DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1998
Morning
Volume 10, Number 10
[ Page 8343 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm delighted to introduce, in the precincts today, Mayor Steve Wallace, who is the president of the UBCM. He is currently in the precincts, not in the galleries, meeting with some of the Chinese media that were visiting us yesterday. Later on this afternoon, after question period, he will join us in the gallery. Would the House please make Steve welcome. I know that he feels your presence.
I am obliged to say something with regard to this report. Although this report was considered by a former Legislature in 1995, on May 26, 1998, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia directed the Legislature to reconsider the report. A copy of the Court of Appeal decision between the Provincial Court Judges Association and the Attorney General has also been tabled along with the report.
I am obliged by section 13(12) of the Provincial Court Act to advise the Legislative Assembly that unless, within 21 sitting days from today, the Legislative Assembly resolves to reject one or more of the recommendations made in the report as being unfair or unreasonable and sets the remuneration allowances or benefits that are to be substituted, the report is deemed to have been accepted as submitted.
The Speaker: I also have a report. I have the honour to present the report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Copies are available from the Speaker's Office.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)
On section 9.
G. Wilson: With respect to section 9, the language under subsection (a), in subsection 16(3), which strikes out "Court of Revision" and replaces it with "review panel
Hon. J. Kwan: The language is consistent. The only difference is that we have added the phrase "or records obtained or created under this Act."
G. Wilson: I see that that language is there, although within the existing act it seems to be fairly consistent. I think where the consistency falls away is that there seems to be a removal of discretionary authority and an implementation of what essentially becomes binding language. There are a number of instances through section 9, and it's followed again in section 10. We'll talk about it more. What I find interesting about this is that it changes, in large measure, the extent to which this panel -- and the information that's before this panel -- has the opportunity to have a fairly broad or a more flexible range of application.
Let me try to be a little bit more specific. When we come down to section 9(c), what is being substituted for "if permitted by" under that section is "in accordance with." When you read that in the context of the existing act, it is interesting that if we look at section 16(3)(d), it says: "The commissioner, a member of a Court of Revision, a member of the board or any other person who has custody or control of information or records obtained under this Act must not disclose the information or records to any other person except
It changes the nature of who determines what can and cannot or what will or will not be provided, and it removes from the commissioner a level of discretion and puts power to the government, effectively, because of what we see under section 31 when we look at the designation of the minister as the primary appointee. It strikes me that what we've done is remove discretion, and I wonder why we're doing that.
[10:15]
Hon. J. Kwan: The change is really to address concerns of some members of the community who do not wish to have that information released indiscriminately. For example, we would not want to have information released with respect to where a person's bedroom is, relative to the house structure, for fear of issues in terms of violence or of the safety of the particular individual. We have taken away that broad-scope authority and provided limiting authority. Therefore you have to have specific reasons to access that information. In consultation with the privacy commissioner, that is consistent with respect to ensuring safety and privacy for individual members, but at the same time making sure that we have the ability to provide information where individuals need to get that information for comparison purposes on the reasons for the assessment of their particular property.G. Wilson: I'll try to listen more carefully. I didn't understand what the minister just told me, hon. Chair.
There was discussion around where the bedroom was in relation to the house. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that until this point
[ Page 8344 ]
maybe you might correct me at this point -- is remove discretion from a court of revision, essentially changing that to a review panel. The discretion as to what is and is not permissible, and what is or is not going to be brought forward as evidence, no longer rests with the panel but is now directed by order-in-council. All the way through the act, it does that. It does it again in section 9(d). What it effectively is doing is tighten the control by the ministry on these panels, on what has until now been a reasonably autonomous process. That's what this language is doing. It's got nothing to do with where bedrooms are or aren't in houses. I don't understand that.
What I'm asking is why we would change the language and take away "if permitted by" and put in "in accordance with." One set of language is discretionary: if it's "permitted by," you may do the following
Hon. J. Kwan: Let me try to explain with different language. The change here is an attempt to balance privacy issues and access to information. The modifications of this provision essentially ensure that regulations can be developed with respect to the disclosure of assessment information. The regulatory ability is the means through which government will ensure that appellants get access to the appropriate information for the purposes of an appeal -- i.e., an inventory of information on comparable properties. Given the potentially sensitive nature of some of this information -- i.e., the details of the interior of a home, as I referenced earlier; where the bedroom might be relative to the design of the house, including things like the alarm system -- the regulation authority allows for targeted disclosure of information to appellants only for the purposes of an appeal, as opposed to making the information generally and publicly available.
G. Wilson: But that's done now. If you read the existing act
At the moment there is a line of discretion that provides, I think, greater protection. With due respect, I think we have the protection that the minister is talking about in the existing language. The only thing this does is give greater authority to the government to decide what will or will not come forward, and it removes discretion from the court.
Hon. J. Kwan: The member is quite right about the fact that discretion is indeed limited now. The limitation is placed there for the purposes of privacy protection. We're trying to balance privacy with access. Right now we're not interfering with the operations of these independent bodies; we're trying to set standards by which they can operate. Right now the discretion is there, and information can be given that could potentially raise issues of privacy. Limiting that discretion is an attempt to balance the issue of privacy with that of access.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure I agree with that, but at least I think I understand where the minister is coming from. I'm not sure I agree with the approach. It's not that I don't agree with what the minister said; I think I understand what the minister is saying.
In section 9(d), under subsection 16(6) we strike out
This kind of contradicts what I think the minister just said about what they're attempting to do. Here, on the one hand, they're saying that they're trying to tighten up on privacy questions. On this one, it says that this act
Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of this section of the act is to look for ways to provide standardized access to more information for an appellant for the purposes of appeal, and at the same time to ensure that privacy protection is also in place for various members of the community, for different reasons. Therefore yes, on the one hand, we're trying to get more information out to the public, so they can have that information to evaluate their property in relation to their appeal, with respect to the assessment. At the same time, in consultation with the information and privacy commissioner, we also need to be mindful of the privacy rights of various individuals. Those limitations have to be in place for that kind of protection.
G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this point, except that I think it is an important one. If somebody is making an appeal and they want, for comparison, to look to another property in order to have some comparable values established -- and that's the only mechanism that we have under the current Assessment Authority, under the current procedures that we have
[ Page 8345 ]
and the higher the property value, the more the government makes. In terms of fairness, what we want to make sure of is that the fairness is set out in a reasonably independent manner that allows for the opportunity for that comparable information to be provided. The appellant has to be in a position to argue their case effectively.What you've done here is that you've now allowed the ministry to determine what will or will not be admissible, because the language has changed. Under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act, the current language makes it very clear exactly where the lines of authority are, who will allow that material to come forward and where the discretion rests: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations," and those regulations may permit "the disclosure of information respecting" -- and it states what they are -- "the declared value, financing and physical characteristics of property." Under this, what is happening is that you're now turning around and saying that you're striking out the permission of disclosure of information, and you're saying that the regulation will be "respecting the disclosure of information obtained or created under this Act, including, without limitation information respecting the declared value, financing and physical characteristics of property." Now, if it's without limitation, that means that all of that material is now available. There's no discretion as to what will or will not be brought in.
[10:30]
Hon. J. Kwan: In reviewing and bringing forward amendments to the assessment appeal procedure, it has been identified that in some instances there are concerns around standard information that should be or could be made available to an appellant. As it stands right now, the act does not require a standard list of information to be given, because it is at the discretion of the folks who are dealing with the issue.What we're trying to do here is standardize that, to say that this set of information will be made available to all appellants for the purposes of their appeal, and for the purposes of their appeal only. Where there are issues around sensitivity and protection of privacy, we need to put safeguards in place to ensure discretion in access to information that could potentially put a person in a compromising position. That's what we're trying to do with respect to this act. So on the one hand, yes, discretion is taken away, if you will. It's taken away to the point that it standardizes the set of information that ought to be made available to an appellant, while keeping in mind the need to protect certain individuals in our communities for the purposes of privacy protection.
G. Wilson: Okay, if that's what you're attempting to do. That's what I think you're attempting to do, so we agree on that, although I don't much like it.
Now that it is going to be "without limitation" -- that's what the language says under subsection 9(d) -- what is intended under the act with release of comparable information on financing?
Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to the financing component, we're not intending to do anything on that front. The intent is to make information available for appellants so that they can utilize the information with respect to various characteristics of their property, by way of comparison, when they are going through an appeal. They can get that information and compare it to other like properties in the neighbourhood, to determine whether or not their assessment has been evaluated at a similar rate to other properties in that same neighbourhood.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that. But now that we've established that we're removing the discretion on this question, and now that we have established that we are putting in language that does not currently exist: "respecting the disclosure of information obtained or created under this Act, including, without limitation, information respecting
Hon. J. Kwan: The word "financing" is not something that we have added. That is already there, and we have decided not to take it out for the reasons that it was put there in the first place. It is not a new component that we've added to this act, but rather it existed in this act prior to this set of amendments.
G. Wilson: I'm well aware that it exists in the act. But it exists in an act that has discretion with respect to the appellant and the board, and what the board will receive with respect to information. What the minister has done is remove that discretion and add the words: "
Hon. J. Kwan: We are not intending to do anything with respect to the financing issue. What needs to be in place are regulations allowing for disclosure of information with respect to value, property or physical characteristics of a particular property. We need to bring in regulation to allow for access to those sets of information. We're not intending to bring in any regulation with respect to the financing component.
G. Wilson: Then it really begs a question as to why we're even amending this section, because you can do that now. To me, this is problematic because of its language. Under the language of the existing act, you can do everything the minister is saying they are intending to do.
