .

Was it the minister's assumption or assertion that indeed the $43 million in the Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Works program will indeed assist any of those municipalities that today believe the reduction in that grant will affect them unduly? I will give the minister the example of the water program in Vernon. They don't believe it has been funded adequately. They believe there's an enormous amount of work still to do, and they see that budget reduction as having a dramatic impact on their municipality.

Hon. J. Kwan: Just responding back on the arterial devolution, indeed the process has been lengthy. There has actually been a series of consultations with local governments. Albeit, there were some concerns that have been identified. One of the reasons why the arterial road devolution process was extended is to ensure that consultation is completed through the UBCM and to allow for that. There are still issues that I know some local governments may well have. They will continue, I'm sure, to dialogue with the Minster of Transportation and Highways on those matters.

Relating to the issue of the Infrastructure Works program, Infrastructure 2 is a program that falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Investment. I'm aware that when the program was identified and the priorities agreed upon, the priorities were to focus in on roads and particularly road infrastructure. Hence the lead ministers who have a role to play regarding the Infrastructure 2 program are the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

The member mentioned the issues relating to water- and sewer-related projects. Within my ministry we don't have capital dollars in this year's budget to deal with water and sewer capital projects. While proposals are forthcoming and continue to arrive at the doors of the ministry, we will continue to work on analyzing and prioritizing these proposals. The issues of health and environment remain with the minis-

[ Page 8046 ]

L. Reid: I believe the minister and I do agree that sewer, water and drainage issues are health issues. Certainly I think the needs of the community of Vernon need to be recognized -- and probably in the short term as opposed to the long term. Again, my question to the minister is: was the decision to reduce $20 million in the conditional grant budget taken because of the availability of Infrastructure dollars?

Hon. J. Kwan: The reduction that the member opposite has identified is by and large because of the lack of claims from prior year commitments. The dollars were established to fulfil commitments that had been made in previous years. As those payments were made and paid down, the reductions were also reflected accordingly.

L. Reid: Let's take the community of Vernon as an example. They don't believe that to be the case. They believe that they have needs that would have been addressed under the conditional grant program. Frankly, they believe those needs were agreed to under the conditional grant program. They see that $20 million reduction as being hugely significant, and they don't see it as something that can be shelved. They see it as a health issue. We're talking about septic fields to proper sewer systems and an improved waterway -- definitely health issues and environmental questions, as well, in terms of the lake structure in that corner of the province. They don't accept that there weren't outstanding claims on those dollars. In fact, they believe that those dollars would be forthcoming and were quite alarmed to learn that their needs have not been recognized through any kind of financial decision.

Hon. J. Kwan: Specific to the Vernon situation, I'm advised by staff that the agreement is based on the best efforts or dollars available within the ministry and on the criteria or priorities that have been identified by the ministry through health and environment assessments. There were no commitments made to the municipality in terms of capital dollars for the particular project.

I would actually like to seek the member opposite's support to initiate a third Infrastructure Works program with the federal government. Those programs are important to local governments, particularly in addressing all sorts of infrastructure issues relating to water, sewer and roads. The programs have proven to be successful. Infrastructure Works 1, when it was initiated, came with far greater sums than did Infrastructure Works 2. As well, Infrastructure Works 1 came with a broader scope, if you will, that enabled water and sewer matters to be dealt with through those kinds of funding. However, when Infrastructure Works 2 came around, it was restricted to road infrastructure. So I would seek the member opposite's support in advocating for an Infrastructure Works 3 program to ensure that that program, if it were forthcoming, would include water and sewer as part of the infrastructure and not just roads.

L. Reid: To clarify, roadways was a significant portion, but telecommunications was also a significant portion of the British Columbia-Canada Infrastructure Works program, as was building, renovating, expanding and upgrading of local libraries, community centres and playgrounds. So it was not exclusively a roadway upgrade.