Ministries don't amend acts unless they have a reason to, and we're trying to determine what the reason is. To recap what the minister has said on this section, I understand that one of the reasons is because you want a standard list of information that will be made available. That could be done now under the existing act by regulation. The minister is shaking her head. Perhaps she could explain to me why that could not be done now, because it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations permitting the disclosure of information respecting the declared value, financing and physical characteristics of property." It doesn't say anything in there about "without limitation, information respecting," or any of the new language. If we're now changing the language, there has to be a reason. I have not yet heard
[ Page 8346 ]
what the reason is, beyond this notion of trying to have a consistent set of information, which could be done by regulation under the existing act.Hon. J. Kwan: Before I reply, I understand that the Minister of Employment and Investment would like to make an introduction.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the House today we have approximately 35 grade 6 students from Our Lady of the Assumption School in Port Coquitlam, my riding. They are accompanied by their teachers Brian Fader, Louise Fader, Monique Richardson and Karen St. John, as well as by 17 parents. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.
Hon. J. Kwan: Under the act now, it says that an appellant or the public may have access to the information. It is discretionary in its nature. On the changes we're bringing forward, essentially by standardizing it, we are saying that individuals who are seeking that information will now have the right to do so. It would no longer be discretionary in its nature, as it currently reads in the act.
G. Wilson: I would concur with that. I think that's my reading of it as well. I really don't want to belabour this point, but I do want to try to pin the minister down if I can, hon. Chair, as to what the minister believes is meant now by "without limitation, information respecting" financing. Can we maybe look at a case example? Given that there is no longer any discretion and given that there is a right -- as the minister has just said -- to access information without limitation regarding financing of properties, what exactly does the minister expect that to include?
Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps the most salient distinction would be this. Under the current act, because of the discretionary powers, financing information could be accessed for whatever reason at the discretion of the body that's administering this piece. As an example with respect to the amendment to the act, what we can now do is restrict access to financing and put in a regulation that says that financing information would not be made available, with respect to the ability for discretion. Perhaps that is the most concrete example of the difference between the current act and the amendment that is now being tabled.
G. Wilson: But why are you using the words "without limitation"? I mean, if it is without limitation, then presumably that says that you should be able to access information regarding financing without limitation? If the minister is saying that you've got to have limitations and that you're going to put in regulations limiting it, then you've got an act that says one can get information without limitation but you're going to bring in regulations that will limit it. It doesn't make any sense.
[10:45]
Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps this will clarify it for the member. Right now the amendment of the act says "without limitation." What that really means is that it does not limit the list of information that a person may need for the purposes of an appeal. For example, it could include things like the declared value and the physical characteristics of the property, or perhaps there might be other things relevant to the appeal procedure in the information of the appellant. So it lists a group of things. When the phrase "without limitation" is applied there, it means that there might well be other things that an appellant could need access to for the purposes of the appeal. So it allows for broader access to information, not limiting the items that might not be listed now in the current act.
G. Wilson: For the purpose of the record, then, so that when we review this to understand what's intended
It's my understanding -- and the minister can correct me -- that the inclusion of the words "without limitation, information respecting" address the existing list -- that is, "declared value, financing and physical characteristics of property." The term "without limitation" is in reference to that list, not to any specific component of that list, and does not mean that -- without limitation -- there should be access to financial information with respect to comparable properties. That's what I'm getting at. If the minister can confirm that what I'm saying is the correct interpretation of this act, we might be able to move on to another section.
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.
G. Wilson: Okay. I just have one other question on section 9. Unless somebody else does, then maybe we can move on to sections 10 and 11. With respect to the removal of discretion, is it the intention of the government or the minister in putting this forward, with respect to information that the former court of revision, now the appeal board, may have control of, that those records that are obtained under the act
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm sorry -- I ask the member to please clarify his question. I didn't quite get it.
G. Wilson: There is a change in language from the existing act, which talks about records obtained under this act. That language is now being changed. It says information obtained. The new language is: "
What I'm asking here is: is it the intention of the language "or created under this Act" that we're talking specifically about information that is spelled out in sections of this act? Or are they talking about information that may be governed by regulation as it exists under the current act?
Hon. J. Kwan: If the member's question means the information obtained from or created under this act and whether that body of information would be governed under this section, the answer is yes.
[ Page 8347 ]
J. van Dongen: I would like to pick up on the addition of the words "or created" and question the minister a little bit more about that. Could the minister explain what the purpose of that addition was? Why were those two words added?Hon. J. Kwan: The purpose of ensuring that the word "created" is also in this act is to ensure that if there is information added to it after it is obtained, like statistical analysis, market analysis or that kind of thing, that information will also be made available. The creation of that information therefore also needs to be available if the appellant wishes to obtain it.
J. van Dongen: Would it be correct to understand from this that any information that's generated by B.C. Assessment Authority staff would be available to appellants, subject to the privacy provisions? Is that a correct understanding of the intent of the regulations that are being contemplated under this section?
Hon. J. Kwan: It depends on the wording of the regulation. If the regulation is such that it allows for the information to be obtained, then the answer is yes, subject to privacy protection issues.
J. van Dongen: In drafting the regulations, would it be the government's intent that virtually any notes or any work that the assessor had done on the file would be available to the appellant, subject to the normal privacy provisions?
Hon. J. Kwan: That information is already available currently under the freedom-of-information regulations.
J. van Dongen: If I could pursue this question just a little bit further under the general heading of disclosure of information, is it intended by the government through these regulations that if someone files a complaint, there would be a standard set of information available when the complaint is filed? Would that be one of the intentions of these regulations? Would it, alternatively, be subject to an appellant asking for whatever information they think they want?
Hon. J. Kwan: When an appellant files an appeal, it is likely in all instances that the appellant would request information as it relates to circumstances of that particular appeal. Generally speaking, it would be on a request basis. It's unlikely that once a person files an appeal, they'll just get a mountain of information, whether or not that's the information they're seeking. It would be on a request basis as it is relevant to their particular case.
J. van Dongen: Just to confirm the intention of the government, is it intended that as much information as possible is available on that file?
Hon. J. Kwan: If the member means access to information on your own property
J. van Dongen: I guess that was the context in which I was asking the question. I would hope that there is no restriction, certainly, on the file and on any work that had been done by the assessor on that individual's file. Would that include any work done by the assessor on an individual file -- anything that's in that file?
Hon. J. Kwan: Information on your own property will be made available, and that is the intent.
J. van Dongen: One last question. It seems to me that if we go through the sequence of someone filing a complaint about their individual property, they go through the process -- which is set out in a subsequent section -- where they file the notice of complaint. Generally, I would expect that that action may trigger some work on the file by the assessor in preparing for the appeal or for the complaint in front of the court of revision or -- the new term -- the review panel. Would any subsequent work done after the complaint is filed be available on a standard basis to that individual appellant? It seems to me that a complaint will trigger work, and may trigger a fair bit of work. Will that be available to the appellant prior to the hearing?
[11:00]
Hon. J. Kwan: Our process is one where we hope that the appellant and the review bodies engage with each other to discuss and to share information.J. van Dongen: Just to follow up on that with the minister: would it be correct to understand in the review -- certainly if the case is in front of the review panel -- that there is now, and hopefully will continue to be, interaction between the assessor, who I understand handles the complaint, and the appellant?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
J. van Dongen: I would hope that in order to expedite this process the government would consider in their regulation some responsibility on the assessor to share whatever information they have, whether it was previously in a file or was generated as a result of the complaint. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not it would be intended to provide in the regulations some responsibility on the assessor to ensure that the appellant has whatever information the assessor considers relevant prior to the hearing, in the hopes of possibly heading off the hearing.
Hon. J. Kwan: We certainly will give that issue due consideration.
J. van Dongen: Well, I very much appreciate that comment by the minister, because it's been my observation that sometimes certain assessors are more focused on winning the appeal than on dealing with the issue. I think if there's something written in the regulations
The one other thing that I want to raise
[ Page 8348 ]
have a concern also from the point of view of the authority and understand some of the many dimensions to these issues -- it has been put to me that sometimes appellants will file an appeal, do absolutely nothing themselves and rely on Assessment Authority staff to do a tremendous amount of work. I'm thinking maybe of commercial appeals or more complicated appeals. Then they show up at the hearing and have done literally nothing themselves.If that's true, then it's certainly something I wonder if the minister might comment on. Is that a problem, and does it happen often? And what sort of checks might be considered with respect to the onus on the Assessment Authority staff to develop that information and then not have it used?
Hon. J. Kwan: When an appellant appeals a case, the appellant is expected to state, as an example, the grounds of the appeal. They have to do some homework to bring a case forward in order to access that information. That is the check and balance, if you will, that we try to put in place so that staff are not doing all the work for the appellant and so that some onus and responsibility rests with the appellant.
J. van Dongen: I know this probably relates to section 33, but I was wanting to cover it under the general heading of disclosure of information. What is the mechanism by which a staff member, an assessor, receiving a complaint would act on what could be very limited information provided by the appellant in the notice of complaint? If he says that he feels it's out of line with other properties without having to produce evidence at that time, that's pretty limited. Yet the staff member is stuck with making a decision and proceeding on the complaint.
Hon. J. Kwan: What we've also adopted in these changes is a new case management approach, which really falls under section 54 of this particular act. This is really to facilitate that balance of ensuring that the onus of the appellant is in place with respect to the work that they need to do, but that at the same time we have a mechanism to manage the cases accordingly, with respect to staff, in the manner in which we can process appeals.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
G. Wilson: I could have sworn the nays had that other section, but I don't know.
Hon. Chair, I would ask for your direction on this. It would seem to me that the appropriate thing to do would be to stand down sections 10 and 11 until we have completed debate on the bill, because what they require us to do is approve an amendment to the existing act by implementing sub-subsections 74(2)(e) and 69(2)(e) as in this bill, not the existing act. We have not yet approved those sections. Those sections don't exist in the existing act.
What this is asking us to do is essentially accept an amendment to the existing act by implementing sections of this bill which have not yet been debated or passed, and which may well be debated and possibly not passed, or may be debated and amended. It strikes me that it's a more appropriate way to proceed: to stand these two sections down, and then when we've debated those sections, we'll come back and put them into this act.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the two sections be stood down?
Hon. J. Kwan: I would prefer that we debate them and then amend them subsequently if amendments are put forward.
G. Wilson: I think that the problem with doing that is that essentially, in order to debate this section, we are now going to have to debate section 74(2)(f) and section 50(4)(b) to (g) and (5), 52(2) to (4), 53, 56, 58, 62 and part 7. We're going to have to debate all of those sections of this act in order to be able to complete this section. It doesn't make any sense, because we're going to have to jump way ahead. The only thing we're doing, essentially, is standing down these two sections till we've debated those sections, and then we'll come back and pass these. There's nothing substantive in these two sections that doesn't include a substantial debate on the ones I've just mentioned. It seems to me to be a lot more logical, and the process would be better if we were to do it that way.
The Chair: Is it agreed, then, that sections 10 and 11 shall be stood down?
Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to section 10, I'm prepared to stand it down. But with respect to section 11, it's really just basically changing references with respect to the reference numbers as the identifier. So perhaps we can debate section 11.
G. Wilson: On a technical point -- I guess it's a bit technical -- you can't make reference to a section of an act that doesn't exist. It just seems to me that
Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, there are many sections within this act where it makes references to other sections within the entire act. If we were to actually embark on that kind of process, section 1, section 2 and section 3, which we have already passed, would follow the same rule. Then we'd just be sort of skipping all over the place and not proceeding.
This really is just a section that states: "Section 22 (1) (c) is amended by striking out 'under section 69 (2) (e).' and substituting 'under section 74 (2) (e).' " That's all it is; it just changes the references accordingly. So I would ask if we perhaps can just pass section 11.
The Chair: Hon. member, if the later sections are not passed, we would be forced to come back at any rate, so I will call section 11.
G. Wilson: Just a point of order, hon. Chair. My understanding is that we are standing down section 10 but that we're going to pass section 11 because it simply is a reference. Is that what we're doing?
The Chair: That's correct.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
G. Wilson: I'm hoping that we can have a fairly lengthy debate. I have in my office some people representing the farm
[ Page 8349 ]
community, who I know are waiting for me to come there, so I'm going to go directly to my concern here. Then, hopefully, I'll have a chance to get back into it.
My concern is that under this section
The Chair: We're going to call the individual sections within it.
[11:15]
G. Wilson: If that's the case, then, perhaps the official opposition critic might want to deal with section 31, because my primary concern is under section 32. That will allow me time to go and meet with the people who are patiently waiting in my office.
L. Reid: For my clarification we're on section 12, dealing with section 31 under part 4, on property assessment. I have some serious concerns regarding this section. "The minister must appoint property assessment review panels
I have two questions. I would seek clarification on the original commentary from her wrap-up in second reading debate. I don't believe that what she indicated is, in fact, the case. Following that, my concern around removing the broader process and vesting those powers within the minister is a dramatic concern for me. I would ask the minister to comment on both of those.
Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to my comments when we discussed second reading, the comments really referenced the Assessment Appeal Board, with respect to the appointment of vice-chairs on a merit basis only. In this instance, really, the modification is with respect to the appointments to the review panels. The amendment is for the appointments to be made by a ministerial order, rather than by orders-in-council, and the purpose is to streamline the appointment process and to eliminate the added process at the cabinet table.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's characterization of her comments under the Assessment Appeal Board reference in second reading debate; however, that characterization is problematic. "The vice-chair positions are being filled by open competition, and this process is actually nearing completion." Maybe this is a definition question for the minister, but it certainly has bearing on the section we are now discussing. If the minister could define "open competition
Interjection.
L. Reid: I agree, hon. colleague. I agree with you. However, I believe that the characterization will be problematic in the section that we are currently reviewing. I don't believe that this is an open competition; I believe that this has been a political process. My concern under section 31 is that it will continue to be a political process, that indeed the minister will simply select individuals who come forward. I'm not prepared to believe that that's in the best interests of taxpayers. I believe that there should be a broader appointment process.
I'm looking for an explanation on the comment and how this minister is defining open competition -- certainly the information I have is contrary to what the minister has indicated -- and whether or not this ministerial appointment will seek the input of interested individuals in the field. As of today, I'm not convinced that will happen.
Hon. J. Kwan: On the latter question, yes, we will seek input from others respecting these appointments. To clarify, Hansard clearly states, and my statements were as follows: "Major structural reforms to the board, which were announced in January of 1998, included the appointment of a new chair and five full-time vice-chairs. The vice-chair positions are being filled by open competition, and this process is actually nearing completion
L. Reid: The concern is the same, whether I refer to the minister's remarks or this section. I have a grave concern in that I am not comfortable having that much power vested in the minister in terms of ministerial appointments. I would state for the record that I believe that is what transpired under the open competition that the minister referenced. I believe that what she has characterized as an open competition is, in fact, a political appointment. I believe that the minister selected those individuals.
Hon. J. Kwan: For the assessment review panel -- what was known as the court of revision -- throughout the province, we make some 300 appointments of individuals to do this work. It's a lot of appointments in a rather tight time frame, if you will, and it's also a lot of work. On the selection process basis, we go through a variety of ways to select the names, and names for panel members come from numerous resources.
What really is most important here is to have the most appropriate person for the job. We're continuing to look at ways to improve the selection process. The key is that the individuals are locally respected and are balanced and fair. We also look for indications of a capacity for quality decision-making. It really is non-partisan in nature, because they are community members who come forward to serve for that period of time, to look at assessment appeal issues in their respective local communities.
L. Reid: The point I'm attempting to make -- and the minister has yet to respond -- is: how does she define open competition? I believe that the dilemma I'm faced with -- i.e., whether or not this official opposition believes it's prudent to vest that much power in the minister -- will frankly not be relayed in a factual fashion, that indeed what she is currently characterizing as open competition is already suspect. If she has information that has not been shared with me, I would
[ Page 8350 ]
appreciate receiving it. The information I received was that those individuals were selected by the minister from a list -- which, to me, is absolutely contrary to how you would define open competition.Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to the appointments of the vice-chairs through open competitions, the question was: what does "open competition" mean? Open competition means that those positions were advertised broadly and posted broadly across Canada, in fact. The selections were made based on a panel of individuals. I was not part of the panel, nor were there ministry staff on that panel. So really it's a separate panel outside the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that made the selections.
L. Reid: From the minister's comments, she's indicating that it was a separate panel outside the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that made those selections. If she could indicate who those individuals were, I would be most interested.
Hon. J. Kwan: A couple of individuals that we do know who sat on that panel included folks from the Attorney General's ministry. Their current chair also sat on that panel. But for the opposite member's information, we can get a full list of the individuals who made up that panel.
L. Reid: I thank the minister. I'll be interested in receiving that information.
With reference to section 12, section 31(1), "The minister must appoint property assessment review panels
Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, we look for people who are locally respected within their community, are perceived to be fair and who really have the capacity to make fair, quality decisions at the end of the day.
L. Reid: Frankly, that characterization could apply to any community activity or endeavour. What I'm looking for is if there is a specific set of requirements for these individuals, who we are entrusting to make some fairly skilful decisions, I would think. What you've just characterized, minister, could be a Girl Guide leader. To take nothing away from that, I need to know if the individuals in this instance have a particular skill set. I'm hoping that they do.
Hon. J. Kwan: This is the first stage of the assessment appeal procedures, if you will. The folks that are appointed to sit on the assessment review panels are laypeople within the community. Generally speaking, we look for people who know their community, who know the different properties within their community, who are well respected within the community, who have the capacity to understand what's going on within the community and who take an approach that is not intimidating to the appellants as they bring cases forward in this first stage of the appeal process.
[11:30]
L. Reid: I thank the minister for that guidance. I'm not comforted by the fact that these individuals may not possess any expertise on any of these questions. I appreciate that the minister believes that they will be individuals who are respected in their communities. I would ask how that respect is measured, how these individuals are actually isolated out from the general population. From the minister's comments, there doesn't seem to be any particular skill set, other than that they're all-around fine folk. The questions that people have raised with me regarding the level of decision-making are about credibility. To take nothing away from these fine folk that may be there, if it were you, minister, or I approaching this panel, we would be interested in the background of the individuals. We would like to know, first off, if they're competent. Do they have the skill set required to make what I would hope would be some fairly sophisticated decisions? I'm not hearing that level of information emanating from the minister. If she could kindly comment.
Hon. J. Kwan: At this first stage of the panel, the individuals that are selected
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of trusting that these people have a vast amount of common sense. Again, the question to the minister is: how does she measure that? Is this done through an interview process, or does someone put forward a name and the minister appoints that individual?
The questions that I have had from taxpayers around this province
With any other decision-making body in the province, you would have the ability to inquire as to their background. I mean, if you sought out any other decision-maker, you would want to know what their credentials are, their experience. The minister commented that they may have owned their own home in the past. Well, I would hope so, because that's what this is about: the evaluation of property and the mechanisms around the decision-making process.
Perhaps the minister wishes to come at it from a further expansion of the training. I mean, I need to know that these individuals have some ability to render credible decisions. I've not heard that yet.
[ Page 8351 ]
Hon. J. Kwan: I would be happy to offer to the member opposite the opportunity to go through a training session of what's required of these individuals so that she can completely understand the process and the training they undergo when they take on this responsibility to sit on what was the court of revision and was renamed the assessment review panel.Interjection.
L. Reid: My hon. colleague from Delta South says: "Yes, we could both go."
I appreciate the offer, but that will be of no assistance to taxpayers in this province who have the same questions I have -- unless you're making that offer to open up the process so that people truly understand whether or not these decision-makers have some credibility. Again, I appreciate that the minister has said, three or four times now, that these are respected people of the community. My question to her -- which has not been answered -- is how does she measure that? She receives a list of individuals; she appoints three. She in fact goes so far as to appoint an individual as chair. There's been no discussion from this minister on whether or not the chair has a greater skill set than the other two panellists.