But the minister can have this on the record: she would have my complete and utter support for a third program -- should her commitment extend to a decent transportation system to the Vancouver International Airport. We're talking about doing something that makes good sense for the entire province. If there are ways to target those dollars more effectively, I will be absolutely in support. I know that the ministry and the government of British Columbia have a strong role to play in deciding how those dollars are targeted. I would commit to the record that the problem over the last six or eight months around the late announcement of this $43 million fund was simply that the province and the government of Canada did not agree. Certainly, there was lots of speculation around the list that was put forward by the municipalities and the list that the Premier wished to expend dollars on.

I would hope that the minister would continue to advocate for municipalities, because I think that they know best the kinds of issues that should be funded in their local areas. So I am absolutely in support of the program. The program makes good sense. I'm always delighted when dollars flow to the west coast of this country from Ottawa. I think it's something that makes good sense for the country as a whole to acknowledge that it is an east coast-west coast discussion. If there are issues that I can raise in terms of targeting those dollars more effectively than in the past, I will continue to do so. If the minister could comment.

Hon. J. Kwan: My apologies with respect to the Infrastructure Works 2 program. There was a small component that has been allocated to what's called soft infrastructure. But within that soft infrastructure, clearly the guidelines around that excluded water and sewer programs. So what I really meant to recognize was that infrastructure should go beyond roads and soft infrastructure to also include water and sewer and not to exclude them.

I very much appreciate the member opposite's support for Infrastructure Works 3, and I will clearly be a very strong advocate on that front to bring further federal dollars into the province and create those kind of partnerships between the three levels of government to meet the needs of our communities. The member opposite identified the need and the role which local government has to play in prioritizing in terms of projects and in terms of allocation of dollars. I was delighted to see the changes that were made this year to ensure that local governments do indeed have a role to play. What they have said to me is that it was ludicrous, really, to exclude water and sewer from Infrastructure Works 2. That's a very critical component to the infrastructure of local governments, and I will ensure that I continue to be a strong advocate for them for Infrastructure Works programs.

[12:30]

One of the other issues that was raised in estimates last year was the creation of a safety authority, which the minister referenced in her opening remarks. As a result of that move forward, I'm interested in what kind of measurement tools are in place. What kind of outcomes has this new direction in safety allowed, and what kinds of reporting systems will be put in place for the taxpayer to determine the cost-benefit of this new direction?

[ Page 8047 ]

With respect to the safety issue that the member has highlighted, I believe the member is referencing the report "The Next Horizon: A New Vision for Delivering Safety in British Columbia," which came out in May 1997. A number of recommendations have been identified in this report -- 31 in total. The ministry is looking at various recommendations. We have identified and established an interim advisory group to review changes on the safety component. In fact, I will be meeting with the committee on June 5, when I will have an opportunity for the first time to meet with them about the work that they have done

There are many recommendations, and I believe that the one that the member specifically identifies is recommendation No. 6. There is some concern from the ministry side that this recommendation would move the province away from responsibility for safety. That has raised some concerns. What the ministry is doing is investigating this issue. We're having a second look at it, but we do have some concerns around that direction.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. Certainly I think that the fact that these meetings are going to be ongoing is a good thing, but the report is a year old. In addition to having met as a committee, where will they go in terms of measuring their practice? Are they going to be simply in an advisory role? Are they going to actually act on the recommendations? What is the scope of their involvement? The report's been received. It's a year old; we're here a year later. What happens with that information in terms of some kind of accountability framework for the public?

Hon. J. Kwan: The advisory committee is an advisory committee whose role is to report back to me on what implementation should take place with respect to these recommendations. That is actually taken out of this report. It's recommendation No. 31, which I quote: "That a well planned approach be undertaken related to the introduction of safety system changes and that an interim advisory group (IAG) be established to oversee the change process." This interim advisory group began to meet in January of this year, and I'm anticipating a report from them on this matter.

If the member is agreeable, I would ask that we move to adjourn.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Kwan: Okay. I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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