I think this could be a useful process, but only if people believe in the decision-makers. Those are the fairness and integrity aspects of the discussion that we had earlier in second reading -- that the people who make decisions that impact on your property assessment
So I appreciate the minister's invitation to attend, but I'd like the minister to rise and give me some indication of what kind of information is exchanged at these training sessions. That would be helpful.
Hon. J. Kwan: There are many pieces to the training procedure, but I will highlight a few things which an individual goes through in training. Clearly people are trained on the meeting procedures. They are provided some information with respect to dispute resolution. They're provided with some preliminary information with respect to property appraisal and evaluations, the requirements of the legislation, the rules that apply for classification, exemptions, etc. So there's a broad range of information that relates to the assessment process that individuals will get access to through the training. Keep in mind that the access period is about six weeks, it's actually a short period in which individuals are asked to perform these tasks.
Once again, what government tried to do, in these instances, was to come up with individuals that best meet their needs. In fact, in some instances a lot of people who had perhaps gone through the assessment appeal procedure or process would actually submit their résumé for government's consideration, to sit on the review panels. A lot of people actually highlight the background information which they have in their résumé for our consideration.
W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: Thank you, members. Visiting us today
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments regarding the content of the training program. I would ask the minister the length of the training program.
Hon. J. Kwan: We will bring forward that information for the hon. member.
L. Reid: My additional questions on this topic relate to mastery. Is this training session actually examined? Do people basically have the ability to demonstrate a skill set, to demonstrate some mastery, or is it an orientation session? That will be an interesting distinction. My colleague from Delta South is concerned about whether or not this is compulsory training. Is this something that we can be assured every single panellist will indeed avail themselves of? Is it a requirement or is it an option?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. J. Kwan: If the member is wondering whether or not there is a test at the end of the training session for the individuals, the answer is no, there is not a test. We go through a process of providing information to each of the individual members for their information. It really varies from member to member -- some people have sat on the review panels before -- whether or not they choose to come back for further training. There is some flexibility in that regard. Through the ministerial appointment of this panel, we are looking at how we can make some changes with respect to training requirements along with the changes to this act.
Finally, the line of questioning that has been put forward perhaps could be canvassed through estimates, as we talk about the administration of the review panels as opposed to what is stipulated in terms of the Assessment Amendment Act.
[11:45]
L. Reid: I do appreciate the minister's comment; however, it's not relevant. I'm sure this act will be debated before we turn to the estimates debate, so this is indeed the most likely time to have this discussion. After the bill has been passed, we can exchange information -- no question -- but there will be no ability to have a discussion that actually pertains to these sections. Certainly that would be my comment, as well, for this training session. It's an information exchange. So I'm no more comforted now, not knowing whether these people have to demonstrate any skill set before they're appointed.The minister has probably gleaned that I am not comfortable with vesting in the Minister of Municipal Affairs the powers to make these appointments. I'm not convinced that narrowing the responsibility or the authority is in the taxpayers best interest. The minister has not convinced me that that is indeed the case. I don't believe that this process is
[ Page 8352 ]
credible today, because I know that individuals who go before this process are unable to glean any information about the background of the individuals who make decisions that impact on their lives.Absolutely, they can continue to go through the appeal process. However, it's costly, and it will become more costly as a result of this amendment, and it's certainly time-consuming. These are people who have fairly productive lives, for the most part, and who find this rigour, in terms of bureaucratic overlay, to be not in their best interest.
The minister made the comment earlier that this is about streamlining the process. This is about vesting power in the minister, but I don't believe it's necessarily about making better decisions, because that measure will be the measure of the individuals who are actually appointed. Certainly I don't believe that there has been any consideration given to members of the community to agree or disagree with the selection process. The minister will make a list of individuals who will sit as panel members. I would like to propose -- again, in concert with my colleague from Delta South -- that perhaps it's reasonable enough to demand that the ministry post the names of the individuals; advertise the names of the individuals; make local communities aware of who is being considered; and wait a reasonable time, perhaps 30 or 60 days, so that individuals can say whether or not those individuals bring some credibility to the decision-making process.
My concern on that question pervades this entire amendment act. If people who are appointed to these positions are not found to be credible, we have not enhanced the process -- your government has not enhanced the process -- in any way. Frankly, they added more overlay, more regulation and more cost, but I'm not convinced we're necessarily going to output better decisions. I think I'm correct in that. We now have a group of individuals who need to display zero mastery, can or cannot participate in an orientation session, and then will be responsible for convincing taxpayers of their determinations. I think it's perhaps disrespectful to the individuals I know who have asked questions regarding the background of these panellists and were told in the past: "Well, it was an OIC appointment, so it must be fine." I'm no further convinced that because it's a ministerial appointment, it has been in any way enhanced. I would ask the minister to comment.
Hon. J. Kwan: With all due respect, while I agree with the member opposite that we need to have credible individuals to sit on the review panel, I disagree with the rest of the comments offered. By way of background history, I'm advised by staff that this kind of process, in terms of appointment, has been in place since 1974. To date, it appears to be working well. Generally speaking, by way of comparison, in 1997 approximately 30,000 appeals went through to the review panel stage, and about 1,000 moved off to the next stage, in terms of further appeal. I think that to some degree that gives us a good perspective that the system actually works fairly well from that point of view, because only a really small number of individuals -- a percentage, if you will -- move forward on to the next stage. Oftentimes the appeal mechanism is precisely there as a safeguard for individuals who are not satisfied with the first stage of appeal, for them to move on to the next stage.
L. Reid: By the minister's own admission, this process has been in place since 1974 and is working well. So why change it, minister?
Hon. J. Kwan: We believe that the changes being put in place here would not make any significant difference. The thrust behind it is really to streamline these appointments, to make it go through more quickly, because from time to time, when appointments have to go through cabinet you have to adjust the scheduling with the cabinet agenda and so on -- and because there is a tight time frame in which people have to get underway with respect to this set of work. The change, really, is to expedite the work within government and to streamline and cut red tape.
F. Gingell: I wasn't going to enter into the discussion relative to the review panel and what is in section 12, the new section 31. But two or three things come to mind. In the early 1970s, when the previous NDP administration was in, I was appointed by a school board to serve on a college board. The college board was made up of both appointees from the school board and appointees by the minister. Things may be different in 1998, but I can assure you that in 1974 the most important attribute of any appointee was an active role in the New Democratic Party; that is just without question. Take a list and have a look at that particular board. I won't deal with it any more in this chamber, but it was true.
As a matter of fact -- as certainly no member of the Social Credit Party, with no influence with them in any way -- I got to know, during the course of the process, the senior bureaucrats. When the provincial government changed in 1975, I was asked my opinion about particular appointments. I strongly recommended that they carry on a couple of the appointments. At that moment in time, I didn't feel there was any political attribution to the appointments that were made. From 1975 on, things gradually changed. But when this exchange took place, it just reminded me of that experience those many years ago.
I think there are some solutions. Certainly I can understand the minister making the appointments. Why go through the process of the order-in-council? It slows things down. It perhaps gives you a little more latitude relative to time. It gives you a little more flexibility.
So why not take up the member's suggestion that, 30 days before you make the appointment, the names of the persons who you a planning on appointing to the review panels be advertised in the local newspaper? The flexibility that you've given yourself by moving from order-in-council to ministerial appointment -- let's take advantage of it. Let's use that -- for the minister to be able to advertise or get the names of the people he or she intends to appoint known to the community -- so that if there are any concerns as to the competence and qualifications of these people, your office can be advised.
I'm sure that we all appreciate your problem. There are a hundred panels. There are how many school boards now? They are related around the school boards. Then you take some of the larger school districts and you subdivide them because that makes sense from a geographic viewpoint. So here you are making 300-plus appointments to a hundred different panels all over the province and having to rely on the processes that have taken place. It would seem to me that there's an opportunity here for that flexibility you're giving yourself through making ministerial appointments -- which, I must admit, I think is a much more sensible way of doing it
Hon. J. Kwan: My response will be short and we will move off to recess.
[ Page 8353 ]
I thank the member for Delta South for his comments and for understanding that the intent here of government is to really streamline the appointment process to make it move through quicker and to cut red tape as we expedite the panels.That's with respect to the appointments, but on the issue around prior to 1974-75, I don't know what went on in '74-75. I was eight years old then and living in Hong Kong. But what I do know now is this: what we try to do with these appointments is to really move through the process quickly, to get people on stream who are prepared to spend and invest that kind of time to take up the responsibility of sitting on these panels and to go through the process with the public and really to work on this on a peer basis. I thank the member for Delta South for his understanding of the intent of changing the process on OIC appointments.
Noting the time, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The committee met at 10:10 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS,
TOURISM AND CULTURE
R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise, in brief answers today, what training we do to ensure that throughout British Columbia we have a world-class product available for tourists?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer, with respect to product assurance, is that we have an accommodation program, we inspect 2,700 properties, publish 900,000 guides and have Canada Select standards. Tourism B.C. gives $300,000 to PRIT for certification of staff and industry.
R. Thorpe: Would the minister agree and would Tourism B.C. also agree that if we are to build a viable and continually growing tourism business in British Columbia, it's important that we continue to strive to ensure that our product offerings are of a world-class standard?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the call centre in Vancouver, can the minister advise on the level of activity at the call centre this year as compared to last year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that we get about 700,000 incoming calls; 400,000 are handled by operators. They book 70,000 reservations there. It's worth about $11 million in reservations. We don't have the exact figures from last year; we'll get them for the member. It's down slightly from last year, but that's the same across the country.
R. Thorpe: Do we have any concerns at this point in time about that -- the decreases in calls coming into British Columbia? That's why we're here; we're concerned about the tourism business in British Columbia. Are any alarm bells going off or any signals being created that there's a problem we should be addressing?
Hon. I. Waddell: We have no concerns at the moment.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the ever-changing communications market and to consumers looking and searching for alternatives for product offerings, can the minister advise on the status of Internet marketing for Tourism B.C. and its various products?
[10:15]
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the member that Tourism B.C. worked with B.C. Tel to get a web site link with the bookings. The cost was $300,000, and it was split 50-50 with B.C. Tel. Now they're working on a contract for marketing on the web site. Thirdly, they're working with the industry group COTA's web site.R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise which jurisdiction in the world -- that's a globally competitive business -- is right now the world leader in Internet marketing for tourism?
Hon. I. Waddell: We're not sure.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps I could get a brief report from Tourism B.C. on that question later.
With respect to provincial gateways and roadways into British Columbia, could the minister advise how many gateways to the province there are, please?
Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. operates gateways at Field, Douglas and Mount Robson. They handle 160,000 parties. Usually that's about 2.5 people per party, so they handle approximately 500,000 people.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise why Sparwood is not treated as a gateway to British Columbia?
Hon. I. Waddell: We don't know.
R. Thorpe: On behalf of myself, having visited there, and the Chair, who I think has an interest in that particular part of
[ Page 8354 ]
British Columbia, I think it would be very important for Tourism B.C. to investigate that. I think the key contact would be the chamber of commerce in Sparwood, which would have a great interest in co-developing that with Tourism B.C.Last year we had an unfortunate incident in Prince Rupert. What was the negative impact on the tourism community in the greater Prince Rupert area with respect to the blockade?
Hon. I. Waddell: Other than the lost revenue for reservations in bookings in northwest B.C., which COTA has looked at, I believe, there is no quantifiable study as to an exact amount. But there was an effect. Also, the area itself has been hit hard economically, because it's got other economic concerns with the difficulties in forestry and fisheries.
R. Thorpe: Tourism B.C., as the umbrella marketing organization, has no estimate -- a best-guess estimate -- of the negative impact on tourism in the Prince Rupert area?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no.
R. Thorpe: It's quite disappointing that Tourism B.C. wouldn't have such a figure.
A Voice: Unbelievable.
R. Thorpe: Yeah, it is almost unbelievable. With respect to the fact that the minister has confirmed that there was a negative impact on the area in tourism and on tourism operators, what additional dollars in this year's Tourism B.C. marketing budget have been allocated to kick-start that marketplace?
Hon. I. Waddell: Could the member clarify which marketplace he's talking about? Is it the northwest?
R. Thorpe: I thought the minister had confirmed that there had been a negative impact in the Prince Rupert area. My question related to the Prince Rupert area.
Hon. I. Waddell: The member knows that the government gave Tourism B.C. an additional $2.5 million for marketing. I'm informed that they're putting that marketing
R. Thorpe: So there was no actual dedicated amount to Prince Rupert to overcome the shortfalls of last year. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Changing subjects, with respect to Super, Natural British Columbia and the system of business integration, I believe that one of your performance measurements this year is to improve SNBC's financial position to at least break even in calendar 1998, while delivering outstanding service to members and consumers. The financial impact is reported to be around $1.7 million. Can the minister advise, through staff: are we on track at this point in time? Do we foresee any problems in achieving that objective?
Hon. I. Waddell: We think we're on track. The call volumes from the call centre are down 1 percent so far, but revenues are up 3 percent, and kit requests are up 86 percent in the first quarter.
R. Thorpe: For a $26 million operation, a $1.7 million hit is a significant number. Are we on track with respect to the financial ramifications of that performance measurement goal?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: It's also my understanding that Tourism B.C. anticipates being able to generate some $50,000 from the sale of the "B.C. Visitor Study." Are we on track to achieve that goal?
Hon. I. Waddell: There's been a slight delay in the sales of the research study, but we think we can meet the target.
R. Thorpe: Just very quickly, where are we contemplating selling that research material -- in broad terms, not specific companies?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that the simpler reports will be made available at a minimal fee to the general public, and the access to the broader data will be made available to industry operators -- not charging them for the research, but just for the handling fee. So it'll be fairly nominal.
R. Thorpe: So then it's basically a cost-recovery mode as opposed to a revenue generator. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the accommodations guide, which we did hear some comments on last week, I understand that one of the performance measurements is to increase revenue generation on the accommodations guide to a target of around an additional $800,000. It's also my understanding that
Hon. I. Waddell: There are no changes.
R. Thorpe: There are no changes to the accommodations guide anticipated. Are there any major initiatives taking place with respect to the accommodations guide, which will have a performance measurement of approximately $800,000? Are there any actions in that area?
Hon. I. Waddell: I want to inform the member that the entire program of getting the accommodations guide -- that is, doing the inspections, producing the guide and selling it -- is self-sufficient. The money is made from the sale of small ads in the guide.
R. Thorpe: Is the accommodations guide
[ Page 8355 ]
guide used to be much more community orientated, having a listing of events in various communities along with facilities. Now that appears to have been broken out. Do we have a vehicle, other than brochures, that Tourism B.C. is providing to various communities throughout British Columbia? For instance, when somebody stops at the visitors centre in Hope, can they help sell something over in the Okanagan? Apparently this used to be in the accommodations guide. This was one of the observations in this particular operators mind that was a shortfall of how the guide works now.Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I'll note that observation, as well as Tourism B.C.
R. Thorpe: Is the accommodations guide available on the Internet, or is it part of your Internet project?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answers are no and no.
R. Thorpe: That sounds like a song. Since we're now developing the Internet site -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I had a sense that we're just starting or relatively new in developing our Internet site
Hon. I. Waddell: That's what we're doing with the web site link to SNBC.
[10:30]
R. Thorpe: Oh, I thought we had a "no, no" before, so now we've sort of changed that. So it is now part of the Internet project. Super.What are the relationships with respect to visitor services, tourist infocentres, whatever the correct words are these days, between Tourism B.C., the regions and the communities.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the member that most of the information centres are operated by chambers of commerce. Tourism B.C. provides funding support on a fee-for-service basis.
R. Thorpe: My inclination is that that level of funding has been decreasing over the past two or three years. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: It's the same this year as it was last year.
R. Thorpe: So it must have been the previous year that the significant decrease took place. Is that funded on a year-to-year basis, or do we try to provide these folks with a multi-year operating commitment?
Hon. I. Waddell: It's year to year because you can't forecast the revenues. It's a function of how the industry does in the year, and that's why it's a year-to-year basis.
R. Thorpe: I've heard before that it's year to year and that therefore we can't forecast the revenues. But do you know what we can do? We don't have to commit 100 percent. We can always say to people, "Here are the core programs we're moving forward with," so that they can get out and hire the young kids. If my recollection serves me correctly, these are mostly young British Columbians having summer jobs. If we could make those kinds of commitments to chambers of commerce
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I take what the member has said.
R. Thorpe: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer.
Hon. I. Waddell: I know what the member has said. I have no comment.
T. Nebbeling: I have just a quick question, coming back to the infocentre service that has been provided by the Ministry of Tourism. How many people were employed under that program last year in the various chambers?
Hon. I. Waddell: Is that 300? Thank you. See, they're earning their pay there. Yeah. It's 300.
T. Nebbeling: If I had known that courier service was needed, I would have extended my question, because now I would like to know the number who are employed for this year.
Hon. I. Waddell: Approximately the same.
T. Nebbeling: Does he want to join us? Oh, I'm not supposed to do that. It's to the Chair still. Through you, Madam Chair
A Voice: That's never bothered you before.
T. Nebbeling: That has never bothered me before -- through you to the minister, Madam Chair.
How much was the amount of money allocated for the program last year, and how much is that money this year?
Hon. I. Waddell: Last year it was $975,000; this year it will be $1 million.
R. Thorpe: We're moving right along here. Can we be advised if Tourism B.C. has any projects with respect to aboriginal community projects in tourism, either on a full-time ongoing basis or in any pilot projects underway?
Hon. I. Waddell: That a good question -- and a priority we're working on -- well, amongst all the other good questions.
Tourism B.C. has one employee dedicated to that. I actually worked with him in one capacity. They're working with Aboriginal Tourism B.C. to work towards a business plan to advance this good cause. I can tell the hon. member that when I opened the mask show last night at the art gallery in Vancou-
[ Page 8356 ]
ver, there were over a thousand people there, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, working together. What an incredible resource.R. Thorpe: With respect to Tourism B.C. and B.C. Ferries, is there an ongoing marketing relationship between the organizations?
Hon. I. Waddell: They're doing a pilot to book reservations for B.C. Ferries.
R. Thorpe: Has that pilot just started? I see the nods are yes, so we don't need an answer to that; I'll just move to the next question.
What is Tourism B.C. doing, perhaps together with other tourism organizations and B.C. Ferries, to help overcome the quickly sagging volumes to the Island with respect to tourism? What is Tourism B.C. doing in that area?
Hon. I. Waddell: They're working with the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. They're working with projects like touring, golf, skiing, fishing and adventure.
R. Thorpe: How many dollars do we have committed to shoulder-season marketing through Tourism B.C. in cooperating with B.C. Ferries in this fiscal year?
Hon. I. Waddell: They don't directly co-op with B.C. Ferries. It's done through the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. I don't have those figures.
R. Thorpe: One of the issues that concerned us very much last year in debating Bill 9 was the independence of the board of Tourism B.C. Can the minister give us his views on how the board should operate in relationship to his ministry?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd see it as an arm's-length board. I see us working together, however, co-operatively. I do have some appointments to the board; the industry has some appointments to the board. I'm satisfied with the industry's appointments and with the relationship. This is a kind of new thing, but so far, so good.
R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that it's a 15-person board: five from the minister's office and ten from the private sector. Does the minister buy into the proposition that the ministry will endorse the selection of members for this board that are put forward by the private sector?
Hon. I. Waddell: First let me say that it's five from government. Basically I buy into that, and I told them that.
R. Thorpe: Are there any current vacancies on the board of directors?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, they've been filled. I think the last one was when Gerry Bruno, who's got experience in Vancouver in airport management, was appointed to the board.
R. Thorpe: Is Mr. Williams still on the board?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.
R. Thorpe: One of the questions that I was directed to ask -- I have the pleasure of living in part of the area -- is: can the minister advise why the Okanagan does not have a member on the board, when I think it represents 14 percent of tourism in British Columbia?
Hon. I. Waddell: It's a difficult matter, because every region could say: "Well, we want someone, or we've got to make sure
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, he's in Victoria, but I think his business interests are in the Okanagan. The northern area wasn't very well represented, and I've put in a couple of northern people from Prince Rupert and Fort St. John. Kamloops is complaining a bit, and I've indicated to the people there -- because they don't like the link between North Thompson-Okanagan; they see differences -- that as soon as I can, as soon as there's a vacancy, I'll try and get someone from that area to put on the board to balance it. I see my appointments as being part of that, being flexible enough to fill that in. We want everybody to be happy in this. They're working together as a team to market B.C.; that's important. So I'm open to any way that I can help.
R. Thorpe: Let me just ask the minister: I believe the province has been branded into six regions. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.
R. Thorpe: Does the minister endorse and support the branding by regions?
Hon. I. Waddell: That was a board decision, and again, this board is made up mostly of the industry. So I'm supporting the board decision. I'm fairly new as minister, and I want to see how this is working out. At the moment, I support it.
R. Thorpe: I gather from the minister's comments -- perhaps I misinterpreted them, so I give the minister the opportunity to make sure the record is clear -- that he does recognize that the Okanagan represents approximately 14 percent, I believe, of British Columbia's tourism industry. I also gather, though, that the minister has given a strong indication to people in Kamloops that they'd have a member on the board. Does the minister also believe, then, that an area representing 14 percent of the province's volume in this area should also have a member on that board?
Hon. I. Waddell: I wish I had a bigger board, but I don't. I'll try and do what's best for regional representation. If the member has any suggestions, I'll be pleased to take them.
R. Thorpe: We may have canvassed this a few days ago, or a week or so ago, but I'm not sure. When can we expect to have the final business plan for this year?
Hon. I. Waddell: As I said before -- two to three weeks.
R. Thorpe: With respect to funding, I believe the minister said yesterday that Tourism B.C. was into a performance model of funding. Could the minister clarify that was, in fact, what he did say yesterday?
Hon. I. Waddell: This is quite simple. I'm not sure of the titles for it, but Tourism B.C.'s source of money is basically the
[ Page 8357 ]
hotel tax. If more people come to hotels and there's more money there, then as the industry performs better -- that is, expands -- there'll be more money for Tourism B.C.
R. Thorpe: So really it's a volume question in the minister's eyes, rather than performance. The reason I asked that question is
Hon. I. Waddell: All I know is the way things are working now.
[10:45]
R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister would want to go back, at the appropriate time, and review the fact that on February 24, 1996, an agreement was signed. Based on the minister's comments yesterday on the performance model conceptHon. I. Waddell: The answer is no. That was an agreement to tide them over and to work until we got this new model: Tourism B.C. So now we're into Tourism B.C., and that's why I'm looking to the future with Tourism B.C.
R. Thorpe: In fact, the minister is totally incorrect in that comment. If that were the case, it would have been clearly spelled out and they would not have had a multi-year funding agreement as part of the agreement. I ask that the minister go back -- not today, but later -- and check that their commitment to the industry for 1998-1999 was $23.76 million, and that commitment was signed on February 24, 1996. I think it's very important that when people sign agreements -- not just talk about agreements but sign agreements -- they hold to their signature and to their commitments.
Hon. I. Waddell: I suggest that the member talk to the industry. They wanted a new model; the new model is in place. Now, if the member wants to advocate for more money for tourism, I'm listening.
R. Thorpe: I think it's very important that people keep their promises. This industry is looking for certainty. It's looking for commitment. It's looking to build. This government promised $23.76 million for this industry in 1998-1999. The question is: are you going to keep your promises?
Hon. I. Waddell: We agree to disagree on that point.
R. Thorpe: This is an observation, not a criticism, and the next comment is a suggestion, not a criticism. It would seem to me that British Columbia has a tremendous opportunity, but many of the modes
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me answer that by just quoting an e-mail that I got on May 19 from Ata and Amy Durukan on Lakeside Drive, Champaign, Illinois:
Hon. Ian Waddell:I'm going to send a copy of this transcript to Ata and Amy. I want to thank them on the record for this letter.My wife and I just returned from an albeit short but splendid trip to British Columbia. We have travelled extensively in the short time we've been married, and I have never written to a tourism department to express our pleasure with the particular country or region we've visited -- that is, until now.
We truly felt at home in Vancouver and Victoria. Although only there for four days last week, we were welcomed with genuine warmth and caring by the wonderful citizens of B.C. Never have we experienced such friendly and helpful people on our travels. There seems to be a marvellous sense of spirit in B.C., and we are so pleased we could experience it firsthand. We explored and did a lot in the short time we were there, and our only regret is that we did not have the time to see more. We will anxiously await our return to your part of the world.
Many other places that consider themselves "tourist friendly" could learn much from the way you do things. Thank you.
Ata and Amy Durukan
1804 Lakeside Drive
Champaign, IL
I'll answer the member's question by saying that we're going to continue being people-friendly and attracting tourists like these folks.
R. Thorpe: It's always nice to get nice letters, and Champaign, Illinois, is actually a very nice community also. What are we doing, though? I understand building business one customer at a time; I understand that.
A Voice: That's the CBC.
R. Thorpe: That could be. Actually, they copied it, but it doesn't matter. If somebody has a good idea, and if it works, let's work it.
What are we doing? What bold initiatives are we taking? As the minister said when we started the estimates debate, it's a globally competitive industry. What are we doing to leapfrog the industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll give the member an example: the Open Skies program. Its total spending is $3.3 million. The partners are Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Victoria, Whistler Resort Association, Canadian Tourism Commission, the Tourism Alliance, hotels and airlines. That's an integrated campaign of television, newspaper inserts, direct mail, media relations and trade support at a cost of $3.3 million -- targeted to Americans living in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago. We're starting to see results from that in increased American tourists to Canada.
T. Nebbeling: I have just a few questions, but also a comment. I was really pleased to hear the tone of that letter, and I can say from experience that these kinds of letters are very often sent to resort towns throughout British Columbia -- reflecting on the hospitality. I think that this is happening because of some of the programs that were introduced in the
[ Page 8358 ]
past by the Ministry of Tourism, such as the ambassadors program. These programs have really educated our workers in the tourist field about how to deal with visitors and give them that feeling of welcome. I just hope that will continue to be the case and that underfunding of tourism objectives is not going to cause us to lose some of that advantage.
Talking about cost
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, let me say to the hon. member
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: I think the hon. member understands my sentiments.
The question is a good one, but it would necessitate a very long answer, so I'm just going to give some examples. We're looking at Asia and Europe, because of the Asian downtown and some problems in Germany in terms of their economy. We're doing a number of trade shows that have dealt with this. I went to Rendez-vous Canada in Quebec City -- I went for six hours -- to see our delegation and to see that we were doing well. There's World Travel Mart, Kanata Showcase Canada, Canada's West Marketplace, ITB -- a number of trade shows that target the Asia-Pacific and European markets. The size of the market is $1.5 billion, and that's 18 percent of our total revenue. There are some areas where we think we can make some improvements.
T. Nebbeling: Programs like Rendez-vous and Kanata have been in existence for many years. But I think that part of the justification for the special agency was to see tourism get some control over the marketing aspect of the tourist industry. The justification for the special agency was to allow the Tourism B.C. group to expand and develop new areas such as Mexico and Brazil, where there's enormous wealth that travels. We do not tap into that. That was, I think, part of the justification: to see the industry focusing on these target markets -- small sometimes, large sometimes. Has that been done, rather than focusing on the traditional markets like the Pacific Rim and Europe?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that Tourism B.C. has been working on a Mexico market for about a year and a half, and they're just now beginning to work on some of the other emerging markets. I couldn't agree with him more. I've been saying this to Tourism B.C. myself. I think there's enormous growth -- an enormous middle class now coming up in South America, for example. We could tap that. I think there are some things we could do, for example, with Whistler and Chile in terms of skiing. I think there are different seasons, and so on, that are complementary
T. Nebbeling: Just to conclude my questions. One of the tools that I believe has been very effective in the past is the overseas agencies. London, I believe, still has an agency, but they have also closed down a number. I think that over time it became clear that closing down some of these overseas agencies has really been detrimental to the success of tourism. Is the minister contemplating, together with Tourism B.C., reconsidering some of these closures -- L.A., for example?
Hon. I. Waddell: We may be talking at cross-purposes here, but I'm informed that we haven't closed an office in five years -- that we have representation. Maybe we're speaking of different kinds of offices, but we do have representation in these different markets: Tokyo, L.A., Taiwan, London, Germany.
T. Nebbeling: Just for clarification, in the past we actually had walk-in locations. Now we do have a tourist representative. London, to me, is the only place that I can truly say has a space where as a Brit you just walk in. All the material is available, and staff is available to give the answers. So I was thinking more of that user-friendly type of approach rather than a promoter in a foreign nation. In Tokyo the representative is in a little corner on the third floor of the embassy. Alberta, at the same time, has this huge space selling Alberta. That is the difference.
Hon. I. Waddell: That's very interesting. I'll take the member's comments on
R. Thorpe: Just the last couple of questions here, noting the time and our commitment to deliver on that. Does either Tourism B.C. or the ministry -- it's a similar question to the one I asked yesterday on small business -- prepare and keep up to date a competitiveness analysis against our major competitors in the world? I think the answer is yes or no.
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: Would it be possible, then, to get a copy, albeit I understand that it could be confidential? Could I get a copy of that confidential document?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll take that under advisement. I'll try and get the member a copy. It's a little too quick to answer right away, but I'll try.
R. Thorpe: Thank you.
My last question has to do with freedom of information. What resources does Tourism B.C. have allocated for freedom-of-information requests?
Hon. I. Waddell: One staff member.
R. Thorpe: Are any cutbacks contemplated in that area?
Hon. I. Waddell: No.
R. Thorpe: Does Tourism B.C. currently have a backlog of FOIs?
[ Page 8359 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: Other than the hon. member's? [Laughter.] I don't know. I don't know whether the hon. member sent one, because I don't work in Tourism B.C. Do they have a backlog? We don't think so. They're a pretty efficient organization.
[11:00]
R. Thorpe: Perhaps we should be careful where we laugh, because we do in fact have some outstanding FOIs, and they do pertain to this member.I know we have a great history in this democratic government of receiving information after the estimates. So now that we are finished with Tourism B.C., would it be possible to expedite the outstanding FOIs from Tourism B.C. to the official opposition?
In closing, understanding that they have some important issues to deal with, I would like to thank Tourism B.C. for changing their schedules.
Again, I want to say, as I said earlier in debates with respect to the sport fishing crisis, that the official opposition remains committed to working on this issue with Tourism B.C. and the ministry. Please do not allow partisan politics to get in the way of our offer to work with Tourism B.C. and the industry to solve this issue for all British Columbians. Thank you to the staff.
Hon. I. Waddell: I was going to say that I'll pass that on to the staff, but they're right here and they heard it. So thank you.
The Chair: Shall the vote pass? I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.
A Voice: Cease!
R. Thorpe: After I asked about your travel centre at Sparwood, this is what you try to do to me. I don't believe there's a vote here on this.
The Chair: I'd just like to inform the member that we are discussing vote 57. Continue, member.
R. Thorpe: Our past practice in these estimates is that when we finish one section, we take a few seconds and change staff. I ask that that same practice continue as we switch into Crown corporations.
The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:06 a.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: Looking at the Pavilion Corporation, I note that funding to the corporation has been decreased by $1 million, I believe. Can the minister advise in what areas these cutbacks took place?
Hon. I. Waddell: What happens with Pavco -- I can tell the hon. member this -- is that they operate, and then at the end of the year, if they have a deficit, they apply our money to cover their operating deficit. The rest goes into capital improvements.
R. Thorpe: Just so I understand: we take operating dollars, and if they're not used for operations, then we turn them into capital dollars. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: They take our grant. Let me give you a projected example. I think it's projected that this year there will be a loss of $753,000. So they take our grant and apply it to the loss, and then they apply our grant to various capital: for example, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre -- $598,000; B.C. Place Stadium -- $913,000; Robson Square Conference Centre -- $56,000; Tradex -- $60,000; Bridge Studios -- $199,000; corporate services -- $65,000. The total applied to capital is $1.891 million. So that's how it works.
R. Thorpe: I just want to make sure that I understand this. I didn't think it was quite this complicated. Pavco operates for the year and obviously has bank lines of credit, etc. It gets to the end of the year and says: "We're $812,000 short." Does the government then cut them a cheque for $812,000, or does the government send over to them $2.644 million as per this vote? When does this $2.644 million go to Pavco?
Hon. I. Waddell: By quarterly cheques.
R. Thorpe: So the capital that we're referring to -- is that equity-shareholder capital or capital assets?
Hon. I. Waddell: Assets.
R. Thorpe: Does Pavco finance its capital assets only out of surpluses from the government, or can they also go out and borrow to create capital assets?
Hon. I. Waddell: They could technically borrow, but they would need Treasury Board approval.
R. Thorpe: So then they would have government guarantees on such borrowings. So, in fact, if I understand it correctly, Pavco's capital plan would basically lag a year behind depending on their operating results. If it didn't, they wouldn't know what capital they had to fund capital projects. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm told they also have cash reserves in the long-term capital plan.
R. Thorpe: So like some other organizations, they have a carry over provision. Once the money is in their bank, unless they're asked to declare a dividend, the money stays there and is used for their purposes.
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes. I'm just waiting for that dividend.
R. Thorpe: I know the minister is new in his role, because he's told me 38 times in these estimates, but if the minister could take the time
What is the role of Pavco in the proposed new convention centre?
Hon. I. Waddell: The technical answer is: that's a file of Employment and Investment. They have the responsibility for that. But as Pavco operates the present trade and convention centre, it has an advisory role.
R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise, then: what degree of senior management time at Pavco is allocated and dedicated to the new convention centre project?
[ Page 8360 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: I can't help the member on that. I know there is some time; my impression is that it's not a great deal of time, but it's more an advisory role. But I'll try and get that information for the member.R. Thorpe: What are the top two issues Pavco faces in this current year?
Hon. I. Waddell: The two issues
The second, I would say, is Bridge Studios. The question is whether or not to expand that. That's another growing area. That's something that needs to be looked at.
R. Thorpe: What are the current thoughts on the expansion of Bridge or locating other facilities in the province of British Columbia with respect to the development of the film industry?
Hon. I. Waddell: At the announcement this week at "Viper," I publicly said that I hope that the industry in the private sector, since I believe there is a demand out there, would supply additional studio space. There seem to be a lot of possibilities in the wind about that.
R. Thorpe: As I mentioned yesterday -- and I asked the minister and staff to follow up with management of Pavco -- I did supply them with some information on possibilities in the Okanagan. The Okanagan is attempting to get a film industry going. There was a huge Walker's distillery located in the Okanagan, with tremendous buildings. Having been to Bridge Studios and into other studios -- I'm soon to be an assistant on a film-making venture here in British Columbia -- it would seem to me that
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: You're supposed to be on my side.
[11:15]
Hon. I. Waddell: I think it's a good question. The Bridge studio has only 2.5 acres left to expand, so we couldInterjection.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps if you had accompanied the Premier to Los Angeles, you would get the industry terminology. But for some reason he didn't want you to go. I don't know what's going on down there.
Anyhow, those are all the questions I have on Pavco at this point in time.
What is the relationship of the ministry to the PNE?
Hon. I. Waddell: The relationship is that the Pacific National Exhibition is a Crown corporation that reports to me as minister. It's governed by a board of directors.
R. Thorpe: I just wanted to make sure that there was that linkage, because the Chair would be telling me that I'd be off-subject if there wasn't.
What is happening
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I'd like to go back a little bit. The PNE has been asked to leave the site at East Hastings. The city council
The plan is to consider moving the PNE. Well, we have to move the PNE. We're looking at an agreement with the Landmark corporation of Los Angeles, I believe. We're in discussions with Landmark now about an agreement to have an entertainment complex, with the PNE being part of that.
R. Thorpe: Is the RFP for this project being run and coordinated through the ministry and the minister's office?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is the ministry and the board.
R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise if the ministry is contributing this fiscal year both human resources and dollars and cents to the development of this project?
Hon. I. Waddell: There's some staff time that is being allocated to this. The member should see it in the context that Landmark is a private corporation that is basically doing their own thing, and they do that very well. They are looking at the sites and at what they want to do and so on. They're looking at the financing. But we are providing some staff time to look at our involvement in it.
R. Thorpe: I am familiar with Landmark. In fact, I've talked to the people at Landmark on this project.
With respect to this project, can the minister advise on the current sites being entertained at this point in time?
Hon. I. Waddell: Coquitlam-Brunette, North and South Surrey. Those are three.
R. Thorpe: Would Coquitlam-Brunette be near New Westminster?
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.
R. Thorpe: I'll just read into the record, to help us along here
[ Page 8361 ]
With respect to the feasibility study, some months ago I wrote the ministry asking if it would be possible to get a copy of the feasibility marketing study. That letter was dated January 19. Hon. Chair, I have not even had a response to that letter. Would it be possible to have an indication if in fact the ministry would be prepared to share that document, please?Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I should advise the hon. member that there's a municipality called New Westminster, and if you go a little farther east, there's one called Coquitlam. I hope the hon. member's aware of that.
The studies are Landmark's properties, not ours.
R. Thorpe: That's interesting. I'll go back through my records, because I believe the previous minister had said on the record that there were studies being done by the ministry. But we could be wrong. That happens; we don't bat 100 percent.
Can the minister then advise on what he believes to be the sequence of events and when we may expect some decisions on this project -- go or no go?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to be able to say that, but in all honesty I can't right now. All I can say is that there are ongoing discussions with Landmark. As soon as there is some development there, we'll let the hon. member and the public know.
R. Thorpe: That concludes my questions on this. We can move to the next area, but can we just take a minute before we call the vote.
The Chair: We'll take two minutes to recess again.
The committee recessed from 11:22 a.m. to 11:24 a.m.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: We're just going to do a couple of Small Business things if we can. The minister has been reading some letters into the record recently.
This pertains to Small Business, and it's from a small business operator. It's dated May 13. I'll just throw it into the record. This was sent to the Leader of the Official Opposition:
"I am sending you this e-mail to address a real concern of companies in the computer telephony (CT) and call centre industry, a concern that is currently ignored by the NDP government. Over the past ten years B.C. -- namely, Vancouver -- has witnessed an exponential growth in small- to medium-size high-tech companies who, with innovation and breakthrough technology, have been gaining global recognition. This recognition has translated to jobs, jobs, jobs for our province's graduates and professionals who at present are facing a serious challenge in the marketplace. SoundLogic, since its establishment in 1996, has gone from two people to 23, and is expected to grow to 40-plus people by the end of this year."Unfortunately, despite these efforts, we are forced to tolerate conditions that are far from competitive with our southern neighbours and other provinces, who not only have greater financial backbone but are awarded great support by their governments. While all efforts are made to flourish this industry in other parts of Canada and North America, the NDP government in B.C. has turned a blind eye. It is shameful to see that other Premiers in eastern Canada acknowledge and support -- financially and through other means -- the CT and call centre industry, while Glen Clark makes no effort to help Canadian companies flourish and reach their maximum potential in this industry. The CT industry can replace effortlessly the lost jobs our province is currently experiencing. How can we get the kind of support we need to leverage ourselves in this booming industry? [Can you ask for help for us?]"
I just wonder if the minister would like to comment on this unsolicited letter that has come in from a small business concerning the current conditions in the province.
Hon. I. Waddell: Would the member like to quote the name of the small business and the location?
R. Thorpe: Actually, I did. It's called SoundLogic. I said that when I read their letter. It's a 604 area code. I do not know the business; I have not talked with the business.
Hon. I. Waddell: Where are they from?
The Chair: Through the Chair, members.
R. Thorpe: It's area code 604, so it's the lower mainland.
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me just quote from "The Business Voice" of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. It was in the Times Colonist the other day, by Lawrie Spooner, the president. It's long, but I'll just read some good news about Victoria. I'll read just the last two paragraphs:
"And finally, we're building a Vancouver Island high-tech industry that already employs more than 4,000 people. Of the 450 high-tech industries on the island, 350 are located in the capital region. Fed by our excellent post-secondary institutions, these companies produce water-sensing equipment, voice synthesizers, software, Internet products, a revolutionary lightbulb used to light up Beijing's Forbidden City, control systems, cancer vaccines and airplane parts. These products are sold throughout the world, contributing to Canadian exports and creating wealth and jobs. Let's focus on these positive things Victoria has going for it. Naysaying and pessimism become self-fulfilling prophecies. Let's count our blessings and then build on them."I say: "Amen, Lawrie Spooner." This is not the Minister of Small Business speaking; this is the president of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. I think he's right on: good education, lower taxes, paying some attention to their flexibility in labour relations, which we talked about the other day, looking at a good environment, trying to spread things around the province, the Premier's summit and the high-tech and the people that came in there in the Okanagan, for example -- these are the kinds of things that help this industry.
If you want to pass that on to me, I'll call that person and talk to them. Maybe he has further suggestions; maybe he could join our group on red tape. We're trying to cut red tape. Maybe he could join the small business consultation process, or perhaps he could talk to us to help me in my study on the bank mergers with consumers and small business people who are looking at that. I would appreciate it if you want to pass that on, and I'll reply.
R. Thorpe: I would be pleased to pass along the name of the firm and their phone numbers, and the minister can contact them.
I just want to follow up on one thing the minister said. Yes, we did talk about the need for flexibility in employment standards and labour laws. Am I now hearing the minister say we do have flexibility in labour laws?
[ Page 8362 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: There is a review of hours of work for the high-tech area. That's the point some of the high-tech people have been making. The review is currently underway. It's a different kind of industry.
R. Thorpe: But that, for small businesses and tourism operators throughout British Columbia
Hon. I. Waddell: All reviews under that act are done sector by sector.
[11:30]
R. Thorpe: I guess that's a no.
Going back to the community consultations that we talked briefly about, I want to ask a quick question on that. There was not open consultation; it was closed consultation. If and when this ministry moves forward, is the minister prepared to commit for this year, as they move forward
Hon. I. Waddell: As I said yesterday, I'm an open guy. I invite all sorts of people, and I accept all sorts of views. I hope the opposition will come. But I would again draw opposition's attention to Lawrie Spooner's comments about being positive and forgetting the naysaying and pessimism, because it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
R. Thorpe: You know, change is positive. All we need now is some change. We just have to start listening and hearing, because everybody is saying the same thing: taxes are too high, there's no flexibility in the labour laws, you don't listen, you penalize capital investment. Where is the openness and positive attitude about those? Why can we look at 23 jurisdictions in the United States
These cover my discussion on small business. They were just a few items that I had outstanding. Let's move to freedom of information, if we could, very quickly. With respect to freedom of information, how many people in the ministry are assigned to freedom-of-information requests?
Hon. I. Waddell: Two.
R. Thorpe: How many last year?
Hon. I. Waddell: Two.
R. Thorpe: Do we anticipate any cutbacks this year?
Hon. I. Waddell: Not in staff.
R. Thorpe: Do we expect any cutbacks with respect to funding other activities in that area, since we're not cutting back staff?
Hon. I. Waddell: You'll notice, in the whole panorama of this budget and these estimates, that we're trying to keep money in the program, and we're trying to cut back in administration. As I already said, we're running a lean -- not mean, but lean -- and effective ministry. So there will be some money cutbacks.
R. Thorpe: Is there a delay in answering FOIs in the ministry today?
Hon. I. Waddell: No.
R. Thorpe: There's not? A big batch must have moved out yesterday, then. Are we sure there's not a delay in FOIs within the ministry?
Hon. I. Waddell: There have been 32 FOI requests since December 17 from the Liberal Party, 38 in total from all the public. So 38 was the total; 32 were from the Liberal Party. Some are very complex -- for example, "all and any records, with no time constraints." This requires a lot of staff time. Because it's so onerous, I even asked my senior staff to spend time personally with the hon. member. Some of my senior staff have spent over eight hours with the hon. member, because as I said, I'm an open guy. So that's taken a lot of our time. We're trying to get these matters out as fast as we can. If the hon. member wants to advocate that we add staff and add costs, he can make an amendment to my budget. I'll be pleased to
R. Thorpe: So is the minister advocating that his staff not spend any time with the opposition? I just wonder what the significance is in saying that they spent eight hours with us. I must say that this staff, since you've become the minister, is much more cooperative and doesn't jack us around like the previous minister and her direct staff did. The deputy minister and her organization have always been cooperative. But I do appreciate the more progressive approach of your office.
Back to FOI. I want to know, though, because I believe that perhaps FOIs have met their criteria within your ministry, but they haven't reached me yet
Hon. I. Waddell: They go direct. They do not pass Go; they do not collect any money; they go right direct.
R. Thorpe: Does the minister have any knowledge of what is termed to be "the centre"?
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that's not in my estimates, and I can think of a lot of centres: the centre of the world, the centre of the universe, self-centred. I don't know what "the centre" is. I've only been around here for a short time. I'm relatively new, so I don't know. I hear lots of things. I read Vaughn Palmer -- occasionally. I've stopped reading him now, but
[ Page 8363 ]
R. Thorpe: Perhaps what we could do at the lunch break, since your ministry has indicated on a number of these that they would be received by January 5 -- received by this date or that dateI want to make sure that on freedom of information there hasn't been a change in the policy of the ministry. I believe the minister is confirming that no, that has not happened. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't believe
The Chair: Minister.
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't believe in any change of policy, and I believe that things are going direct. If the member is asking for cabinet documents or documents that affect cabinet, then there may have to be some central coordination in terms of those. I don't know that, but I would think that that would make some sort of sense. As far as I'm concerned, I would try to get the documents out as quickly as possible.
The Chair: I would again remind the members that they are to be recognized by the Chair prior to asking questions and answering questions.
R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. That concludes my questions on FOI for now. If we could move to the subject that the minister says he has for breakfast every day
How does the minister define "red tape"?
Hon. I. Waddell: Unnecessary paper, unnecessary filings, legislation not written in plain language and other matters.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister take a few moments and define "other matters"?
Hon. I. Waddell: Filling out unnecessary forms, following unnecessary procedures, filling unnecessarily restrictive approval requirements. I gave a couple of examples to the former deputy critic, the member for Parksville-Qualicum. You'll recall that he asked me this yesterday, and I talked about my own experience as a lawyer, a single practitioner, in having to send in these PST forms every month even when I had a nil requirement. I kept getting letters back saying: "You didn't file." I thought that that was a waste. It says in the legislation that you get a licence every six months. Why couldn't you do it every year or two years? These are the kinds of things that I think are unnecessary. I've fought this all my life in politics and will continue to do it. I hope to bring in some legislation that will be quite exemplary in dealing with this -- quite visionary, if I might say.
R. Thorpe: No doubt. I hope that you're bringing in some legislation, because you told us yesterday in these estimates that you were bringing it in next week. So I hope you're bringing it in.
Hon. I. Waddell: I didn't say next week.
R. Thorpe: Yeah, you did. Check the record.
The Chair: Order, members.
R. Thorpe: I hope it's visionary, but I hope that we don't need NDP glasses to be able to read it. We probably will, though.
The minister has said that he advocates against red tape and unnecessary forms. The example he's used -- two or three times now, I've heard it -- is filing the PST form every month. Is the minister advocating that people will not have to pay their PST every month?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, I just gave that as an example. When the hon. member asked me yesterday for concrete examples, I gave him concrete examples from my own life experience as a small business person.
R. Thorpe: I guess that was a hypothetical example.
With respect to red tape, I would think that the minister -- you're on the committee, I know that; I don't know whether you're the co-chair or not -- would want to lead by example. I'm just wondering: what initiatives has the minister put in place in his own ministry to lead by example in cutting red tape?
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member should know that this ministry operates the one-stop business registration. This is a huge initiative to fight red tape. I'll give you some examples. We combined in one form a declaration of proprietorship or partnership, an application for registration as a vendor, the employer's registration application, a personal optional-protection insurance application and a request for a business number. Those are repeating forms. We cooperated with the government of Canada, Revenue Canada: goods and services tax, payroll, import-export, corporate income tax. These are concrete examples stemming from my ministry -- from the one-stop business centre, which I'm very proud of.
R. Thorpe: The minister did go back and talk about paper and filing and plain language -- those are the three -- and other matters which we really didn't get into. Is the minister taking any leadership initiatives within his own ministry with respect to those three specific examples that the minister gave?
The Chair: Noting the time, minister.
Hon. I. Waddell: Small business is generally unregulated. The small business component of my department is very small. It's not tied up itself
[11:45]
R. Thorpe: What I meant is that in all areas of government and business there is red tape. There's excess paper, excess filing and, mostly in government, there's non-plain language legislation. My question was, I thought, relatively clear -- but perhaps not.Since this minister is one of the two ministers leading the charge on behalf of this government, what leadership initia
[ Page 8364 ]
tives are you taking within your own ministry -- not external, but internal -- to cut red tape and show other ministries how it can be done?Hon. I. Waddell: I introduced changes in the session to streamline the Small Business Venture Capital Act. That's one of the few pieces of legislation that I have, and I moved quickly on it to make some changes.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada