Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12197 ]

The House met at 2:13 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It gives me great pleasure as Attorney General to be able to introduce a former Attorney General. . . .

An Hon. Member: The all-time great.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The all-time great, I'm told, and I believe it. I'm delighted to be able to introduce Alex Macdonald, who is a former member of this House. You know, one of the things his presence tells me is that after politics there is still life.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's turn will come too -- soon.

The former Attorney General keeps writing books. This is his third book. He's given me a free copy, hence the introduction. The book is called Outrage!, and it's about Canada's justice system being on trial. It's outrageous, actually, for an AG to write such a book, but he's done it. It's probably a good read and food for thought. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Abbott: Today in the gallery is a group from the Shuswap -- specifically, a group of students from J. L. Jackson Junior Secondary School in Salmon Arm and their teacher, Ms. Dyer. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

T. Nebbeling: We have in the gallery today a friend from Sydney, Australia. Robert Cooper has spent some time in my town, Whistler. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just looked up in the gallery to see a friend, Margaret Birrell, who is also the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. Margaret and her group do tremendous work for people in this province who have disabilities. I'd ask the House to please make her very welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: As Minister of Culture, I'd like to add my welcome to the former member from Vancouver East and an old friend, Alex Macdonald. It's nice to see him still writing.

I have three guests in the gallery. Philip Halkett is my deputy minister for the liquor distribution branch. He has taken on some tough jobs in government for a long time -- tough jobs for short times, too. And he's always had a good sense of humour about it. With him is Louise Graham, executive coordinator of the branch, and Judi Malthus, senior executive secretary. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. C. Evans: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Dan Weib, who is a director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I visited his feed mill when he opened it, where he built a railroad siding and the like. He's quite an innovator in his industry. With him today is Vic Regier of the B.C. Broiler Hatching Egg Commission. Both are here for meetings later today. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: With us today is a young man whose name is Todd Decker. He has chosen to celebrate his sixteenth birthday by coming down to these chambers and watching us in action. I think he has an ambition to be here one day. Todd is a straight-A student. He's accompanied by his grandfather Garth Sims, Herb Rodenbush, Joyce Rodenbush and Sam Beldesy -- all from Lake Cowichan. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has allowed me the privilege of introducing two of his constituents today, who are former neighbours of mine when I lived in his constituency in Smithers. Harry and Audrey Kruisselbrink are long-term foster parents and a couple of tremendous people. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today there is a group of grade 11 students from the Spectrum senior secondary alternative program in Vancouver. They're going to be in the House today. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Thompson, and several adults are accompanying them as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have some members from the Vancouver Burma Round Table: Dr. Eugene Yawnghwe, Jennifer Suprun, Joie Warnock, Eric Snider and Pon Norn. With them are some people from the Victoria chapter of the Canada-Tibet committee: Judy Tethong, Geishe Tashe Namgyal and Dave O'Neil. With them is another good friend, Trevor Oram, and here in spirit, George C. Berticevich. Please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Since the Minister of Fisheries is the shy type, I'd like to make an introduction on his behalf. Sitting up in the gallery is his better half, his spouse Linda Streifel, who is a good friend of mine and, incidentally, a good friend of the Minister of Fisheries as well. So would the House please make Linda Streifel welcome.

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. The information that I have been given says that the story that appeared in the local media is not entirely accurate. Indeed, it is not the case that people must comply instantly and spend all that money or be cut off. Rather, I understand that ICBC is saying: investments in terms of improving your service, ide-

[ Page 12198 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .subject to hardship.

[1415]

G. Farrell-Collins: It would be nice if ICBC met with the people before they imposed these things.

I have a copy of a document of about 20 pages, an edict that was sent out by ICBC to small auto glass repair shops, requiring huge facilities, requiring upgrades and requiring a checklist of what they need, right down to -- and the Premier will appreciate that -- toilet paper in the bathroom. How does the minister responsible for ICBC think that that kind of overregulation and dictatorial strategy by ICBC is going to help small businesses succeed instead of driving them further into the ground, dealing with ICBC red tape?

Hon. D. Lovick: Is there something wrong with the acoustics in this place? I told the member what ICBC's intentions were; I said why they were carrying out this program. I also said that they were in the process of meeting with these people to discuss those concerns to ensure they wouldn't exert undue hardship. I thought I was very clear. I'm sorry if I'm not clear, or not clear enough for the member, but as I say, the corporation has given me its assurance that this is not a fiat, that indeed these people will not be put out of business. Rather, the statement that has been made on behalf of the so-called mom-and-pop operations was, I am advised, much overstated. I would be more than happy to provide the member with detailed chapter-and-verse explanations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: What the minister didn't explain is why a government that is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars telling people how they're reducing red tape for business is creating a document like this that prescribes everything right down to the colour of the carpets for small businesses in British Columbia. It tells operators that they're going to have one full-time employee to meet and greet customers; it doesn't prescribe the colour of the wallpaper, but it does describe what the paint is going to have to look like in these independent businesses.

The question for the minister is: how does he think allowing ICBC, a Crown agency, to micromanage small, independently owned businesses in British Columbia is going to do anything to improve the lot of those people who only want to provide for their families in running their business?

Hon. D. Lovick: In fairness, let me say very clearly that the points being made by the members opposite have legitimacy. I'm not denying that. I have said, however -- when this matter was brought to my attention -- to the corporation that I want to ensure that we don't exert undue hardship on those operators. I have been given that assurance that they will do so, and I propose to hold them to that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The minister's words wouldn't ring so hollow if he would simply stand up in the House and say: "Today I've cancelled the $800 fee." It's that simple. But then he couldn't pay for the new offices. I suppose there might be some difficulty meeting the expenses on the new offices for ICBC in downtown Vancouver.

The edict even tells operators that they have to operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. There is no room to manoeuvre. They must abide by that. What hypocrisy! You know what? I called an ICBC claim centre today; they close for lunch. But small businesses won't be able to close for lunch, because this minister's corporation says they can't. A simple question: why are small businesses being regulated to the point where they are being required to keep specific hours, when ICBC's offices are closed at lunch and when the government's own offices close for lunch?

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order. We're trying to hear.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .question period, when we have 15 minutes, and this is their opportunity to talk about all the large, significant issues affecting the millions of people across this province. And this is the best they've got. I have answered the question, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. It's very difficult for anyone to hear -- both sides of the House.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hear members opposite saying: "Rip it up. Cancel the fee. Act unilaterally. Just do it." The point, however, is that this particular initiative was one that had buy-in from most of the people in the industry. They were part of it. That's the information I was given.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: How interesting. Even the semi-literate are exercised today -- fascinating.

The Speaker: Minister, that's not appropriate.

Hon. D. Lovick: The point I have made and will make again is that when this information came to my attention, I

[ Page 12199 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: They have given me that assurance, and I will hold them to it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. Members and ministers will come to order.

G. Plant: The minister stands up and questions the importance of the issue. What could be more important to public policy in British Columbia than the hypocrisy of a government that claims it's committed to reducing red tape, when every day, in every way imaginable, it promulgates rules and regulations that are strangling business in British Columbia?

For the benefit of the Minister of Small Business, he might like to know that in this 20-page document, the list of accreditation requirements includes a requirement for the outfitting of mobile units. Apparently not only do these mobile units have to drive around, they actually have to have a vacuum cleaner, hood and seat covers, a broom and, yes, a dustpan.

My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. Will he tell us how he can stand in this House and claim with any integrity that his government is committed to reducing red tape, when in fact his government is promulgating rules that are going to require people to buy dustpans if they want to fix car windows in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: These people who are taking this wonderfully self-righteous position are the same ones who have attacked this side of the House for reducing small business taxes -- okay? -- and for introducing measures to cut back on red tape. We have made huge investments of time and energy to achieve that end.

I want to emphasize that the initiative that we are talking about here was designed to guarantee that the service provided by windshield repair places was indeed going to be done correctly and right. Most of the people in the business. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .told us that this was (a) acceptable and (b). . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I haven't finished, Madam Speaker. I'm waiting for silence.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your answer, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, it's the old story. These people are like the Queen of Hearts. They believe in sentence first, trial later.

[1425]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to make the point, Madam Speaker -- and they have been shouting, so I will. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, we appreciate. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: I'll be very quick.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: They told us. . .

The Speaker: Minister, will you take your seat, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .that they are already doing it. They have already invested the money, and they will continue.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please. Thank you.

I recognize, for a first supplementary. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order! I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston on a first supplementary.

G. Plant: No doubt any day now we'll see the $400,000 manual for how to use a dustpan in a mobile unit. But the real problem the minister has is this: I don't think he would have done anything about it if he hadn't been caught.

You know what, Madam Speaker? These rules don't tell auto glass repair shops that they need to have a computer video monitor. They don't say that a 12-inch monitor is okay; they don't say that a 14-inch monitor is okay. These rules tell people they need to have a 15-inch computer monitor.

I want to know: how can the minister stand up here and say that he has any commitment to reducing red tape in business when his ministry and his Crown corporation are, day by day, violating every aspect of the spirit of that promise?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: With reference to the particular point in this matter, I think the minister responsible for ICBC has given a sympathetic answer: to look into the matter and to deal with it. I want to tell the hon. member that we are committed to reducing red tape. We brought in an act here; we introduced the first stage. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, we introduced 19 reductions of red tape. . .

[ Page 12200 ]

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. I. Waddell: . . .another 30 reductions. . . . We introduced the best business tax reduction in a long time -- one of the best in Canada -- for small business. We are committed. We have a business task force, and we have asked the government departments to look at matters through a business lens. This may be an example. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . . Minister, finish up.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. members will listen, I'll try and give them an answer.

We are committed to reducing red tape. We're committed to getting government departments to look at things through a business lens. We will do this. I will personally look into this matter and make sure that there's no excessive red tape.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY RATE IN B.C.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Come to order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, when that member over there offers an apology to people with disabilities for what he said in the House the other day, I'll be pleased to answer his question.

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: In the members' gallery today, there is a special visitor from Saudi Arabia. His Excellency Dr. Mohammad Al-Hussaini is the newly appointed Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Canada. The ambassador is in British Columbia to prepare for a visit to our province in early June of the Minister of Higher Education of Saudi Arabia. I'm looking forward to meeting with the ambassador and indeed with the minister when he visits our province. I'd like to ask the House to join me in making the ambassador feel very welcome.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Petitions

Orders of the Day

In this House, I call Motion 61 sitting on the order paper in the name of the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

Motions on Notice

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN BURMA

[Be it resolved that this Assembly deplores the continuing violations of human rights in Burma, including extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, rape, torture, inhuman treatment, mass arrests, forced labour, forced relocation and denial of freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement, as reported by the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur;

Be it further resolved that in the opinion of this Assembly these human rights abuses in Burma are the result of policy at the highest level and that the regime's officials bear political and legal responsibility for them;

Be it further resolved that this Assembly urges the military regime in Burma to:

(a) immediately and unconditionally release all detained political leaders and all political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation;

(b) repeal all regressive laws;

(c) stop all the violations of human rights and in particular the unlawful coercion against the National League for Democracy (NLD) members leading to surrendering of their membership and the closure of NLD offices; and

(d) immediately initiate a substantive political dialogue with the Committee Representing the People's Parliament before there is further violent upheaval in Burma.

Be it further resolved that the Legislature condemns the State Peace and Development Council (formerly named the State Law and Order Restoration Council) for:

(a) openly encouraging the production, trade and export of opium and heroin into North America; and

(b) racially-motivated genocide against the ethnic peoples in Burma, especially those in Karen, Karenni and Shan States;

Be it further resolved that the Legislature urges the Government of Canada to:

(a) recognize as the legitimate instrument of the will of the Burmese people the Committee Representing the People's Parliament formed by the National League for Democracy on 16 September 1998 as acquiring the legal authority of 251 MP's and support of the four non-Burman ethnic political parties;

[ Page 12201 ]

(b) take all necessary action to achieve coordinated international action in support of the restoration of human rights in Burma;

(c) direct the federal drug enforcement agency to increase counter narcotics efforts specific to the flow of heroin into Vancouver from Burma; and

(d) appeal to the UN Secretary-General to send a special envoy to Burma to continue discussions with the leaders of the military regime as well as with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders in order to make significant advances towards the democratization of Burma.]

In 1988, following the brutal crackdown by the military, fear and shock gripped the people of Burma, but the momentum of the democracy movement could not be crushed. People united behind Aung San Suu Kyi, their source of hope and inspiration. Aung San Suu Kyi brought the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience to her people's desire for democratic freedom and personal dignity. Aung San Suu Kyi is loved and revered by the Burmese people in their decade of darkness, which grows more oppressive as each year passes.

March 27, 1999 -- just a few weeks ago -- was a particularly dark day. Dr. Michael Aris, Aung San Suu Kyi's devoted husband, died of cancer in the United Kingdom, while the Burmese military junta callously refused to grant Dr. Aris an entry visa for a final visit with Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma.

Hon. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for most of the past ten years for endangering the state. The military junta has repeatedly made efforts to entice her to permanently leave the country in exchange for her release, but she has consistently refused to abandon Burma.

[1435]

In 1990 the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the military junta known by the acronym SLORC, forcibly relocated over 500,000 citizens known to be supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi. Then, in May 1990, the multiparty general election was held in Burma. The election was free and fair and affirmed as such by the people of Burma and the world. A total of 485 candidates were elected. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, the NLD, won 392 of the 485 National Assembly seats. The military won only ten seats. SLORC was stunned by the dramatic landslide victory of the NLD, and in response, SLORC decided not to honour the election results.

Under the 1990 Peoples' Parliament Election Law, the National League for Democracy were legally elected as the representatives of the people of Burma. SLORC maintained by force an illegal regime and expanded their campaigns of terror from urban centres to the surrounding rural areas of the Kachin, Shan, Mon, Arakan and Karen states -- campaigns of rural destruction which have continued through to today.

The human rights situation in Burma is one of the worst in the world today. The illegitimate military junta is waging a war on Burmese ethnic minorities -- ordinary, powerless people. During the past decade, the military regime has systematically carried out ethnic cleansing action and genocide against ethnic groups. Women have been targeted as victims of military terror tactics.

In Burma the rape of women by field troops is a weapon of war. The use of rape as a military policy and political tool is one of the most despicable crimes which any political regime could commit, and all the published documents indicate that Rangoon's junta is guilty of that most despicable crime.

I cite the Globe and Mail article of July 4, 1998, by Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein, entitled "Rape of the Ethnic Women Just Another Strategy for Burmese Army," which outlines how rape is systematically being used by Burma's military as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing or Burmanization. Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein are two writers who have greatly contributed to the free-Burma movement worldwide.

At the United Nations women's conference in Beijing in 1995, the Burmese Women's Union stated that women have been raped in an organized and systematic way.

The United Nations General Assembly has several annual resolutions regarding the situation of human rights in Burma. The UN General Assembly has affirmed that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government and has called for a special reporter to establish contact with the military regime in Burma and with the people, including political leaders deprived of their liberty. This special reporter is to report on any progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian government, the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting of restriction on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights. Thus far, the military has refused entry to the special reporter.

The European Union is also pressing the Burmese military to allow the special reporter to enter Burma. The UN is gravely concerned that the government of Burma still has not implemented its commitment towards democracy, in light of the results of the election held in 1990. The UN is also concerned about the travel restrictions placed on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders, the continued arrests and harassment of members and supporters of the National League for Democracy that forced resignations of elected representatives and the long closure of all universities and colleges following student demonstrations in 1996.

The United Nations is also concerned about the continued violation of human rights, including extrajudicial executions; killing of civilians; torture; arbitrary arrests and detention; death in custody; absence of due process of law; severe restrictions on freedoms of opinion, assembly and association; violations of freedom of movement; forced relocation; forced labour by children and adults, including portering for the military; abuse of women and children; and oppressive measures directed at ethnic and religious minorities.

[1440]

[ Page 12202 ]

Hon. Speaker, the International Labour Organization, the ILO, has objected to forced labour in Burma for over 30 years. In 1992 an ILO commission of inquiry found abundant evidence of forced labour imposed on the civilian population by the military authorities for portering, construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps and military projects, road construction and railway and bridge maintenance. I quote from the report: "it thus appears that unfettered powers of military and government officers to exact forced labour from the civilian population are taken for granted, "often giving rise to the extortion of money and to threats to life and security, physical abuse, torture, rape and murder." Forced labour. . .is widely performed by women, children and elderly persons. . . ." This report reveals a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation. The ILO report accuses the military junta of slavery and crimes against humanity.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU, at its 1997 session on the human rights of parliamentarians, also passed resolutions against Burma after observing the wave of arrests of 235 NLD MPs in May of 1996 for attending a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. Further arrests of NLD MPs have been reported, and NLD MPs continue to face pressure to resign from their positions and to endure threats to their families. NLD Members of Parliament continue to submit their resignations as a result of continued harassment and pressure from the authorities. The Inter-Parliamentary Union reports of inhumane and degrading treatment of NLD MPs in Burmese prisons and of refusal of the military regime to allow observers to verify the conditions of detention.

Hon. Speaker, the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have all concluded that there are serious human rights violations in Burma against democratically elected representatives and against ordinary, powerless people. These respected international bodies have passed resolution after resolution annually and again last month, calling on the brutal military regime to accommodate the aspirations of the people of Burma for democracy, human rights, ethnic equality and justice.

Human rights violations in Burma such as rapes, extrajudicial killings, slave labour, plunder and pillage -- especially of rural people in the ethnic areas -- have been endlessly documented by UN agencies and the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International and numerous NGO officials. But what has been done for the victims? Why is no one really listening to Burma?

It is a dreadful, horrendous message that we have failed to really hear -- perhaps because the atrocities have taken place on an ongoing basis over more than a decade, and we are inoculated to ongoing tragedies.

We find ourselves in a place of resigned acceptance of the sustained suffering of the people of Burma, and that is wrong. We must call on the international community to wake up and focus on the plight of ordinary people in Burma, where there is a well-documented history of oppression and where illegitimate rulers act like gangsters engaged in drug deals and acts of genocide against their own people. Burma has a democratically elected government which since 1990 has not been allowed to govern. It is our duty as elected parliamentarians to show that the principles we hold for ourselves also apply for others.

[1445]

I now want to address the smuggling of heroin from Burma into Vancouver, British Columbia, and into North America. Since the military coup in 1988, opium production in Burma has doubled, making Burma the world's largest supplier of heroin. It is widely acknowledged that Burma supplies upward of 60 percent of the U.S. heroin market. Most of the heroin seized in Canada comes from Southeast Asia, a region in which Burma produces about 90 percent of the opium. Heroin use in Canada is a growing problem in several cities, including Vancouver. In fact, last year the human and material cost of the explosion of heroin use led Vancouver city officials to declare a state of emergency.

In my community of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, heroin use among high school students has risen dramatically in the past year. The school district of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has declared drug-free zones around secondary schools, patrolled and enforced by police. Thirteen-year-old students are becoming hooked on heroin. Maple Ridge drug counsellors see a trend starting in Vancouver's downtown east side and spreading to outlying communities. The young people in our communities have no idea about the poison they are dealing with or about the chemicals and unsanitary conditions of its manufacture. And of course, they know little of the horrendous abuse of the young people of Burma, beaten and raped by soldiers in the poppy fields -- young boys and girls forced into slavery to harvest the opium that makes possible the short-lived heroin fix in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and in other communities.

Meanwhile, millions of people in Burma are suffering from the rapid spread of an HIV and AIDS epidemic. There are direct links between Burma and Vancouver, which puts British Columbia at the forefront of becoming the largest centre for the importation and distribution of heroin entering North America. This is very big business, providing drug-money laundering opportunities throughout Southeast Asia. According to the Paris-based Geopolitical Drug Watch, the

[ Page 12203 ]

In 1997 the United States imposed a ban on new investment in Burma, and the European Union withdrew preferential trade tariffs for Burmese exports in the European Union following a European Commission investigation into the practice of slave labour in Burma. The Canadian federal government has condemned the Burmese military for human rights abuses. However, there is little constraint on Canadian investment in Burma, investment which contributes directly to the military regime. In November 1998, Vancouver-based Indochina Goldfields announced the startup of a $300 million (U.S.) copper mine in Burma to be jointly owned with the military's mining company. So while Canada sends the Burmese military investment capital, Burma sends Canada its heroin. There is well-documented evidence of the Burmese military's complicity with the drug trade. Such international drug trafficking constitutes a grave breach of international security.

[1450]

This motion sets aside partisan politics and allows all hon. members of this Legislative Assembly to rally in support of the struggle for democracy in Burma. This motion allows all assembled here to condemn the brutal regime that is withholding power from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. With this motion, we will join parliaments across Canada and across the world in a united appeal to the UN Secretary General to go forward with an international mandate to achieve a meaningful political dialogue between the Burmese military, Aung San Suu Kyi and the committee representing the People's Parliament and the leaders of the ethnic minorities in Burma.

With this motion, we may also recognize that we have made a big mistake in closing our eyes and ears and denying our responsibility for such atrocities that are far away and do not seem to affect us directly. With this motion, we may just contribute to the lives of ordinary, powerless people in a country far from here -- a country that has been turned from a land of golden temples and exotic grandeur into a concentration camp and killing field. We may help instil some hope for a return to equality and self-determination for a people long oppressed by brutal and lawless rule. That is my hope.

G. Plant: I rise this afternoon to speak to the issue of human rights in Myanmar, the country formerly known as Burma. People who may follow debate in this chamber will know that this is an actively partisan chamber. We seldom agree with each other, across the floor of the House, on the issues that are brought to this chamber. I think, then, that perhaps there is some significance in the fact that today I rise as one member of the opposition, on behalf of the opposition, to join my voice in support of the motion which the member has just introduced and to all of the words which he has spoken in support of that motion. My own words will be briefer, but I think the issue is important enough that we should have some words on it from this side of the House.

Last month, I am told, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, who is the special rapporteur at the fifty-fifth session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, presented his latest findings on the situation in Myanmar. In his report, he outlined some of the causes of the deplorable conditions and the seemingly endless violations of the basic human rights which the citizens of that impoverished country are forced to endure. The list of those violations is long. They include a fundamental violation of the basic democratic principles as well as extensive, repeated violations of the right to life, the right to physical integrity and the freedoms of thought, expression, association and movement. His report presents a frightening picture of life in a country where democratic principles and human rights are not just ignored; they are trampled on.

The unimaginable conditions that have faced the people of Myanmar for over a decade urgently need to be addressed. The sheer terror that frames the backdrop of their day-to-day lives must be resolved. There are countless horror stories. My colleague is right to point out not only that those stories have reached the ears of the United Nations General Assembly, but that they must not stop there. They must, in addition, reach the ears of all governments everywhere, and they must force action. That is why I rise to join my voice in support of this motion.

[1455]

In 1987, economic concerns sparked unrest, which led to protests against the governing force of the country. By 1988, student-led protests had been brutally, savagely suppressed. The army seized power, forming the State Law and Order Restoration Council -- SLORC. That same year the National League for Democracy was formed and Aung San Suu Kyi became the general secretary of the NLD. In 1989, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is, as my colleague points out, a courageous spokesperson and symbol for human rights in the world, was placed under house arrest.

In 1990, multiparty general elections were held, and the NLD won 392 out of the 485 seats. Tragically -- appallingly -- no legislature has ever been formed. By 1992 the UN Commission on Human Rights appointed a special reporter to submit a report to the UN General Assembly. Each year since 1993 the special reporter's mandate has been extended. In 1995, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, but 1996 saw the arrest or detention of 256 NLD activists. I'm told that 144 of these activists were released three weeks later, but many of the others still remain under the control of the army.

That is only part of a long and horrendous story. In mid-1996, SLORC forcibly relocated some 30,000 members of

[ Page 12204 ]

Using the force of century-old legislation, the army has conscripted many of the villagers of Myanmar. The army forces many of them to be human mine detectors and to walk in front of the armed forces personnel, to ensure that they remain uninjured. Villagers have received written orders stating that if they did not leave their villages, they would be regarded as enemies. And in an apparent effort to break civilian support for armed opposition groups in Shan state, SLORC has forcibly relocated at least 100,000 members of ethnic minorities in Shan state and has reportedly threatened to shoot those who refused to leave their homes. More than 20,000 Shan civilians had fled to Thailand by the end of 1997.

Throughout the past decade, visions of these and other atrocities have dominated Myanmar politics, and they continue as we speak. Instead of looking towards the future, instead of planning and preparing and creating economic stability founded on respect for political and democratic rights, the military government of Myanmar continually exploits those fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Myanmar and, inevitably, has also driven thousands of them out of their homeland.

[1500]

On Friday, April 23, just ten or so days ago, the UN Commission on Human Rights approved the latest in a series of resolutions condemning Myanmar for widespread violations of human rights, including summary executions, political repression and the use of forced labour. The resolution tabled by the European Union was adopted by consensus by the 53 member states of the commission. The resolution is seven pages. It deplores what it calls an escalation in the persecution of the democratic opposition, particularly members and supporters of the National League for Democracy.

The resolution regrets what it calls the threats of deportation, arrest and physical violence against Aung San Suu Kyi and the continued harassment, arrest and detention of NLD and other democratic-group activists, including the elected representatives to the parliament that has never met. The resolution "strongly urges the government of Myanmar. . .to implement fully the recommendations made by the special rapporteur." The resolution calls on the government to:

". . .ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression, association, movement and assembly; the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary and the protection of the rights of persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities; and an end to violations of the right to life and integrity of the human being, to the practices of torture, to the abuse of women, to forced labour and forced relocations and to enforced disappearances and summary executions."

"With regard to democratic governance, there is no sign of any movement towards the transfer of power to the duly elected representatives of the people nor the engagement of any meaningful dialogue with the political opposition and the minority communities towards that end.

"This year has witnessed an intensification of the repression, particularly against the NLD and its adherents, resulting in massive arrests of its leaders and followers and in manoeuvres to force their resignation from the party. Despite some progress in the release of a few prominent political prisoners, arbitrary arrests of the rank and file of the party and of many students have led to severe overcrowding in prisons and further deterioration in conditions of detention."

I join my colleague and my colleagues opposite in endorsing the United Nations initiative to help allow the citizens of Myanmar to participate freely in the political process -- to not be subject to human rights violations and to live without fear. We join the UN in calling on the government of Burma to establish democracy, to release political prisoners, to improve the conditions of those who are legitimately detained, to ensure the safety of all political leaders, to cease the laying of land mines, to desist from forced conscription of civilians to serve as human minesweepers and to end the displacement of the citizens of Myanmar. These limitations of personal rights and freedoms in all of Myanmar are reprehensible. They warrant our denunciation here today and tomorrow and for as long as it takes to bring about change. We in the B.C. Liberal caucus stand united in protest against these human rights violations, in support of the UN resolution and in support of the motion which the member has brought before the house.

[1505]

I am an immigrant from that part of the world. I was born and raised not far away from Burma. I've had a very special place in my heart for that country. Therefore I am troubled, as are all of us, at the passage of events for the last many years in that country. I remember very fondly, years ago as a child growing up in India, being very proud of somebody called U Thant. Those are vivid memories of a young child who learned that U Thant, who was a citizen of that country, was the Secretary General of the United Nations -- perhaps the most famous Secretary General of all time for me, because I still remember his name with fondness.

I think it's important that we recognize that when you have a country like that -- that can produce the U Thants and the Aung San Suu Kyis of the world -- that country has potential. What's happening at this time is that the potential of that country and the potential of its people are being trampled underfoot by a military regime that has actually attempted to negate, and has successfully negated, the results of the last democratic election held in Burma.

[ Page 12205 ]

This particular motion also addresses the issue of the treatment of minorities. We have a recent, tremendous record of a wonderful equality that prevails in British Columbia. But it wasn't long ago -- it was only about 50 years ago -- that there were inequalities, that there was a lack of franchise, that there were a lack of rights to practise in professions. We know full well what happens to people when you live with less than equal rights, when you live under lack of freedom. Therefore I think that it's very, very important that we as British Columbians join the rest of the world in raising a voice to ensure that the people of Burma regain their rights and regain their freedoms and regain the dignity that they're being denied right now by a government that is made up of Burmese but obviously is not one that has the best interests of the Burmese people in its heart.

[1510]

I also know -- and my colleague the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has pointed it out to me time and time again -- that we have another problem that this military regime actually contributes to. It not only tramples underfoot the rights of its own people, it not only denies its ethnic minorities the right to live in equality, it not only denies some of the basic freedoms to its own people, but it also engages in the production and trade of drugs such as heroin. We know the kind of havoc that those kinds of substances wreak on our people in British Columbia and people all over the world. Therefore it's imperative that that particular regime be changed -- and changed at the earliest possible. . . .

Obviously, Aung San Suu Kyi has been incarcerated, essentially. She is not allowed to travel, and she isn't free to speak her mind or to organize meetings. It has been expressed by the representatives of the government of Burma in exile that they want to cooperate with other nations of the world to ensure, firstly, that there is freedom and equality and democracy in that country. Secondly -- and equally important for us -- they want to participate with all of the policing agencies across the world to ensure that they don't contribute to the havoc that's being wreaked by drugs on many societies, including our own.

Therefore I want to say that I, on this side of the House, support -- and I know all members support -- this particular motion wholeheartedly, and I hope that this ensures that freedom and democracy in Burma will reign sooner rather than later.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak in favour of Motion 61, the motion on the order paper by the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. I thank him for bringing this forward.

I met a remarkable woman this year. I thought, in the context of Motion 61, that I'd like to share her story. Her name is Dr. Win Than, and she lived in Burma in 1988. Her apartment faced onto a large square in the middle of Rangoon, and in that square a pro-democracy group had organized a peaceful demonstration. Dr. Than was in her apartment, and through her window over the day, she saw thousands and thousands of people gathering, assembling to speak against the 30 years of military rule that they had been subject to.

These individuals wanted democracy. They wanted to show an unelected military government that their numbers were large -- that there was not just a small number of people in Burma who wished for a democratic process, but many. Dr. Than listened during the day. She listened to the students sing the national anthem. She watched as families waved flags in time and cadence to the students' singing of the anthem over the day. She watched the military -- dressed in combat fatigues, carrying machine guns -- drive up in trucks, and from her window, she watched them open fire.

There were random shootings of citizens. If you can imagine thousands of people in an area -- people panicking and moving in every direction. . . . There were random shots into the crowd, and people fell. People ran for their lives to avoid what they most surely saw as their impending doom. There were then systematic executions of row upon row upon row of students who had refused to leave. They had refused to run. And they stood there peacefully, line upon line of university students, and continued to sing the national anthem as the soldiers fired and shot them, line after line after line.

[1515]

And from her window, Dr. Than saw that public square drenched in blood and riddled with bodies of people who had only asked, in a peaceful way, for democracy. Dr. Than fled for her life with her family -- her two daughters. She fled the capital, and she worked as a physician in the refugee camps that were set up along the border of Thailand and Burma. She eventually left Burma for political reasons -- left her homeland -- and came to Canada. Her fear for her children was her primary motivator. She felt that this was what she had to do in order to be safe.

Dr. Than, her children and a lot of other Burmese citizens who live in British Columbia would like to go home. In Vancouver, expatriates have assembled to form what has come to be known to me as the Burma round table. And such groups exist in the United States, Europe, Japan -- pretty well every country where people from Burma have moved out and left their homeland.

The Burma Round Table has done a lot in B.C., and it has become a vehicle to elevate the awareness of the bloody military rule in their country. They go out and speak to groups. Amnesty International sponsors them to come into communities. They come to the House here and speak to politicians. They speak to decision-makers in local communities. They spread their message, and they strive to have the

[ Page 12206 ]

Motion 61 speaks to freedom, not only in Burma but around the world. It speaks to the right of an elected government to rule, something we take for granted in this country. It speaks to freedom of speech and expression. It denounces rape, torture, imprisonment and murder of Burmese citizens who passively defy military rule. In 1990, two years after the bloody massacre in that square, the military allowed an election, and Burma elected a democratic government, with 250 of the 385 members belonging to the democratic party. This party, the NLD, was never allowed to rule. And in the last eight years, these elected representatives have been intimidated, jailed, exiled, tortured and killed.

I'd like to show you one example, because it's very illustrative of what has happened. In the Rangoon division, someone who could be similar to us in this House is an MP by the name of Daw San San. She has a bachelor of science degree; she is a teacher at one of the high schools. She has taught zoology in another school, she's studied in Yugoslavia, and she has received a diploma in journalism. She worked for the Department of Labour and was the chairperson for the Rangoon labour union. She also worked as deputy director for the Department of Labour within the government. This woman spoke to a BBC reporter about the deplorable human rights conditions in her country, and when she did that in 1988 and was critical of the military regime, she was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years. This has been the fate of many of the elected people since the election in 1990.

[1520]

Hon. Speaker, let's use our internationally recognized Canadian talents for diplomacy and peacekeeping to help move Burma towards democracy. I thank the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this motion forward.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm very delighted to have the opportunity to rise today to speak in support of Motion 61. This is a motion, as many of the members who spoke before me indicated, that advocates for human rights -- and human rights in Burma. But I would also say that human rights should indeed be respected and honoured in every country across the globe.

There actually is a saying in East Van, where I come from, that started with activists long before my arrival. They taught me that there is much importance in the notion of thinking globally but acting locally, and this is what this motion is about. It is about acting locally -- what we can do to try to advance human rights and the respect of human rights for all communities throughout the world. It is talking about ensuring, in our communities where we take for granted democracy, the right to vote, the right to be a representative in a duly elected process, the right to make sure that no matter who we are and where we come from, those individuals have the same and equal rights as all people.

Those rights are not always enjoyed by anybody and everybody in some communities. In the situation with Burma, it is horrific to think, in this day and age, as we're heading toward the twenty-first century, that we have these incidents that go on continuously -- for centuries, for decades, for years on end. It is horrific, when we sit down and think about it, as we head toward the twenty-first century, that some 40 years ago, when people were duly elected, somehow they could not have the right to practise and engage in the duly elected process and be recognized in that way.

It is frightening to think, as we speak today, that people are being tortured and people are being raped -- not just physically but mentally as well; not just women but men also. It is frightening to think that there is this military regime that goes on and that actually violently opposes democracy -- that flaunts its violence against democracy by raping the people and by legitimizing their regime. It is frightening when I think about this, because we still see it go on in many different places, and Burma is one of them. As I pick up the paper every day, I also read that this goes on in other communities and countries as well.

[1525]

The Burmese have actually done this with many of their people, every single day, as they act against the violation of human rights in their own country -- as they peacefully demonstrate against these issues. Here in our own country, from time to time, where we do have demonstrators. . . . Even here they face condemnation because of their activities, such as we've seen with APEC, although not to the extent that these people in other countries do -- although we do sense it from time to time in terms of the disdain that can be shown toward activists when they want to fight and advocate for democracy.

It is very frightening indeed when we think that this is the twenty-first century and that it goes on, on a regular basis, in countries where people seem not to be able to recognize those violations and the integrity of what we need to move forward on in the name of democracy. Not long ago, I was in Vancouver East and attended the Mon International Day. They were celebrating Mon National Day on this occasion. There I had the pleasure of meeting many people in Vancouver and beyond who have been activists in fighting for democratic rights throughout our country and for their people. It was on the premise that we need to ensure that individuals are recognized for who they are, that individuals have the right to fully participate as legitimate citizens and that there is full recognition that all of us should have self-determination.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

[ Page 12207 ]

The Burmese, with the work that they have done, and the Nobel prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has brought this issue forward -- and the struggle continues for her in raising the awareness of the Burmese situation. . . . In fighting the fight for democracy, she puts her life at risk. I know that she puts her family's life at risk every single day. It is people who actually take that stand who, over the history that we have learned, have advanced democracy's progress.

The UN has recognized the work that needs to be done. I believe that we in Canada recognize that that work needs to be done. Here in British Columbia. . . . I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in bringing forward this motion and advancing the issue, not only just amongst his own caucus but for all members of the House, so that we can be educated about these issues and so that we can stand and speak with a unified voice and clearly say that democracy is indeed a right that needs to be extended, not only locally -- here, in British Columbia -- but across the globe and throughout the world.

[1530]

I also want to just touch on, for a moment, one of the issues that has been raised: the drug issue. I see this every day in my own riding, in the downtown east side. The drug issue is a major challenge for the people in the downtown east side, and I would extend that to say not just the people of the downtown east side but, really, all across British Columbia. It is frightening to know that there is a country that endorses major drug trafficking and that participates in it. This is a government military regime that engages in and practises it. Why? Simply for their own good and so that they can stay in stay in power and continue to violate the rights of everybody -- I would say not just in Burma but the people that go beyond. When these drugs extend to the different communities, they don't actually see the harm that is being done to the individuals in those communities.

I see it every day in my own community, in the downtown east side. I see the pain, the suffering and the grief that go on when people actually overdose by drug use. It calls not only for action from the enforcement side to deal with the traffickers but also action from all fronts to look at how we can engage with each other to reduce the harm for the people who are addicted to the drugs, who have been exploited by this process and who have become victims of our system. In the downtown east side community I would suggest that harm-reduction approaches, along with strong enforcement against trafficking, need to be in place. I'm pleased that members I know across the House and on this side would actually support such actions in order that we could effectively deal with the drug question that we all face in our communities.

Lastly, I simply want to say that it is vitally important that we all stand in unity and with one voice. I know that we do when we stand together, across the House, to say that this atrocious behaviour and practice of a military regime -- that refuses to recognize the democratically elected people of their country, that violently acts against the people who engage in peaceful measures toward democracy and that violently works to stamp out democracy and human rights in all of the people of Burma -- has to be stopped. It is with this motion that we can work together and think globally but act locally to advance and put forward our support for the people of Burma, to advance their day so that one day they, too, can enjoy the freedoms that we now have in Canada.

D. Symons: I too wish to add my voice in support of this motion. I'm sure we all do support it. Human rights "abuses." That word is almost too mild a word to use -- the word "abuse" -- because we've got used to using it in the household situations, where what's going on here is so much more horrific than that. That's horrific in itself, but this is so much more.

But it's a worldwide phenomena and something that. . . . The situation in Burma is not the only one. We see it daily on our television now -- what's happening in Serbia as the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians and that sort of human rights abuse takes place there. That's before us on our television sets. We hear of it happening in Tibet, with China's occupation of that country, in various parts of Africa, Indonesia and East Timor -- all of those countries, along with Burma or, now, Myanmar. You know, it's this problem of human rights abuses.

[1535]

She is a most courageous and, I think, most determined woman and certainly, as other members have said today, sets an example for the people of the world who maybe do not have democracy in their country. Here's what one person can do. I think the only thing that has saved this young, courageous woman -- not so young now -- from being incarcerated and put out of sight so that she can't raise the awareness of the world, as she's managed to do with the situation in

[ Page 12208 ]

The military regime is really fronted by an organization that's called the State Law and Order Restoration Council. I guess it harks back, possibly, to Orwell's 1984, where you have words that have the exact reverse meaning of what they say. That was renamed in 1997 as the State Peace and Development Council. Again, what they perform in that country seems to be just about the opposite of what they are saying. The military generals' campaign of suppression of the National League for Democracy includes arbitrary, repressive laws. They fail the international acceptance of standards, and they contravene international civil and political rights.

Up until 1998 it used threats and intimidation to force MPs -- Members of Parliament -- who had been duly elected in 1990 to resign. Up to that time, they had managed to engineer, shall we say, 46 resignations. The military regime every so often in communities around Burma has public rallies, where you're required to be there. You're fined if you're not there. They are engineered in such a way at these rallies that you're really forced to sign a letter seeking the resignation of a Member of Parliament that you elected. We have something called recall in B.C., but this is not anything at all comparable to recall. This is a military-organized exercise to give the impression of a recall of an elected MP.

The election commission has dismissed 66 of the people. The election commission, of course, is under the control of the State Law and Order Restoration Council, so they simply have managed to just dismiss the election of 66 of the members: 20 of the members of that elected parliament are in exile; 42 members have been imprisoned for alleged political offences -- probably the most serious offence was that they wanted parliament to meet; and at least two have died in prison. That was up to 1998.

After 1998, the National League for Democracy decided to take whatever steps were necessary to convene the parliament. So they have basically said: "Well, if we won't be allowed to by this ruling junta of military people, we will simply take the power into our own hands as elected people, and we'll call the parliament together." That certainly got the military regime into high gear, and they immediately announced that. . . . Over 250 of the elected members of parliament and over 700 constituency executives and party officials were all put under arrest. The government then staged giant public rallies against the National League for Democracy and the few other democratic parties that were also elected at that time.

[1540]

I made a private member's statement back on May 9, 1997. I'll just read one part of it. My private member's statement at that time was called "Human Rights and Trade." I said:

"Why should I and each and every other caring person be concerned?" -- In this case, I was talking about what was happening in Third World countries in the way of human rights involving Canadian trade -- "Jampa Cheojor, a 16-year-old Tibetan child, has been in prison since February 1994 for putting up illegal posters protesting the Chinese occupation of Tibet. He has not used or advocated violence. Many novices in monasteries and nunneries between the ages of 11 and 18 have been detained while peacefully demonstrating. Released juvenile detainees have told of being whipped, kicked, beaten, tortured with electric shocks, sexually abused, forced to perform hard labour and subjected to malnutrition. Many have died in prison, while others, weakened by their ordeal, die within a short time after their release -- this after China has signed the UN convention on the rights of the child. It is little wonder that I have concerns that a bilateral, low-key approach on human rights will be effective? Have we so soon forgotten the Tiananmen Square massacre?"

"Be it further resolved that this Assembly urges the military regime of Burma to. . . ." I'm afraid that if we just send them a note and urge them to change their habits that. . . . They've probably had that urging elsewhere. We have to generate among all Canadians, I think, a feeling that it is intolerable that this should be taking place anyplace in the world, and we will do our utmost to see that those governments are treated in such a way that they will change their habits. Indeed, the people of Burma deserve our support.

"Be it further resolved that the Legislature urges the Government of Canada to. . ." -- basically, carry forth some actions in that regard. But I have fears that. . . . Sometimes we pass the responsibility off to some third level -- in this case, the federal government. I would hope that today we will each take some action ourselves, both individually and corporately, to see that we do something, as well, to support the people in Burma. I would suggest that we all support Amnesty International and their prisoners-of-conscience campaign, and that we sign letters individually as well as what we may do collectively here today.

I suggest that we could possibly boycott goods produced by child labour or by people who are nearly slaves in their employment because of unsafe, unsanitary. . .and inadequate wages. All of these are things that we individually can do to assist people who are in countries where human rights are something. . . . It's only a word to them. It does not really convey any rights that they themselves can enjoy that we in this country do enjoy, which we in this country do enjoy. I would urge everybody, then, besides supporting this motion today, to somehow get involved out there -- that you take part in a way that will be meaningful for yourself as well as for the people in Burma.

S. Orcherton: What a wonderful day it is today here in Victoria. The sun is shining, the temperature is pleasant, and flowers are blooming all over this very nice city. Best of all, I can look up into the bright blue sky, and there are no bombs.

[ Page 12209 ]

[1545]

Perhaps, along with many members of this House, I am guilty -- guilty of focusing on the day-to-day events within our small, idyllic corner of the world and of missing significant parts of the bigger picture. Perhaps, along with other members of the House, I am simply overwhelmed by the enormity of the violence that surrounds us. Perhaps it is easier to ignore that global misery than to risk sinking into despair about our seeming inability to do anything. But it is exactly that sense of helplessness -- of giving up, of seeming incapable of taking action -- that plays into the hands of dictators, tyrants and repressive regimes around the world.

I am thankful that the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has shown the dedication and perseverance necessary to bring this motion to this assembly. I'm thankful because it reminds me that all it takes for democracy to fail is for people of good conscience to stand by and do nothing. It reminds me that all victories start with the most difficult thing, and that is taking the first step.

I am no expert on international affairs or on Burma, but I do have very strong views on what is right and what is wrong. I don't believe it takes a lot of political sophistication to understand that it is wrong to kill, that it is wrong to torture, that it is wrong to imprison people without trial. So it is without reservation that I stand wholly in support of this motion and call upon all members of this House to support this motion.

We live in a society that increasingly seems to find difficulty in distinguishing between right and wrong. Today at this very moment in a land in Southeast Asia, literally thousands of ordinary people live in fear for their lives. They fear to express an opinion, let alone an opinion contrary to the dictates of the ruling military junta. They live in a land where their democratically elected government has been exiled. They live in a land where rape, torture, forced labour and mass arrests are commonplace. And the great difficulty that we face seems to be distinguishing what is right from what is wrong.

Burma's largest trading partner is a country that we in the west consider a model of capitalism at its best. Burma's largest trading partner is Singapore, a country that routinely executes men and women by hanging for possession of heroin. In Singapore death is mandatory for a person caught with half an ounce or more of heroin. In Singapore, Fridays are hanging days. On Friday, September 27, 1996, six people were hanged that morning. Four people had been hanged the previous Friday -- all for drug trafficking in amounts as little as half an ounce. In 1995 more than 50 people were hanged, the majority for drug-related offences.

What makes this particularly distressing is the certain knowledge that Singapore is deeply involved with the military junta in Burma and is fully aware of the Burmese drug trade. Burma currently supplies between 50 percent and 80 percent of the world's heroin trade. It could easily increase production to supply 100 percent of the world's heroin. The vast majority of countries in this world know that to be true. There is no doubt in the international community about the role of Burma and the role Burma has in supplying heroin to the addicts of the world. There is no doubt in the international community that Singapore is fully aware of these facts. There is something tragically wrong with a country that hangs petty drug addicts while continuing to prosper from trade with an illegal government deeply and singularly involved in the largest heroin operation ever known.

[1550]

This junta, until November 1997, called itself the State Law and Order Restoration Council -- SLORC, for short. It is now called the State Peace and Development Council. In no way can the current military dictatorship claim legitimacy as the government of Burma. In truth, it doesn't even claim legitimacy as a government; it is a restoration council.

I wish to quote from an address attributed to no less a distinguished Canadian than John Ralston Saul:

"The SLORC is not a body which is open to any form of negotiation in good faith. They are not even open to self-interested compromise. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will be accomplished through attempting constructive engagement. We've been at it formally now since 1990. Nothing has happened. Things are getting worse, not better. . .we've been at it since 1962. Nothing has happened. Nothing is going to happen. There is no constructive engagement, there never will be with these people, and in the process, they have been left alone to destroy Burma.

"More precisely, you cannot engage in constructive engagement regarding Burma with a group of rogue soldiers who are not the government of Burma. It is a fundamental error to accept the illusion that the SLORC is the government of Burma. They are not the government of Burma. They don't govern, except by force of arms. They don't have the title of government of Burma by any standards, not by the Western ethical standards which we're afraid to speak of in Asia. But much more important, they don't exist as the government of Burma by Asian standards -- not by Asian ethical standards or historical or spiritual or political or even economic. It is very important for us to understand that. When we are dealing with the SLORC, we are dealing with a group which fails, by Asian standards, to qualify as government. We have to be clear enough about this in our own minds to find the strength to say to other governments in Asia: 'By your own standards, this is a rogue government, not a government at all.' "

[ Page 12210 ]

The real question, however, is not about our influence on the international stage or how effective a motion this might be. The real question is: what do we stand for? It is in articulating our principles, in our condemnation of rogue governments like Burma, in expressing our horror and opposition to the brutalities visited upon the Burmese people that we take a stand. We can condemn the SLORC for the group of thugs and criminals that it is. We can take a stand against offering any respectability to an illegal military junta. We can take a stand for the rights of all people. I encourage all members of this House to set aside partisan differences and to unanimously support this motion to take the right stand.

B. Goodacre: As a British Columbian, it's indeed a pleasure to listen to my colleagues in this Legislature show such an outpouring of compassion for a beleaguered people so far away from us as the Burmese. In the years that I've been involved with politics and social action in this province, British Columbia has demonstrated itself, time and time again, to be a home and a haven for people who are fleeing from oppression in other parts of the world.

[1555]

The story that our colleague from Vernon shared with us about her friend the physician who had to witness that horrible tragedy that day many years ago drives home the kinds of things that we don't have to deal with in our lives. It does beg the question that has come up with many of the previous speakers. The powerlessness that we face, in terms of what we do as a privileged people living in a privileged part of the world where we're safe from a lot of this horror. . . . Are we all that powerless to do something about it?

One member spoke about how we just talk about these things and then it passes on, and the next day or the next hour we're onto something else. Speaker after speaker that we've heard today reiterated the need for us as a group and for us as individuals to seriously consider the role we can play in terms of economic sanctions, in terms of letter-writing campaigns and in terms of support for organizations like the round table and organizations like Amnesty International, which are devoting their time, effort and economic power that they have to try to change the world to make it a better place.

I want to extend my thanks to our colleague from Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this matter to our attention, and I join with my colleagues in extending our support to the parliamentarians of Burma in their efforts to regain their legitimate role in their own country. I think that it is really something for us to consider -- the role we're going to play in the future in helping the government-in-exile of Burma reattain their place of legitimacy in their own country.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, to close the debate.

W. Hartley: In closing debate on Motion 61, I want to first of all thank the hon. members who have spoken on both sides of the House -- very thoughtful contributions in support of the motion. Your sincere and heartfelt words will create a greater sense of hope for the people of Burma and indeed for all oppressed people. As duly elected parliamentarians, we have together raised our objections against the political repression in Burma. In doing so, we have joined parliamentarians in legislative assemblies in Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United States and Great Britain. After approving this motion, we may soon be joined by legislatures in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

The member for Richmond Centre talked about follow-up on this motion, as did the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I want to assure members that, I submit, we will call on Canada, and we'll call on Canada's trading partners in Southeast Asia and the European Union. I would suggest that we continue until all world leaders, from Jean Chrétien to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, have taken some sort of action in support of the Burmese people.

[1600]

We're all standing up together to uphold the principle that it is the people, as citizens and voters, and parliament which represents them that is supreme -- that it's the democratically elected Burmese parliament that is supreme, and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy is the true government of the Union of Burma.

In this motion we've called on the government of Canada to recognize the committee representing the people's parliament. We've called on Canada to take action to achieve a coordinated international action in support of the restoration of human rights in Burma. Together, we've placed the political and legal responsibility for gross human rights abuse in Burma at the highest level of the military regime. We've condemned the State Peace and Development Council, formerly the State Law and Order Restoration Council, for openly profiting from the production, trade and export of opium and heroin into Vancouver and North America. And in this motion we've directed the Canadian drug enforcement agency to increase counter-narcotics efforts specific to the flow of heroin into Vancouver from Burma.

Thanks to Dr. Sein Win, we've made the connection between Burma's problems and the hard drugs on the streets of Vancouver and outlying communities. Hon. Speaker, despite what the Fraser Institute claims, I believe that the war against drugs is not lost. We've now just begun to focus on a major enemy, the Burmese military junta -- that brutal gang of drug traffickers and murderers who have breached the Geneva convention and committed war crimes against humanity and against their own people under international law.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Dr. Sein Win are focusing the attention of the world on the atrocities and the abuse of

[ Page 12211 ]

A few months ago, I joined Dr. Sein Win and members of the Vancouver Burmese community for a dim sum meal in Vancouver's Chinatown. My six-year-old daughter was with me. Dr. Sein Win was quite taken with my daughter. He talked about how he was forced to escape Burma just weeks before his own daughter was born. She's nine now, and he's never seen her.

My admiration for the strength, the patience and the wisdom of the philosophy that guides the leaders of the Burmese pro-democracy movement cannot be overstated. They deserve our respect and support. The people of Burma are gentle but strong, patient and determined. They are bright lights in the darkness.

It is in everyone's interest to connect the people of British Columbia, Canada and the international community with the people of Burma. I believe we have shown today that our provincial Legislature can help to send the people of Burma a message of hope for their future. Again let me thank all hon. members -- those who spoke and those who will vote on this motion -- and let me thank Dr. Yawnghwe and the Vancouver Burma Round Table for their great assistance and their great patience in getting us to this moment in the history of this Legislature.

[1605]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[1610]

In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 53.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
(second reading)

This bill amends ten statutes with respect to initiatives related to the 1999 budget. The Build BC Act, the Highway Act and the Land Title Act are amended to facilitate the transfer of highway land and infrastructure to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. This is another step towards the full capitalization, which is supported by the auditor general.

There are also a number of amendments to update the Financial Administration Act, as we move down this path. Sections 1, 23 and 32 of the act are amended to reflect changes in accounting policy on capitalization and fiscal agencies' loans, so that the Financial Administration Act clearly deals with operating transactions that involve non-cash expenses.

The auditor general, in his report on the estimates, raised concerns that the legislation requiring the government to present interim financial statements is unclear. In response, section 11 of the Financial Administration Act is amended to clarify that the timely interim financial statements will be presented each time annual estimates of the revenues and expenditures are presented to the Legislative Assembly.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The Financial Administration Act will also be amended to formally establish the Economic Forecast Council. This group of private sector forecasters has provided helpful advice this year, as it has done for the previous two years. It will now be a permanent and mandatory feature of the budget process. The advice that the council gives on the economic outlook will continue to be published in the budget reports. These two measures form part of the government's response to the recommendations of the auditor general's recent report.

The Ferry Corporation Act is amended to increase the corporate debt limit from $975 million to $1,350 million.

The Industrial Development Incentive Act is amended to increase the funding cap on the industrial incentive fund to $500 million from $450 million. This will allow the government to continue to utilize the industrial incentive fund to make loans and investments to strategic economic development projects.

There are a number of legislative amendments and provisions that affect the transfer of assets and liabilities among the provincial government, B.C. Transit and the new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, and address a number of other matters related to the startup of the GVTA.

[1615]

The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act was passed by the Legislature at the 1998 spring session. The GVTA Act requires that the transfer of assets and liabilities from B.C. Transit and other provincial agencies to the GVTA be effective on March 31, 1999. The transfer of assets and associated debt allows the GVTA to take over responsibility for managing a comprehensive, integrated transportation system for the lower mainland. Although the amendments in the bill before us deal with details of financial administration and updates to a number of statutes, I do want to take this opportunity to note the significant accomplishment that has been achieved over the last two years, which has led to the launch of the GVTA.

To facilitate the last steps of the transfer and associated debt restructuring, there are several amendments to the Municipal Finance Authority Act. These amendments update the borrowing powers of the Municipal Finance Authority to accommodate the transfer of the portion of B.C. Transit's assets and debt related to transportation services in the lower mainland to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, and also to accommodate the debt of regional hospital districts.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act is amended to provide for borrowing by the greater Vancouver regional district on behalf of the GVTA, as well as the two other regional authorities: the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district and the greater Vancouver water district.

In addition, additional powers are granted to the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia and to the greater Vancouver regional district to issue securities and grant

[ Page 12212 ]

There are also amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to clarify provisions related to the regional road provisions in the GVTA Act, in order to address the concerns that are related to the municipal designation of the regional road network.

Finally, there are also related amendments to the B.C. Transit Act and the Financial Administration Act which will clarify definitions and add Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and designated organizations to the list of those that can receive prepaid capital advances.

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 53 is the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999. It's essentially a miscellaneous statutes amendment act for the budget. There are a number of sections that are being amended, and in committee stage members of our caucus will be examining them in more detail. I do want to extend my thanks to the ministry for the briefing that was accorded members of the opposition to help clarify some of the technical aspects. We do have some detailed questions in some of the areas as to how that will all come into force. Those will take place in committee stage, which I understand will likely be tomorrow.

There are certain issues that continue to exist: the way the GVTA is structured and the way this piece of legislation will continue to transfer those assets to the GVTA. Those issues will most likely be raised in the estimates process, as we continue to see how that relationship unfolds and develops over time. It seems to be far from harmonious. There are certainly issues with relation to B.C. Transit and SkyTrain and other issues of pretty serious political and governance concern that will be raised at that time.

There are two other issues, I think, which should cause people some concern with relation to this bill. One in particular should cause people grave concern, and that's the raising of the B.C. Ferries debt. My colleague from Richmond Centre will be speaking after myself and will make some further comment on that. But we have a piece of legislation here -- or one clause in this legislation -- that is going to raise the cap for the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation by a significant amount. In fact, it will be raised from $975 million -- which is just under $1 billion -- to $1.35 billion.

[1620]

If people were getting value for that money, I think they would feel more comfortable with that. They would see that there is an investment taking place and that there is some benefit accruing to them. But to date, as of today, the fast ferry project -- which is consuming some $450 million, or half a billion dollars of that debt -- has yet to carry one paying passenger. It's a number of years behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars -- well over 100 percent -- over budget, and we still haven't seen any passengers carried by one of the three fast ferries nor have we managed to sell or to line up future purchases of the fast ferries that are being constructed here in British Columbia.

When you look at this piece of legislation, although there's really only one line that deals with it, it's a fairly significant story that's told underneath. I know that the member for Richmond Centre will have some comments about that today and again tomorrow in committee stage, and I know that it will be canvassed fairly extensively during the estimates process as we move to that later this year.

Secondly, there is an increase in the industrial incentive fund of $50 million -- from $450 million to $500 million. Other than a general comment by the Minister of Finance as to what that money's going to be used for, we haven't heard any specifics. So we'll be canvassing further in committee stage to determine exactly what that money's going to be used for. Does the government have a plan, a business plan, for where that money's going? Do they know where it's going? Do they know why it's needed? And have they set up the appropriate measures to ensure that any money that is spent by that fund in fact returns some sort of economic benefit to the people of British Columbia, unlike what happened with the fast ferry project? We'll be looking for some accountability on that before we grant that $50 million.

Thirdly, the Economic Forecast Council legislation that's contained in this bill to establish in law a forecasting council and to help the government determine whether or not their economic forecasting models are realistic is an interesting one. The auditor general was pretty strong in his comments about the way this government mismanaged, misled and did a whole bunch of other things. I think the words used were that they inappropriately reported their estimates forecast to this House around the budget fiasco of 1996 and 1997.

This is, in very small part, a reaction to the auditor general's recommendations or comments that the people of British Columbia don't have faith that their own government is telling them the truth. They don't have faith that the government is setting its forecasts for the budget year in an objective way. As a result, the auditor general made some pretty strong recommendations around that. We believe that if the government were to just tell people the truth and if the public accounts process were to work through its way, we could make these determinations.

If you look back at what happened in 1995-1996, that time when they were preparing or reporting the previous year's financial status and forecasting the future year's financial status, one can see that in fact the people in the Ministry of Finance were pretty spot-on. They had pretty much determined what the revenues were going to be. It was in fact at the political level that those numbers were boosted well beyond and above the comfort level of the Ministry of Finance. That was done, clearly, in an attempt for the government to report two balanced budgets and get themselves elected in the 1996 election. Those balanced budgets evaporated within days of the election. The rest of it is history. Unfortunately, it's history we continue to pay for today.

[1625]

[ Page 12213 ]

There is simply no faith amongst the people of British Columbia that this government is prepared to tell them the truth and give them the honest goods about the state of the public's finances. As a result, you have to have outside bodies come in and regulate or help to determine and publicly report upon the actions and the forecasts of the government. I think it's a pretty sad day when you can't even trust the numbers that are given to you by the Ministry of Finance in any way, shape or form and have to bring in outside people to do that. So we'll have, obviously, further comments on those.

There are also, as the minister said, significant transfers of assets. This is a debate that's been going on with the comptroller, the Ministry of Finance and the auditor general over the last number of years, as to how to account for the entity, how it's going to look, what's going to be capitalized and what isn't going to be capitalized. This implements that. We'll be examining that in a little more detail in committee stage. I look forward to moving into the committee stage so we can get answers to some of those questions.

D. Symons: As mentioned by the previous speaker, I do have a couple of concerns regarding this particular Budget Measures Implementation Act. They revolve, of course, around those particular areas that I am the critic responsible for.

The first one that is of much concern to me is indeed, as mentioned before, the Ferry Corporation Act and the increasing of the debt cap for that corporation by $375 million. That turns out to be a 38 percent increase. Unfortunately, it's not the only increase that's happened over the last short period of time. If we take a look back at the beginning of the NDP in office, I find out that we have. . . . Basically, if you take off the two superferries and say, well, that was started by the previous government, so therefore we won't count that as their responsibility. . . . Reducing that from the previous cap of $975 million, I get about $400 million worth of debt that we can say, up until recently, was added to the debt of the Ferry Corporation by this government. If we add on top of that the fact that they are now increasing that number by 38 percent, we're in real trouble in that corporation. Any other business -- if it was private and not government, with endless deep taxpayer pockets -- would find that it would basically be bankrupt.

We now have more debt in the Ferry Corporation than we have assets. This is only compounding that problem with that corporation. So I have real problems and certainly will, in committee stage, be asking for some explanation of where this money has gone and where this increase is intended to go. That's because I think it's important, before we say okay to this, that we know what the purpose of it is and how we've managed to get to the sorry state where the corporation is in such bad condition that they have to add another $375 million to the possible debt of that corporation.

We also find that there are some changes to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. Indeed, it seems like it was just a year ago -- as a matter of fact, it was just a year ago -- that we passed that act in this House. They are now bringing in some amendments. Some of them, I understand, are basically amendments that the GVTA had some difficulty with. They thought it was unclear on the word "limit," and there I notice that they brought in. . . . But there are some others that I'm beginning to wonder about and would like to ask some questions on -- some changes to the powers to exempt a portion of that particular act.

We also have some changes to the Highway Act. I guess one of the things I have concerns with is when the government is bringing in legislation that says "is deemed to. . . ." Those words, "deemed to," always seem to raise a little bit of concern in my mind -- and also when they talk about retroactivity. That comes in later on in one of the further acts. I'm just quickly flipping pages, trying to find the retroactive sections in here. But that also raises concerns which I will explore further when we get into the committee stage of this particular bill. So I guess it's just a bit of a heads-up to the government. Those are sections that I will be concerned about and be asking questions on when we get to that particular stage of the bill.

[1630]

With that, I would then move second reading of Bill 53.

Second reading of Bill 53 approved on division.

Bill 53, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Acting for the Minister of Finance, I would now call Bill 55.

PROBATE FEE ACT
(second reading)

Bill 55 confirms in law the practice in British Columbia of charging probate fees on estates over $25,000 in value. This follows a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning probate fees levied by the province of Ontario. The court ruled that Ontario had a legal authority to levy probate fees, but they must be set by legislation rather than by regulation. The Supreme Court's decision was in relation to Ontario's probate fees. However, the decision has made it necessary for British Columbia and other provinces to review their probate fees and to take action if necessary. Ontario, Newfoundland, Manitoba and British Columbia have reacted to the Supreme Court's decision by introducing legislation to ensure probate fees are levied in a way that addresses the shortfall found by the court.

I want to make it very clear that this legislation will not result in any increase in probate fees in British Columbia. Rather, Bill 55 will mean that probate fee revenue can continue to help pay for the costs of providing court services. By doing so, the government is in the position to continue to offer other court services such as family court and child maintenance enforcement at little or no cost.

G. Plant: I rise to join the debate on Bill 55, a bill that I will oppose. There are, it is said, two certainties in life: death and taxes. By some miracle, the NDP have, in Bill 55, now

[ Page 12214 ]

The bill really raises two sets of public policy issues. The first is what might be called the issues that arise on a going-forward basis -- that is, a tax called a fee that this bill will empower government to levy from the day that it comes into force -- forward. Really, there are public policy issues about the fairness of imposing what amounts to a tax on death, and I want to talk about those in a few minutes.

[1635]

Those issues around retroactivity and immunity are the second set of issues -- issues around what happens when government makes its own rules for itself and gives itself a special status in the courts. I will also deal with those issues in due course, but I want to move to, I guess, the first part of my remarks with a bit of history.

As the minister correctly pointed out, in October of last year the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in a case out of Ontario concerning the estate of a person named Eurig. In that ruling the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the probate fee scheme as it was being administered in Ontario. The court examined the probate fee scheme that Ontario was administering and made the observation that Ontario was levying a fee on applications for probate that was calculated as a percentage of the value of the estate. So if the estate were relatively large, then the amount paid as a fee would be significantly more than in the case of an estate of modest value.

The Supreme Court of Canada, as I understand their ruling, said that from the perspective of the constitution, that's basically not what can be correctly called a fee. Rather, that is something that more correctly has to be characterized as a tax. There are rules under our constitution for how governments can acquire the power or the right to tax. They have to come into this assembly and pass a bill. They can't do it by order-in-council or by regulation. What Ontario was doing was levying this fee through a series of regulations directed at how the court system operated in Ontario. What Ontario had failed to do was pass the necessary legislation to give the government of Ontario the power to levy the tax.

I think it's important to recognize that that's not merely a matter of form, as to whether a government chooses to levy a charge, a tax, a royalty, a fee -- call it what you will -- on its citizens by means of a regulation, as opposed to by means of taxation. If government charges fees by regulation, that's a decision-making process that happens in the cabinet room or sometimes in the minister's office. It happens in a context where there is no direct public scrutiny. There is no transparency. There is a different kind of accountability -- a much reduced accountability, I would suggest, and certainly less direct accountability. The whole thing has about it, in many cases, the flavour of something being done in secret behind closed doors, as though government were not terribly happy about the fact that they're having to introduce this measure.

[1640]

I don't think it's inappropriate for me to make the observation that over the course of the last many hundreds of years in our parliamentary system, people have fought very hard -- in fact, I dare say lives have been lost -- in pursuit of the objective of ensuring that a government can only tax its citizens when it comes into the legislature and gets permission to do so in the open debate in that assembly. People have certainly fought about this issue for hundreds and hundreds of years in the English parliamentary tradition. That's why legislators are oftentimes pretty careful about paying attention to the way in which government tries to raise revenue. When governments try to go behind closed doors and raise revenue under the guise of fees and royalties and other related such charges, there is less accountability and more suspicion on the part of the opposition that government is abusing its powers in not acting in a way which is consistent with basic democratic principles.

That's really what the government of Ontario had done when they introduced by cabinet order the regulations which imposed the probate fee that gave rise to the litigation in Ontario. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada said that the government of Ontario could not do. What the government of Ontario did was unconstitutional. It tried to levy what was in substance and in effect a tax, under the guise of calling it a fee. That was fundamentally dishonest on the part of the government of Ontario, and it was a form of illegality that the court decided was serious enough to warrant its intervention. And the court struck down the regulation, the fee, in Ontario.

As it turns out, the fee that caused the Eurig family to take the Ontario government to court -- the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will -- was a fee that was implemented by the Ontario NDP in the mid-1990s, I think. I don't remember the exact date. It was a situation where admittedly the government, prior to that, had been charging an ad valorem fee for probate, but I guess it was not a fee that was so large as to excite public complaint. However, when the Bob Rae NDP government essentially tripled the fee by raising it to an amount virtually the same as that which we have in the bill before us, that's what caused the Eurig family to take issue and the lawsuit to begin, with the result that I've talked about.

[ Page 12215 ]

[1645]

As of October 23, 1998, we knew for a certainty here in British Columbia that the probate fee system that was being administered by the NDP was unconstitutional. Here we are six months later, and we see the NDP solution to having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, in the form of Bill 55. Let's be clear, then. Where we are before the passage of this bill is that the government of British Columbia is currently collecting a fee which is really a tax. They are doing it by way of regulation rather than by legislation and are therefore acting illegally and unconstitutionally. This bill attempts to solve that problem.

I want to say something about the mechanics of how these fees work. If you are somebody who is the executor of the estate of a deceased person -- it may have been your late husband or wife or a member of your family -- and you want to have the power granted to you under a will to administer the estate of your deceased loved one, you really have no choice. You have to go up to court. If you want to have the powers given to you under the will, you have to apply for a grant of letters of administration or for the power to act as an executor.

Interestingly enough, when you go to the court registry to do that, you actually pay a court filing fee. I think the amount is $208. That fee presumably represents what the court system judges is a fair amount in relation to the cost of the service being provided. It doesn't go up or down according to the size of the estate.

This probate fee, which is the subject of the bill in front of us, is what goes beyond that and adds the additional fee, which on estates over $50,000 can amount to $14 for every $1,000 worth of the estate. If we are looking at estates where the value is $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 -- which is not unusual these days if the deceased person happened to own a piece of real estate somewhere in British Columbia -- then we are talking about fees in the order of some thousands of dollars. That is the basic mechanism or process which this fee applies to.

With that as the context, I want to talk for a minute or two about what I said was the first set of public policy issues, and that is the public policy questions around the propriety or wisdom of death taxes -- because really, that is what this is.

It's called the Probate Fee Act; that's what we have in front of us. That's kind of an unusual title, because the Supreme Court of Canada made it pretty clear that the thing that was called a probate fee was really a tax. I can imagine a government, which would want to be honest about what it was doing with the citizens of British Columbia and would want to be honest in its response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, looking at the challenge of how they are going to bring this fee into compliance with the law and saying to themselves: "Well, it's really a tax. It's a percentage amount charged on the value of estates, and it's really a tax. So we'll introduce a bill that will fix the illegality -- the unconstitutionality -- problem, but we'll be honest and we'll call it a tax. We can call it a probate tax, or we can call it a death tax."

[1650]

Here's what I think they're afraid of -- a bunch of things. First of all, taxes on death -- even probate taxes -- are really a form of triple taxation, because most people who have worked hard all their lives have paid income tax on the income they have earned. That's the first, basic level of taxation. Then, if they happen to have invested their income -- if they've had enough to do that -- in a home or some asset which has increased in value over time, they may well be subject to the burden of taxes on their capital -- that is, taxes on the gain in the value of their capital. Now, there are some exceptions to that for things like principal residences, but in the absence of those exceptions, there is that second level of exposure to taxation around the value of their capital. Yet it is the capital which is left over in their estate which becomes the corpus -- or the body or the size -- of the assets in the estate that then is subject to taxation in the form of this probate tax in a way that I will enlarge upon in a moment.

I understand that one of the members opposite wishes leave to make an introduction.

J. Cashore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: I thank the hon. member for giving way to allow me to make this introduction.

Present in the gallery today are two very fine people who live in Coquitlam and operate a business there: Mary Ann Meegan Insurance. I want to say welcome to Peter and his mother, Mary Ann Meegan. Mary Ann Meegan started her insurance business in Ocean Falls quite a few years ago, and then that business carried on in Coquitlam. Not only is it a place for getting good service, it's a place where people find a very warm and friendly greeting. So people actually look forward to paying their auto insurance and their house insurance when they go there. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Plant: When we impose a tax on the value of people's estates, we are actually, in my view, adding what amounts to a third level of taxation upon the fruits of the labours of citizens of British Columbia who have managed to work hard to acquire assets and to leave behind them something of value after their death. I think that as a matter of principle, that's an unfair tax burden on citizens.

I note with interest that it is a form of taxation that is particularly favoured by governments of socialist persuasion.

[ Page 12216 ]

[1655]

I note that now that the government has, in effect, been caught out in that little piece of deception, the issue of trying to sort out the relationship between the probate/death tax/fee and the principles of the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act has occupied the attention of the drafters of the bill. In section 4, the drafters of this bill have said that it will apply and have effect despite the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act.

So notwithstanding all the fine words from the government about their commitment to freezing taxes and consumer rates, this represents an admitted exception to that principle. And it's not an insignificant one. In the fiscal year that ended March 31, 1998 -- that is, just over a year ago -- the government collected $21 million from this revenue enhancement initiative. I'm told that for the year which ended a little over a month ago, the expected amount collected from applicants for probate in British Columbia is just about $27 million or $28 million. So that amounts to something like $50 million collected over the course of two years.

I would suggest that that is a very significant revenue collection device. It really ought to be taken into account by anybody who has ever been on the happy, receiving end of one of those $2 rebate cheques that ICBC -- or whoever it is -- sends out on occasion. That's the proof in the pudding which we often find when this government says one thing and does another.

Some who would speak in support of this might point out that as a percentage of the value of the estate, what amounts to $14 per $1,000 over a $50,000 threshold is not a very high percentage fee. Well, I'm not going to argue strenuously with that. I could point out that applied to the value of even mid-sized estates, that calculation results in some pretty big cheques being written.

The other point I want to make is that this really becomes the nice way that the government has of opening the door to the concept of wealth taxation, succession duties and death taxation. What will begin here with this bill as $14 per $1,000 may well rise over the course of time to numbers that will be much more, I'm sure, to the satisfaction of some of the ideologues who help design NDP tax and revenue policy. That is, if you're going to start with something that has the potential to be truly unpleasant, then start small but think big and wait, because over time the chances will arise, no doubt, to increase the grab. I'm sure we'll see that.

[1700]

I want to say that that one particular aspect of the way in which this bill works will create a hardship. Unlike Ontario, where there are processes in place that allow people to defer paying the amount until probate has been granted, you don't have that luxury under this bill. You have to pay the fee before probate is granted. So that means that if you are hoping to become the executor of an estate that has no cash -- that just has land or some other assets that aren't liquid -- then you're going to have to find the cash to pay this fee from your own resources before you can get probate. So this will have a special little feature of hardship that the Ontario scheme doesn't. So those are some of the reasons why I think this whole idea of death taxes is bad public policy.

One other issue I just want to mention, in terms of the remarks that the minister made, is that it's nice to talk about cost recovery through the court system. We could have a debate about whether it's actually an appropriate way of looking at public policy, to say that the civil court system in British Columbia should be paid for by those who use it. Some might argue that the civil court system is a court system that should be available to the public, that there should not be restrictions on access created by fees. But even putting that to one side, let's be clear. This money collected from this fee doesn't go into the court system. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund.

Noting my enthusiasm, I think I'll be the designated speaker on this bill, hon. Speaker. I just think that there are a number of issues raised here that all need to be canvassed, however briefly I may be doing that. My point is that this money isn't going into the court system; it's going into the black hole of the consolidated revenue fund. Who knows how many fast cat Ferraris -- or ferries or Lamborghinis or whatever -- are going to be paid for with these dollars? This is not a dedicated revenue stream.

[1705]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Let me talk for a minute or two now about the retroactivity and immunity issues. This bill is really the child of Bill

[ Page 12217 ]

Yes, I concede that the issue, in terms of the problem, may go back as far as 1988. Clearly the government thinks it does, because that's how far back the retroactivity goes. I don't think people were challenging the constitutionality of this fee back when it was down around the $4 and $5 level. It was only when the NDP governments in Ontario and British Columbia got greedy that people said that's enough, and they took the issue to court. Whenever you legislate retroactively and erect walls of immunity, the effect is gradually -- sometimes imperceptibly but nonetheless irrevocably -- to undermine respect for democracy and the rule of law.

That's what this bill does. This bill, like Bill 50 before it, is from a government that says: "When we don't like the circumstances that face us, we'll just make up the rules as we go along, and we'll make them to suit us. If we're unhappy with the result of a court decision, not only will we fix the result of the court decision, we will rewrite what went before in a way that pretends that there was never anything wrong in the first place." That's what this bill does, and it does it in the most unusual way in terms of rewriting history chapter by chapter, which we'll see when we get to the committee stage debate. That's what this bill does. It rewrites history just like Bill 50 did, and it does so in a way that I think does not encourage respect for democracy and the rule of law but, rather, undermines it.

When governments abuse the power to legislate retroactively, they undermine certainty in our economy. The whole principle that says you should not legislate retroactively is a principle that has to do with the way in which we as citizens of the province live our lives. We are supposed to be able to live our lives with some expectation that the rules that apply to us today will continue to apply to us in respect of our actions today, whether that be next week, ten weeks from now or ten years from now. We won't wake up someday and find that somebody has rewritten the rules, not just for tomorrow but for yesterday. We won't wake up and find that the things we thought we were doing in compliance with the law today have been made illegal long after we had any power to do anything about them.

When governments legislate retroactively, they are rewriting history and they are undermining certainty. They are undermining the certainty of expectations that we're all entitled to as citizens in a democracy. I know that governments have to do that sometimes. I know that taxation initiatives often have to be brought in in a way that ensures that there is a small, modest and necessary amount of retroactivity to achieve another public policy objective, which is stability in the marketplace around the expectations that government will honour their revenue and budget commitments.

This bill goes way beyond that. This bill says: "All right, we as government have been collecting money illegally -- tens of millions of dollars -- for a long time. Rather than do the right thing when we're caught -- rather than do the right thing and pay the money back to all those from whom the money was taken illegally in the past and then fixing the problem on a going-forward basis -- we'll just perfect the theft. We'll just ensure that all the money that we took illegally is kept and that the citizens who paid money to government in circumstances where in fact they did so without the government having any legal justification to demand that money from them will not get their money back." People who are making investment decisions about British Columbia care about questions like whether or not British Columbia is a jurisdiction that abuses its power to enact retroactive legislation or not.

I suggest that Bill 55, as with Bill 50, sends the wrong message to people who are looking to see whether we just talk about democracy and the rule of law or we actually practise it. Bill 55, I think, goes over the limit and is an example of legislation by a government that does not find itself capable of practising democracy when the heat gets a little warm in the kitchen. I don't underestimate the amount of money we're talking about. We may be talking about millions of dollars, but sometimes that's what happens, I guess, when governments make mistakes -- when they not only make mistakes but act illegally and when they act without legal justification.

[1710]

It does so in a way that is particularly offensive because there is a lawsuit in place, brought as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all of those who paid these illegal fees, some of whom have even paid them under protest. This bill, by erecting a wall of immunity -- in addition to its provisions around retroactivity -- is essentially written so that a lawyer acting for the government can go into court and say: "Look, my Lord, my Lady, I've got the answer to this lawsuit. The Legislature just happened to pass a bill, and this lawsuit doesn't have any merit anymore. You'll have to throw the lawsuit out." That's what this bill is all about: a government that's afraid of being caught in court by a class action lawsuit. It's a bill about a government that's afraid of actually having to honour its obligations to pay back money to people from whom it took money illegally. It's a bill that says: "Well, you know what? We are the government. We can do anything we want, and we can make legislation so that our lawyers can go off to court, wave it in the air and say, 'Poof -- there goes your lawsuit. It's gone. You don't have any rights as citizens in the courts on this issue. We passed a bill. We passed a law that says your rights are gone.' " I think that's offensive.

You know, in Ontario the amounts were larger. The time over which the government had, arguably, acted illegally apparently stretched back as far as 1950. But the government of Ontario did one thing right when they brought in their bill to solve this problem. They said to the Eurig family, in their bill: "This bill will not affect your right to recover your amount" -- $5,000 or $6,000 or whatever it was. Admittedly, the cost implications were not significant, but the principle is a good one. At least the Ontario government said: "You have fought this fight; we will make sure you earn the fruits of that fight, the fruits of your victory."

Admittedly, the cost implications of following the same approach here would be vastly more significant, especially for a government that is desperate to squeeze revenue out of a

[ Page 12218 ]

This bill doesn't even do that. This bill says to all of those people who have paid the probate fees so that they can administer the estates of their husbands or their wives or their family members or their friends or their colleagues: "You all have to pay. You had to pay last week; you have to pay next week. None of you get your money back, and you don't even get to go to court to argue about it." I think that's bad public policy. I think the whole idea of a death tax, imposed in the way that this bill imposes it, is bad public policy.

It's bad public policy because it imposes too much tax on people in British Columbia. It says to people that there is in effect no incentive at the end of the day for working hard to build up an estate of any value, because we'll tax that too. Then it says that we don't even care what we did last week when we acted illegally in collecting that tax, because we can fix that. We can rewrite history. We can ignore what the courts have said, because we can redefine our own truth, our own laws. We can make up the rules the way we want to, and I think that's bad public policy. So this bill deserves no support from anyone in this House, and I can tell you that I sure am not going to support this bill.

[1715]

I don't think anyone in the province -- anyone, really, that you meet in real life -- says: "Boy, I can hardly wait to pay more taxes." One of the things that I know from my experience in public life is that people in this province are a pretty exceptional lot. They're willing to go out to work very hard to try and create a better future for their kids, to try and make sure that those children have a secure and safe future. One of the things that they take pride in is building up an estate for the next generation. It's kind of their gift. It's kind of a thing where people say: "This is something that we can give. We may pass away, we may pass on, but we want people to know that we think of them beyond this part of our lives."

Hon. Speaker, I know that, and I know you're aware of that, because you have been a mayor of a large community as well. You'll probably recall when, at one point, the government brought in a property tax deferral scheme to help seniors. Remember that? They brought it in to help seniors with their property taxes. It's a very smart economic policy; it makes nothing but economic sense. Unfortunately for those seniors, it doesn't make very good sense at all. They have an emotional tie to their properties, and they have an emotional tie to their families that says: "We'd like to leave something. We'd like to leave something free and clear. We'd like to leave the next generation something that's important to us and that they'll know was important to them too." Literally hundreds of thousands of seniors across this province do not take advantage of that deferral scheme. What does this government do?

I notice the Minister of Labour chortling there to himself. He really enjoys this taxing and going after working families and making sure that working families have an opportunity. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat. I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am sorry, but on a point of order, Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. I was not laughing or chortling; I'm sitting here working at my desk. For the member to suggest otherwise is dishonest, and I resent that bitterly.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, and I'm sure the member speaking will take that into account. I appreciate that. The Leader of the Official Opposition continues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

G. Campbell: The fact of the matter is that as we sit here and look at this bill today, this is a bill that does nothing short of taxing the working families of British Columbia. It's nothing short of taxing the future. This government has taxed the present to death, and now it says: "Let's tax the future as well."

What are we doing here? We're breaking the government's word to the people of B.C. that they would not bring in any new taxes. This is clearly a tax. It's a tax; it's a tax; it's a tax. And it's wrong. It's wrong today, it was wrong yesterday, and it will be wrong tomorrow. No matter what the legislation is that this government brings in -- no matter how they define this legislation, no matter what they try and title it -- it's a tax. It's wrong. It's a tax on death; it's a tax on people's estates. It's a tax on the future of British Columbia. It's a tax that working families have got to pay. In fact, hon. Speaker, this government would like you to believe that somehow working families really wouldn't have any connection with it. There are very few people in the province who aren't working today to try and pay for their homes and to try and make sure they have an estate -- an estate that they can take some pride in. The fact of the matter is that this tax takes away from that.

Let me just use the example of Mr. Gavin Griffiths, who was required to pay $15,750 in illegal tax. This government is now going to say: "It wasn't wrong for us to take this illegally. We're going to try and somehow make it legislatively or legally right." That's wrong for Mr. Griffiths and his estate, and it's wrong for the thousands of British Columbians who are going to be affected by this retroactively.

[1720]

[ Page 12219 ]

It costs citizens dollars to prove that they've broken the law. But they take all the power and resources of government and force the citizens to use their own private resources to take the government to court to protect people and to protect their rights. The government loses in court. After they've lost in court, they come to the Legislature and say: "Let's erase that ledger. Let's erase that law. Let's erase those rights." For every British Columbian, they are erasing those rights today. I don't think that's something that should be done lightly.

This is a government that believes in taxing work and in taxing play, and now they've decided that they're going to tax death. They're going to tax everything that moves, and now they've decided they'll tax things that don't move as well. This is a government that cannot be trusted by the people of this province, because this government consistently breaks its word -- consistently and relentlessly.

Remember the promise of no new taxes? That was this government's promise. What are they doing today? They are introducing a new tax retroactively. Remember the promise of taking care of working people? What's happened since 1992 is that working people have watched as their average take-home pay has gone down by $1,000 a year -- $1,000 less in working people's pockets, because of almost $2 billion worth of increases in taxes and fees. That's almost $2 billion in increases -- money that is taken out of their pockets. And now, as it takes money out of those people's pockets, this NDP government takes rights away from people at the same time.

What can the government do? The first thing the government could do is start to understand that as important as the economy is, as important as the jobs are, as important as making sure that the government manages its finances in a sensible way is, the critical cornerstone to building a future in this province is trust -- trust between the public institutions that serve the people and the people who elect them, trust between working families and the government. You can't have trust if the NDP are constantly willing to break their word. You can't have trust if the NDP are forcing citizens to take them to court to protect their citizen's rights, and then they rewrite legislation when they lose. You can't have trust if you retroactively take away people's opportunities to deal fairly, openly and honestly with the public institutions that are meant to serve them -- not to punish them, to serve them.

As we look at Bill 55, the so-called Probate Fee Act, I think it's important for us to remember that even the title itself is misleading. The title itself establishes an environment of mistrust, because this is a tax. It's not a fee; it's a tax. This isn't what it costs to get probate done. This is what the government has decided it's going to take out of people's pockets to throw out into general revenue. That's a tax; to any citizen it's a tax. To someone who's dealing with the problem of executing an estate, it's a tax. For someone who's decided that they're going to leave an estate to their children or to their grandchildren, this is money that's being taken out of those children's and grandchildren's pockets. It's a tax. It's not what it costs to provide the service; it's what the government has decided to charge. It's what the government has decided to charge individual British Columbians and estates of individual British Columbians so that the government can line its coffers. And I believe that's wrong.

[1725]

Retroactive legislation of this sort is wrong. Taking away people's rights retroactively is wrong. Not accepting the consequences of illegal actions is wrong -- three wrongs, at least, right there. Breaking your word to the electorate is wrong, I would say to this government. Promising no new taxes and adding new taxes is wrong. Taxing death, taxing inheritance, is wrong in terms of public policy, I believe. It is saying to the people of this province: "You won't build a future here. We will tax it."

I think we have to recognize that. We do recognize that. No matter how much camouflage the government throws up, the people of B.C. will be reminded once again that this government can't be trusted to keep its word, and they will be reminded once again of why their children -- why their estates -- are leaving this province in record numbers. Last year alone 19,000 people left our province -- this great province. This is just another straw.

I'm going to close with this. The other night I went to a show with my son. It was called Entrapment. I don't recommend it as a movie, but I do suggest that the crime that was being committed in that movie was very similar. The perpetrators said: "You know, if we just take a little bit today and tomorrow and the next day from thousands and thousands of accounts, maybe those accounts won't even notice it. Maybe people won't even notice what we're doing." And by taking all those little bits, by the time they're finished, in the movie they find they've stolen $8 billion. Most of us don't mind if we drop a quarter or a dollar or ten dollars.

That's a wrongheaded strategy. This government should be up front and open with the people of this province. The fact that this is a tax is something that they should admit. They should tell the people of British Columbia that on that side of the House -- on the government side of the House, on the NDP side of the House -- they have decided that death taxes are a way of increasing their revenues. On that side of the House -- on the government side of the House, on the NDP side of the House -- they have decided that taxing people's inheritance is the correct public policy.

We on this side of the House disagree. We disagree with the tax; we disagree with taking away people's rights retroactively. We're tired of a government that thinks it can do anything it wants, and that's why we will vote against this bill.

R. Thorpe: I have the privilege to represent the riding of Okanagan-Penticton. A very large percentage of my community are seniors. They're British Columbians that have worked very, very hard and have been able to save a few

[ Page 12220 ]

[1730]

My colleague from Richmond-Steveston rightly said that this government is reacting to the threat of a very successful class action lawsuit brought on by thousands of British Columbians. All this NDP government wants to do is rewrite history, to wipe the slate clean, so its lawsuits can be thrown out. What is happening in the great province of British Columbia when the NDP government continually gets itself in messes and illegal activities? It is found guilty by courts, and what do they do? It's like a slate board; they get the brush out and want to wipe the chalk off the board. British Columbians are saying they've had enough of this disrespect for the law. Live by the law; honour the law; honour the rights of hard-working British Columbians.

You know, the Probate Fee Act -- or the retroactive debt tax -- clearly states that this government had introduced the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act in 1996. But now this bill just says: "Excuse me, it didn't exist, it never happened, and it's not in effect any longer." Then we go down to section 5. I'm sure we'll get into some of that detail at the committee stage. It shows the heavy-handedness of this socialist government, which has basically taken over $50 million in hard-earned taxpayers' moneys just over the last two years.

Why can't they just stand up in this House. . . ? It'll be interesting if the member for Yale-Lillooet has the courage to stand in this House and justify this tax increase to his constituents, who have worked so hard. We will see where the courage is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. The member's speaking on second reading of this bill.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

There are two things that are certain, although they are very, very unpleasant. They are death, which is very unfortunate, and, under this government, taxation of those who are working very hard -- the highest tax rates in Canada. And now they want to have the highest tax rates on those who unfortunately have passed on.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo would be well advised to carefully review the taxation tables of Canada for every province, since he's always in search of the truth.

But death and taxes are increasing under this government. They are wiping away the inheritance that families have worked so hard for, because they believe that they have the right to take away from those who have worked so very hard. My constituents wanted me to say today that they do not agree with this and that they are opposed to this. Just as this government was found guilty of taking money from charities, it retroactively rewrote the laws in Bill 50. Now it's trying to do the same thing with Bill 55. It is fundamentally wrong. It is a tax; it is not a fee. They should have the courage to stand in this House and tell British Columbians that it's a death tax; it's a wealth tax. Once they have it in, up and up and up it'll go. They will tax and tax and tax until there's no more left. It will be with pleasure that I join my colleagues in voting no on this bill.

[1735]

A. Sanders: I'd like to speak to Bill 55 in second reading, the death tax bill -- the bill to tax the past, present and future. Every senior in the province had better hold on to their wallet. Every widow in the province had better hold on to her purse. Every terminally ill father who is hoping and worrying about the estate that he has and wants to pass on to his young family. . . . Every family that has worked hard all of its life and wants to pass on the family business as part of the estate had better nail down the front door, because the NDP is after that money. The NDP is about to fleece them once again.

Let's look at how we've come to this situation. Marie Sarah Eurig is not a recognizable force in British Columbia. She doesn't hold a high profile. She's not a movie star; she's not a public figure. She's not a business person or part of a large association that we would recognize. She's not a novelist or an Olympic athlete; she's not even a social activist. Yet upon a closer look, this one woman has helped tens of thousands of people in the province of Ontario with the recent Supreme Court ruling on probate fees.

Mrs. Eurig is a native of Ontario. She's the widow and executor of her husband Donald's estate. As executor, she sought probate on his will. That official court document called probate, which certifies that the person's will has been proven and registered and that the administration of the estate has been transferred to the executors, was in place. In other words, the will was legitimate and the wishes of the will were being followed. In the Eurig case, to find out that information, Mrs. Eurig was presented with a bill for $5,710 in probate fees.

She took the government of Ontario to court, and she won. The ruling ordered that the entire fee be refunded, and it was. The court indicated that the fee is actually a tax. Members on this side of the House have spoken to that very clearly in the last hour or so. It also ruled that the province had no right to collect it. The court added that the taxes must be approved and passed by legislatures and that the amount must have some relation to the amount of service that was actually offered.

In the case of probate, it doesn't matter what the size of the estate is: it still takes the same amount of time to probate the will, whether it's one hour or half an hour. You can process an estate of $50,000 in about the same time as you can process one of $900,000. Traditionally in Canada, varying from

[ Page 12221 ]

[1740]

Basically, this government is using probate not as a fee, but as a tax. It is very much a tax grab. There is no question about that. The honourable thing would be to return that money -- return it to the family members of those who are deceased. It was anticipated, expected and worried about over the last number of months before the Legislature reconvened that the Finance minister would add a retroactive clause to this legislation rather than provide funds to those who had paid the high probate fees under protest.

Sure enough, we come into the House for this part of the session and there is a retroactive clause. It probably has a lot to do with Alfreda Howard and Janet Majnarich. These are two individuals who launched the class action suit on behalf of many British Columbians against the government, for having probate fees that had no relationship whatsoever to the service. In Ms. Howard's case, she paid $3,304 on a $260,000 estate. Just think, hon. Speaker: what if you were a middle-aged gentleman who was terminally ill and $260,000 was your entire estate to support three kids and a wife? The government comes in and takes $3,000 out of that before the family has even had the opportunity to see how they're going to make ends meet. Look at Mrs. Majnarich. She had an estate of close to $1 million, which quite frankly, with the cost of housing in Vancouver, is not something that would be very hard to do. She paid $14,008 on her estate -- $14,008 which the government has taken just to probate her will. It took the same amount of time as any other will.

So what has happened is that prior to the class action suit being heard in court, the government has decided to come in and make a retroactive clause. This type of action, as many of the actions before -- with Bill 50 and any number of other smaller circumstances -- again shows a government that really has absolutely no respect for the average British Columbian and certainly no respect for people at a time which may be the hardest time in their life, when a member of their family has died and there is a will to probate.

I've seen a lot of death in my time. I've seen a lot of families and how they cope with that. They all cope in different ways, but the one thing that they all have in common is fear and uncertainty. They don't question what's going on. They want to get through it; they want to survive; they want to have this period over. They often do not question expenses. They are a very vulnerable group of people, regardless of whether you're talking about providing funeral services or taking money away from them to probate their wills. This is a group of people that should never have this kind of legislation brought about for them.

[1745]

Hon. Speaker, I think I speak for a lot of the elderly folk in my community. A lot of them have come up to me prior to this session, when they had heard the rumblings about the probate fee increases and perhaps retroactivity. They've come and said: "Please make sure you speak against that bill. That's going to affect my business I'm passing on to my son. That's going to affect the estate for my young family when I die. That is going to affect my wife or my husband and their ability to carry on after I'm gone." It makes a big difference to people. Fourteen thousand dollars is a lot of money, and $3,000 is a lot of money to a family that's going to exist on an estate of $260,000 in the 1990s.

I speak strongly against this bill in second reading, and I encourage members on the other side of the House not to pass it.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to rise and join my colleagues in opposing Bill 55. Clearly Bill 55 will be of concern to all British Columbians. One of the challenges that all British Columbians face in life is the death of family members, friends and colleagues. The bill before us today is clearly going to have a significant and substantial impact on us as we settle the estates of loved ones.

My constituents in Shuswap are very much opposed to this bill, and they've let me know in very clear terms that they are opposed. Over the past year I have received a variety of very thoughtful comments from my constituents with respect to the probate fee issue. In a moment I propose to share some of those thoughts, because I think their words carry a lot more power than what I can project in this House. I hope members of the government will give serious consideration to the words of my constituents.

Frankly, my constituents are sick and tired of new fees. They're sick and tired of new taxes. And they're sick and tired of new taxes that are disguised as fees. Certainly that's what we have in this case here. As my friend and colleague from Richmond-Steveston noted, there was -- at least when I grew up -- supposedly just the two certainties in life: death and taxes. Now with Bill 55, we add a third: death taxes. I think that is most unfortunate.

I just want to touch briefly on a few of the key points in the bill. Others have done this in a much more comprehensive fashion, but I do want to note just a few features of the bill. Section 4 says that this act applies and has effect despite the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act. It's a most unfortunate element in this bill, I think, and it puts paid to the claim of no new taxes, which was once put forward by this NDP government. Section 5(2) reads: "Without limiting subsection (1), a

[ Page 12222 ]

Here we have, I think, one of the most objectionable features of this bill, and that is the retroactivity and immunity elements of this Bill 55. As others have noted, we saw this occur with Bill 50 earlier in this session, and this continues the recent regrettable pattern of this government of rewriting history -- of rewriting laws retroactively, where they do not suit the interest of the government. I think it's most unfortunate and most disagreeable.

[1750]

In the few moments I have left, I want to briefly read excerpts from letters from my constituents. The first:

"According to what I have read, the B.C. government, by order-in-council and by the stroke of the Premier's pen, have tripled probate fees. These fees were not approved by the Legislature, as all taxes must be. In Ontario, a precedent was set when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ontario's probate fees are illegal taxes. This ruling also applies to probate fees in other provinces that have not been enacted by the Legislature. My husband died. . .on July 1, 1997, and on March 30, 1998, I paid $6,426 in probate fees. Under the Eurig decision, I am entitled to repayment of my fees."

And another one, from a constituent in Blind Bay:

"The present provincial government is changing rules and laws without the general public being made aware of these moves until they are 'written in stone,' if I can use that term. People of all walks of life are affected by these moves, and openness of government is a thing of the past. How can the person on the street cope with all these changes, as they will in time affect a great number of citizens in this province? My basic question is: how can the people that will be affected by this new legislation prepare themselves to lessen the blow when the time comes?"

"As executor of the above estate, I am writing this letter to protest the excessive amount of probate fees paid to you on September 4, 1997. This protest letter is a result of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that says the fees that a government charges must have a relation to the service performed and that if they don't, the fees are to be considered a tax. In order to be legal, the fee (tax) must be debated in the Legislature and not just set by the cabinet, as was the fee charged in this case.

"As you are well aware, the fees paid regarding this file -- $9,380 -- were calculated based on a whopping increase -- more than double -- set by the current provincial government. These fees have no relation to the service performed, are considered a tax by the Supreme Court of Canada, were not debated in the Legislature and therefore are illegal."

[1755]

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I recognize the Minister of Labour for, it looks like, closing comments.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is indeed, Madam Speaker -- and my apologies to the member opposite for the misunderstanding.

I appreciated listening to the members opposite -- to their comments and obvious concerns about this legislation. I look forward to committee stage, where we will have that debate.

With that, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 55 approved on the following division:

[1800]

[ Page 12223 ]

Bill 55, Probate Fee Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

Hon. C. McGregor: It is my pleasure to open up the first set of estimates. It's a little change in the order for us, hon. member.

M. Coell: It's a nice change.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's a nice change as well, that we're first up -- not just early up but first up -- to have the opportunity to go through estimates for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

This is the last budget for my ministry for this century, and I think it's important that we reflect on the significance of that from our perspective and particularly from the perspective of the environmental agenda of our government. There is no doubt that we've already begun to hear and will continue to hear a lot of references to the millennium in the coming months. I think it's important that we note that we're talking about the new century from an environmental perspective with a lot less rhetoric and a lot more commitment. I think the environmental agenda and programs have been delivered on in a long-term way and continue to need to have decisive action as we move forward. We need to plan; we need to understand the past; we need to understand current urgencies. But most importantly, I believe, we have to make a commitment to the future.

When we are working in this ministry, we're dealing with more than just people. We're dealing with living systems like forests and fisheries that have been developing since the time of the ice age. We're also facing, in that context, some incredibly serious challenges, like climate change and ozone depletion. Frankly, the implications of us ignoring these issues are really catastrophic. We are going to need to address issues like the plight of endangered and threatened species, because extinction is forever. Most importantly, and closest to home, environmental issues and decisions are crucial to the health of British Columbians in terms of the quality of the air they breath and the water they drink.

Since our election in the early 1990s, our government has, in short, embarked on a series of strategies to deal with environmental challenges facing British Columbia. On some issues, government sets goals for the year 2000. Hence my early remarks about the importance of the upcoming millennium. We have been working with many partners towards these goals as benchmarks of making progress on a progressive environmental agenda. On all issues there has been and continues to be a very broad level of consultation on the direction that the government should take.

One of our greatest achievements has been our commitment to set out to protect 12 percent of the province by doubling the areas protected through parks and protected wildernesses. In the past year, in fact, we've added more than 55 new protected areas, more than half a million hectares. We are very close to our 12 percent goal. In fact, we've now protected slightly more than 11 percent. We've done this through what I consider to be one of the best processes that exists on an international level, and that's the land use planning process that has been set in place. This involves not only stakeholders such as my ministry but, importantly, the community in which these land use plans are taking place. The stakeholders there are represented, and they are sharing in the decisions and ending the conflict over land use debates in communities.

We've also consulted with British Columbians on the future of our provincial park system, because it's not enough just to protect it; we have to look forward as to how to best manage it. That process was dealt with through an independent review, through the B.C.'s Parks Legacy panel. I'm sure that the member will want to canvass that report at some length and make significant recommendations for us to consider as to how we can move forward beyond the year 2000 in appropriately managing our provincial park resources.

[1445]

I also announced last week the need to invest $2 million in a multi-year reconstruction program to help replace some of the aging infrastructure in our facilities in the parks. That work will begin in the next couple of weeks. We also took a major step forward in the implementation of the Northern Rockies protected area. Through legislation, we established the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund and a multi-stakeholder advisory board. Just recently the board committed $900,000 for funding UNBC to develop a world-class research program directed specifically at initiatives for wildlife and integrated management in that region.

[ Page 12224 ]

Some of you may be aware that on April 30 we announced a new division within my ministry to coordinate wildlife and habitat programs together with our critically important enforcement programs. What else have we done in the area of protecting habitat and wildlife diversity? We recently released, in cooperation with the Ministry of Forests, the new identified-wildlife management strategy, and we also released the landscape planning guide in very short order after that. These strategies have major economic benefit for communities, but I think the other side of that issue is to really understand that this is a part of our international commitment to customers of wood products around the world. In British Columbia we can no longer simply cut and export; we have to be concerned with our reputation as sustainable managers of an important resource. Internationally, British Columbia ecosystems are recognized as some of the most endangered in the world, so we have an obligation -- and industry is working with us on that. . . . That's why the identified-wildlife strategy and the landscape unit planning exercises we're beginning are steps in the right direction.

We are not just working, of course, in the forest landscape. We're working, and continue to work, on urban habitat because many British Columbians live in highly urbanized settings, where wildlife and fish can be greatly threatened. In December, I joined with the federal minister, Christine Stewart, to announce the Georgia basin ecosystem initiative, which is a joint federal-provincial commitment to working on sustainability in the most populated region of the province. I think the important point to note in that regard is that it is focused on actions. It's not about creating documents or talking about how we need to change the way we're managing our behaviour in urban areas; it's about actions we can directly take in order to protect very endangered ecosystems.

In 1998-99 we also dealt with a number of consultations on the new Fish Protection Act. Some of those initiatives will be implemented in the upcoming year. Particularly, they will have implications in those urban environments. We will be working very closely not only with local governments but with the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the federal level to make sure that our fish protection efforts are working together to achieve the results that we all hope will happen.

[1450]

We're also the first government in Canada to take a multistakeholder approach to dealing with the issue of greenhouse gas reduction. We're working with business, labour, environmental and public interest groups, and local government. We're also working in partnership on some other important initiatives. We've made some pretty dramatic progress on waste reduction and household hazardous waste reduction.

I was reminded, in the developing of these remarks, that ten years ago the only program that dealt with special waste was operated by the ministry. It actually served no more than one-half of 1 percent of B.C. households. We've replaced that with an industry-operated collection system that now collects used oil, pharmaceuticals, paint, gasoline and solvents. These stewardship programs now capture 90 percent of B.C.'s hazardous waste. We also set, in the year 2000, an important goal of reducing municipal solid weight by 50 percent per capita. With initiatives like the industry stewardship model, we're now close to achieving it.

As well, the expansion of the deposit and refund system for beverage containers, which came into force last October, is an important part of that initiative and will actually save municipal governments nearly $7 million in landfill costs. We're diverting an additional 166 million containers from landfills as a result of this initiative.

We're also moving ahead on water quality and water stewardship, and across the province we're seeing an ever-increasing community-based concern on issues related to the health and sustainability of watersheds. I can think of communities close to my own home. In fact, in Kamloops itself we've engaged in a very significant debate at a community level: what are we going to do about our water quality?

We need to focus, I think, on greater public awareness and stronger partnerships, because the recognition of who is the steward of clean water is important for us to address. This is not just the role of provincial government, but it is the role of communities, of industry and of all the users and individuals whose lives affect our water quality and our water systems.

The auditor general also made a report on water quality recently. He identified many of these same concerns. We will be developing a drinking-water strategy jointly with my ministry and the Ministry of Health, as well as with other ministries that have impacts on the land base. The audit that the auditor general released identified land use decisions in particular -- such as resource activity in watersheds -- as having significant impacts on water quality. We need to review those recommendations very carefully to see what actions are necessary for us to take steps to end those impacts or reduce them.

One of the strategies we've been working on, which was recently released in March, is the non-point source pollution action plan. When we say non-point source, it's not a very interesting title for what we're trying to describe. In fact, we're trying to describe all the pollutants that can enter water systems outside of regulated discharges -- either through sewage or industrial pollution. Many of these sources come from individuals who don't recognize or may not understand that it's having a significant impact -- or could have a significant impact -- on their water systems. We are using this strategy as a tool through which we can work with communities on how to take actions to change that behaviour.

We individually can do much -- everything from stopping overwatering our lawns and wasting water to thinking carefully about the application of certain herbicides, fertilizers

[ Page 12225 ]

[1455]

One example of a strategy we've used to date where we have made some fairly significant improvement, I think, is the management of Crown land tenures. That was achieved through the transfer of that responsibility to the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. This change has provided more resources, and we've been able to process more quickly new renewals and tenures. We've dealt with a backlog of applications at the same time, providing better service to our clients.

We want to make it easier to do business in British Columbia and for sustainable industries to create jobs, while recognizing at the same time the need for a consistently high standard of environmental protection. A consistently high standard of environmental protection is something that British Columbians demand of us, and it's something our government has delivered on. That's in fact been part of our recent budget speech, where the Finance minister made reference to how we are going to work to implement the green economy initiative. That initiative is going to target specific activities to encourage businesses that benefit the environment.

The environmental industry sector is one of the fastest-growing sectors of business in our province. It generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and it's growing exponentially. Our province has really become a world leader not only on the environmental technology side but in the ecotourism industry, which really supports economic diversification in communities, especially those that are challenged by being resource-dependent.

It's important to recognize that while we want to encourage new businesses, we want to encourage them in an environmentally sustainable way. That means showing respect and appropriate management for the resource that gives that sector its ability to do business. This has been acknowledged in the workshops that I've been a part of in economic summits that have been held throughout the province: the need for ecotourism operators to respect the resource, to manage the resource and to acknowledge that we wouldn't be able to have these businesses if we degrade the environment in any way.

We know the public supports these directions. They continue to be concerned, more than any other Canadians, about the need to take leadership on environmental issues. They support our efforts to ensure better and broader stewardship and to maintain this province's record of environmental leadership.

What I've been talking about here this afternoon reflects some of the highlights of our ministry's new three-year business plan. I did bring quite a few copies that I'll be able to give to you, so hopefully, you'll be able to share them with other members of the opposition. This is a new initiative on our part. It's just been completed, and we want you to use it as a tool through which you can examine the kinds of programs we're offering in the ministry over three business years: 1999, 2000 and 2001.

It begins by articulating our ministry's vision, which is as follows: "An environment that is naturally diverse and healthy and enriches peoples lives." The plan then outlines our four long-term goals. These goals are as follows: natural diversity; healthy and safe land, water and air; sustainable social, economic and recreational benefits; and fourth -- and this is a new goal that's been developed in the last year -- a responsive and adaptive organization.

[1500]

I think it's important for me at this time to acknowledge that there are, and will continue to be, budget pressures on this ministry. It's a time when British Columbians know we are making some difficult choices. They put their priorities on health care and education, and rightly so. That means that ministries across government have to make adjustments in spending. That is difficult for all of us. As we go through these estimates, I hope we'll have an opportunity to talk about the ways we'll be continuing to maintain these priorities -- doing our business, in fact, in a different way and finding ways to reduce spending in areas which do not directly affect the kind of programming and services we want to offer to the public related to environmental protection.

Finally, I would like to express my confidence in my ministry's staff and executive as we move forward into the next century. This is probably the most dedicated group of employees you could ever hope to find in government. There is a reason why many of them work in this ministry. I was recently at the long-service awards, where more than 75 Ministry of Environment employees were acknowledged for 25 or more years of service. That has been going on for the last couple of years. Why is that? Why do people make that choice for public service? Well, they make it because they are committed to the work we do in this government for environmental protection. They deserve to be acknowledged for the work and the services that they offer to British Columbians every day in countless ways -- both during their workday and in hours beyond their workday -- because they care about our province and its natural environment.

With that, hon. Chair, I'd like to first introduce my deputy minister, Cassie Doyle, who's here to provide assistance today -- as well as Greg Koyl, ADM of corporate services; Jon O'Riordan, ADM of Environment and Lands regions; Denis O'Gorman, ADM of Parks; Don Fast, ADM of Environment

[ Page 12226 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for her introduction and comments. I think this is our third year, if I am correct, of having the opportunity to share the estimates process -- the minister and myself. I appreciate your staff being here as well.

I wonder if I could start by talking about the estimates process as it relates to the ministry and share some of the frustrations I've had over the last three years that I've been here and in dealing with all estimates. It appears. . . . I should start by saying that I share the minister's positive feelings about going first in the lineup of estimates, rather than last, in the heat of summer. I think that there is obviously something that happens to this place in about the middle of July that isn't all that healthy for the estimates process. So I look forward to the next few days of discussions on the ministry's estimates.

One of the things that I've found -- not just with this ministry, but with others -- is that you end up having the estimates debate for ten or 15 or 20 hours, or sometimes longer. Then after the debate, government, for its own reasons. . . . The estimates change. I think that that probably happens in every ministry from time to time. That may be a reflection of the economy of the province as well. That's a bit frustrating -- the way that the process is set up in British Columbia. If we have the estimates debate now, and changes come between now and September or the end of the year, through financial changes or whatever, it really puts a damper on what happens during estimates. I have a few examples that I wish to share with the minister and get some comments on later.

[1505]

To me, it is also an opportunity -- and one of the few that opposition MLAs have -- for holding the government accountable for promises that they've made and programs that are there and how those programs are running. I appreciate that opportunity; I think that's an important part of the legislative process.

So with those three things in mind -- the fact that estimates can and do change after the debate, the process of the individual being able to bring questions forward, and the opposition to question government on the estimates and on the running of the ministry -- I had shared with the minister that I wanted to deal briefly today with general topics with regard to the estimates and the estimates process and then move into Crown lands. I know that the minister spoke about Crown lands and the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. I want to deal with a number of specific issues but also to find out what the change has been since the last time we spoke and how the ministry will deal with the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation as policy changes come forward, then to move into a number of issues I mentioned -- Roberts Bank lands, Burns Bog, commercial recreation policy and land transfers in a couple of instances -- and then to move into provincial parks.

Whether we'll get that far today or not, we'll see; but, hopefully, that would be agreeable to the minister and her staff. Maybe I'll just check and make sure that is agreeable.

Hon. C. McGregor: Certainly, that's fine.

M. Coell: If I can use an example from last year's estimates, we had looked at. . . . In 1998-99 it showed the Environment, Lands and Parks regional operations at $41.308 million in the blue book for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999. The estimates for '99-2000 show the Environment, Lands and Parks regional operations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, at $35.945 million. Now, that's in the blue book for the year ending March 31, 2000. That's a change, and that's an example of a change that took place, I suspect, after the estimates debate last year. I just wonder if the minister could outline what that change encompassed, possibly looking at the staffing changes as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The reason for that would be the removal of all of what are now considered to be BCAL staff out of this ministry and under a separate budget item for BCAL.

[1510]

Hon. C. McGregor: We have to remember -- I think it's important -- that BCAL is a Crown agency. We signed a delegation agreement between this ministry and BCAL which outlines the responsibilities and functions. It is a transfer, member; it isn't a cut. Those staff that were operating in regions under what was the Lands branch have been transferred to BCAL.

M. Coell: Have those people actually left those offices, or are they still in the offices? That's the role that I'm trying to ascertain. I could see it if they were in the Victoria office and changing to a new ministry. But if they are in the regions, where have they gone?

Hon. C. McGregor: Most of them have not left the regional offices. We had Environment and Lands together in regional offices. They have remained there, and they operate out of the same location as they did.

However, there are two regions where there has been a crunch for space. I believe it's in Williams Lake and Kamloops where the BCAL staff have moved to another building. The staff has expanded since BCAL was created, and there was a limitation on available space. In all the other operations, they've remained within those regional offices.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could expand on that just a bit. When BCAL was created, I think there was an

[ Page 12227 ]

In my own mind, I am trying to picture an office someplace in the regions where you had 20 or 30 people. Some have been transferred over; they're now working for someone else but still working in the same office. I guess what I am looking at is: how is the reporting working with two ministries involved -- one of which the Minister of Finance has control of -- but with people still working in the same office?

Hon. C. McGregor: We can get you an organizational chart, if you'd like, to show how BCAL is structured. This is going to be a difficult discussion for us to have, because I don't have responsibility for BCAL. I do have responsibility for Crown land policy. I do have a little bit of a grid that was designed to try and outline where those responsibilities lie, so I can try to answer your questions as best as possible.

I'm going to suggest to the member -- and am certainly open for his discussion -- that we try and make sure that questions related to BCAL itself are asked in the estimates of the hon. Minister of Finance as opposed to here. I certainly understand that there is some overlap, and I'm prepared to provide an overview and to give general answers related to BCAL's operation. But I'm not certain that I can answer the specifics.

In terms of what the member has asked: can you have a line reporting relationship and continue to work in the same office. . . ? I would say the answer to that is yes. We did try, when we talked about creating BCAL, not to add to government bureaucracy but to take existing staff and do our work in a different way -- not to add new lines of command, if you wish to describe it as that. But it's really to give them a new mandate under which they could do, in a more timely way, some of the referrals and approvals that were necessary for Crown land management. That's a pretty general answer. I'm not sure that it answers what you asked, and perhaps you can repeat it if I didn't.

M. Coell: No, that's fine. What I'm looking for is just some clarification on the effect of the changes on the Ministry of Environment.

One of the problems I have, when I look back over the last five years of estimates, is that there are so many changes within the ministry: changes of office buildings all over the province and changes from this ministry to Fisheries and this ministry to BCAL.

[1515]

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm going to offer to the member, if he is interested, a copy of this delegation agreement that's been developed by BCAL. It talks about the principles under which staff operate and provides information about authority, decision-making and so on.

If it would help, I would canvass for a moment or two the responsibilities of BCAL versus responsibilities in MELP. Under MELP we establish Crown land policies, except for pricing; pricing is done by BCAL. We manage land acquisition, particularly related to Vancouver Island goal 2 commitments, as well as other protected areas that have been identified. So we continue to manage land acquisition related to protected areas.

Environmental stewardship input into planning. When I say that, what I'm talking about is all of the other functions across government that relate to land and impacts on land. We still take that sort of stewardship role. We work with other agencies like the Ministry of Energy and Mines, the Ministry of Forests and so on, and we give input into the planning process. We sit at planning tables representing environmental interests and land interests. So all of those functions remain within our ministry.

We also do first nations consultation when it's related to acquisition or exchange for protected areas. It goes without saying, then, that first nations consultation in respect of tenures and sales is handled by BCAL.

The application of Crown land policies concerning tenure, land use and trespass is now managed by BCAL. That's anything related to tenure and sale -- so tenures, marketing and sale of Crown land as well. Planning is on this list -- planning as it relates to creating new tenures, marketing or the sale of Crown land; so planning that's specific to those functions and, as I indicated before, first nations consultation relating to tenure and sales and the administration of the Crown land account and the issuance of free Crown grants. So that's a list of the responsibilities.

M. Coell: With the $5.3 million transfer, about how many staff in total were transferred to BCAL?

Hon. C. McGregor: About 90.

M. Coell: Were there any other cuts to the estimates that weren't transfers, after the estimates process took place?

[1520]

Largely, we took those reductions in administration. We tried to take about 30 percent of those reductions in administration. There were some travel restrictions placed on staff. In fact, we still have travel restrictions for out-of-province travel in particular, and that all now has to be approved through my office. There were some vacancies that were left unfilled in order to meet those commitments across regions.

M. Coell: With that in mind, are there plans at present for cuts to these estimates?

[ Page 12228 ]

M. Coell: I would be interested in talking a little further about potential cuts. I realize -- and I think the minister is correct in saying -- that targets for all ministry staff are quite well known to employees at this point. I know that there have been a number of articles in the paper on potential reductions in the north as well as some on the mainland. I would be interested in knowing to what extent the ministry is dealing with those targets that have been given to the ministries, and what time frames we're looking at.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's fair to say that it could be some months before all of the issues are finalized. This is because we want to treat our employees very respectfully and because we have agreements with them to make sure that people are given an opportunity to move into different positions that they're qualified for if their position is eliminated. There are, however, some tools that we have that can ease the pressure, and that's through vacancies. There are a number of vacancies within the ministry, and that's going to help us a great deal in being able to achieve reduction targets.

In terms of a general sense of how we're making this approach, I've given my commitment to staff in the regional offices that we have done our very best to reduce services at headquarters before we reduce services in regions -- that we reduce services at the management and administration levels before we reduce services in the field.

We're also doing our work in a different way, and I think I made mention of that in my remarks. When we get a chance to go through some of the program functions within the ministry, I think it's fair to say that we have made some significant gains in the way we handle certain types of business, so we give our staff more opportunity to be available and freed up to do important fieldwork -- ongoing enforcement activity, and so on. As I said, this won't be a process that'll be finished immediately. We are taking the time to make sure that we can appropriately place employees in other jobs if they are displaced through positions that are identified in this ministry for reduction.

[1525]

Hon. C. McGregor: The member would note that when budgets take effect. . . . It's not that long ago -- April 1. It hasn't been. . .

A Voice: It seems that long.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yeah.

. . .that long that we've had the final budget numbers, so we've been working very carefully. In fact, we've worked with Mike Eso from BCGEU within our own ministry to help us work through the number of positions that we may need to eliminate. We've come up with a number of about 150. But again, with the cooperation of the union, we may well be able to reduce that number.

M. Coell: Are these positions that would be eliminated in this calendar year? I guess what I'm looking at is: is there a target to have a reduction in this calendar year? I realize the minister may not be able to tell me what the reduction is, because I suspect that. . . . If she can, that's fine too. Is the target expected to be for this year's budget?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it is.

M. Coell: The minister stated that 90 people went to BCAL last year, and there could be upwards of 150 positions removed from the ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: The 90 can't be characterized as a loss; that's a transfer. But yes, about 150 positions.

M. Coell: Can the minister tell me at this point how many will be in regional offices?

Hon. C. McGregor: We really haven't finalized those numbers yet. I've given the member assurances -- and it's my goal -- to have those reductions reduced at the regional level and increased at the headquarters level. That's our target. As you can appreciate, it is very difficult for me to identify positions, because we have not yet spoken to employees. My first obligation has to be to make sure that employees know before there is any public pronouncement about whether they are going to need to find a new job within government. I'm trying to be really sensitive to that need to treat the employees fairly but still answer the member's questions.

M. Coell: I understand that. I suspect the minister has seen the Government Employees Union's survey of employees of the Environment ministry. I was given a copy and read through it. From my reading of it, the survey was to justify the number of people and the quality of work that is, and has been, going on in the ministry. Some of the questions are going back five years as to what's happened to the quality of their jobs and also to the workload. Is the ministry going to take the results of this survey into consideration?

[1530]

[ Page 12229 ]

We want to work with the employees to make sure that we're not increasing workloads at the same time as we're making reductions. That's been an important part of our consideration. We have to do our work differently in some ways, and that's moving away from constantly permitting -- taking that permitting-based approach to how we do a lot of our regulatory work in particular and moving more toward measurable standards that we can use -- and putting in place a regulatory standard and requiring achievement of those goals through a variety of processes or structures or technology. We can spend more time working with the client -- or the customer, as you would have it -- on the question of pollution prevention and reduction and so on, as opposed to spending our time working in an office on developing and processing a permit.

In part, the answer is that we have to do our work in a different way. We acknowledge that, and in fact, we've been talking about an adaptive service delivery model. We've been doing a lot of work with staff within the ministry on how we can target areas where we can make changes to the way we do our work, so we can reduce the workload for staff and we can focus our actions in areas of priority, including environmental protection initiatives, wildlife management and other areas.

M. Coell: I probably should know this, but how many staff do we have working with the ministry at present? What I'm looking for is: what percentage of that total will a loss of 150 positions be?

Hon. C. McGregor: We have fairly close to 2,100 employees. Greg Koyl, who's the finance expert, tells me that's about a 4 percent reduction in staff.

M. Coell: Actually, I'm lucky that I have my accountant sitting next to me as well, and I think you're correct. With that as a target -- I hate to use the word -- is that the final number? Or is that just for this quarter, and the Finance minister will be coming back to you at the end of the first quarter with another number? Maybe you can tell me how that has worked in the past rather than the future, because we're probably not wanting to guess what'll happen between now and the end of June.

[1535]

Our approach in the past has been to always reduce all of our discretionary spending first. So that's always our first line of reduction. Then, if we have vacancies, that can also be a tool through which we can achieve reductions. I want to be clear in terms of the number of positions that we will be reducing in the ministry. We are still hoping to reduce the number to less than 150, and we're going to be working very hard with the union on trying to achieve that.

M. Coell: I have some sympathy for what the minister is saying, because I've heard her say that we have to reduce our discretionary spending first. I think you've probably got there. I don't think in the three years I've been here, you've been reducing the expenditures there. So I understand what you're saying.

I was quite impressed with the questions on the BCGEU survey. They were surveying staff, I suspect -- probably just staff, I would think. It struck me that it would be a good thing for ministries to do that sort of survey. I just wonder whether the ministry has, in the past, done any surveys like that. I would think that the feedback would be quite good for developing policy towards employees.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, I am told that our parks branch has just recently done an employee survey. They've done it from time to time, and we're also using a tool called ASD, or alternative service delivery, through which we can get feedback from employees about how we can do our work differently.

Just on an impromptu level, too, when I go out to regions, I try to make a point of talking to staff in a face-to-face kind of way. In this job you don't get as much opportunity as you might hope -- or certainly as much as I'd hoped -- to have those kind of face-to-face conversations with staff about how things work on the ground. Quite often they seem to work differently on the ground than they appear to when you're being told about them in your office. So I like to do that as well.

I think we should commend our Government Employees Union on the work they have done with their own members, because it has assisted us in listening to their views and making sure that they're listened to and heard through this difficult process.

M. Coell: We'll leave this issue. It would appear to me that there could be a cut of upwards of. . . . If 90 employees left to BCAL and it was around $5.3 million, then 150 employees would be somewhere around an $8 million cut somewhere in the estimates that may happen after our discussions are over. I suspect that they will, unless we're still talking in July. But there's not much chance of that, I would think. So I draw that as an example of the frustration that probably all opposition parties have with the estimates process. Similar to last year, there are changes in the estimates that happen partway through the year. I offer that not as a suggestion but as a comment or observation on the estimates process itself. I will be watching anxiously to see how this directive for reduction plays itself out within the ministry.

Another area is. . . . Just looking at "Corporate Services," you've got recoveries down last year at $989 million, and this year you're at $15.043 million. I just have a question as to where that change comes from. What would make up that change? It's on page 115.

[1540]

But I would like to go back to a previous point you made, if I could, for just a moment. It's about the difficulty that opposition members have in getting information that occurs post-estimates. I am appreciative of that concern, and I'd make the commitment that in September we could have a

[ Page 12230 ]

M. Coell: I appreciate that, and I'll take the minister up on her offer.

With the change there, the ministry is still paying the salaries. . . . I'm not sure I understand how that would work. If you're paying the salaries, and then is the Minister of Finance writing you a cheque for those salaries?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is correct.

M. Coell: That's understandable. Has their the transfer of $5.3 million. . . ? They must have had an increase in staff. Or is that something that I should save for the Minister of Finance -- which I look forward to -- on top of last year's $989 million?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that any staffing questions related to BCAL would probably be better directed to the Minister of Finance, if the member doesn't mind.

M. Coell: Just an observation that it would appear that if the total increase -- and maybe that would be a good question for me. . . . Is the total change from 1998-99 to 1999-2000 totally BCAL, or is there another change in there that is reflected in this ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: That is the biggest part of the change. I'm told that there are a couple of minor items, including occupancy savings and amortization adjustment. I am assured by my financial advisor here that these are matters that can be fully canvassed in the briefing tomorrow morning. Then if you have remaining questions, we could take them up here again tomorrow.

M. Coell: I think I will leave that until tomorrow, because it would seem like they got about an 80 percent increase in their salaries or positions, if I just look at it. I'll wait until I meet with your staff tomorrow,

Going along to "BC Parks" and "Environment Youth Team," there is a one-off increase, I guess, of approximately $7 million to the environment youth team and an operating cost over and above for B.C. Parks of approximately the same -- $7 million. I just wonder whether it's the province putting $7 million into Youth Works, and then Youth Works is going to do the work in the B.C. parks.

[1545]

M. Coell: Under "BC Parks," the operating costs of $14 million go to almost $22 million. What percentage of that is youth team salaries, and what is the dollar figure for capital out of that? Is that clear?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

M. Coell: Okay, I'll try again. You've got from $14 million to $22 million in there -- an increase in the operating cost. I'm just wondering how much of that is the B.C. youth team?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm afraid I've made an error. In terms of the operating costs going from $14.6 million to $21.932 million -- that is for the Campgrounds B.C. initiative, not for environment youth teams. Environment youth teams will be under operating costs on that same page -- okay?

M. Coell: I think I probably haven't made myself clear. What I was wondering is: is the campground initiative. . . ? Are the people who are going to work on that the environmental youth teams, who have an increase of. . . ? We've got $6 million in their salaries and benefits.

Hon. C. McGregor: The amount dedicated to E-teams hasn't changed. It's just that it's all coming from this ministry now, versus some of it coming from FRBC. So that is largely constant, although we are trying to target a small amount of growth in the total number of E-team positions with that budget. Within the E-team budget there are what we call express work crews that will work on building some parts of the Campgrounds B.C. initiative; $2.5 million worth of E-team program dollars will be directed towards that initiative.

M. Coell: So I would be safe in assuming, then, that the real operating costs for B.C. Parks will probably have another $2 million put into it, because it's actually using the environmental youth teams.

Hon. C. McGregor: If you look at the total vote for the Campgrounds B.C. initiative and the E-teams, it would be a total of $11 million towards that. . . . The $2.5 million is from the E-teams, so it's $11 million in total towards that initiative.

M. Coell: I'll try and rephrase it. What I'm looking for -- and I would be pleased to see it; I'm not looking for something bad here -- is that if you're going to be hiring environmental youth teams, you might as well put them to work in B.C. parks. You have a major campground initiative that has an influx of money this year, as well, of $7 million. And you have an increase for environmental youth teams of $6 million. The minister has said that at least $2 million worth of employment from the B.C. environmental youth teams will be going into the parks initiative. Is that correct?

[1550]

M. Coell: Okay. Just a thought -- and I know that balancing employment is difficult. . . . You've got a potential cut in staff of 150 permanent employees, and I suspect that you will be able to employ youth teams. But in a respect, this isn't ongoing funding. This is a one-off, one-year project for campground creation. I would be interested in hearing the minister's thoughts, anyway, on the idea of doing the cuts to permanent employees and the job creation for summer employment. There seems to be about the same amount of money in both of those. If it is a directive in the budget, then it's a directive to the minister. I realize that, but it seems interesting that there is approximately the same amount of money potentially coming

[ Page 12231 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I take what the member is saying, but we had E-team and youth employment opportunities well before we made decisions to reduce some staff within this ministry. I think we have to acknowledge that there are specific goals and philosophies that we on this side of the House believe in, relating to youth employment initiatives. The E-team is unique in lots of ways from that perspective, because we deliberately target youth who have -- for whatever reason -- dropped out of school or out of training and who are currently unemployed. We are deliberately designing a program that gives them some skills to go back into the workforce.

We've had some tremendous successes. These are largely short-term jobs -- that is true -- but a training component is very much built into each of these jobs so that these young people can get skills and go on to gainful employment. We've had just a tremendous success rate with some of our regular employers who apply through this program to have a youth employed in their operations. In some cases, we've had re-employment statistics of something like 80 to 85 percent, because they've done such a good job of giving young people some real hope in terms of developing new skills and some strategies to go forward and say: "I've learned how to do this; this is the job experience I've had. I'm ready to work for you."

There a very specific group of young people that are clearly targeted for support through environmental youth teams. I think it's a value that we should all promote -- taking people who are currently not employable or are unemployed and giving them some skills so that they can be successful parts of our society and really feel that they're successful too. It's the goal of every person I've ever met who's not working to really be working, so we should provide that support.

It's never been our philosophy -- and it continues to not be our philosophy -- to replace permanent employees with part-time youth jobs. These are totally different matters, and I don't want the member to believe that we're doing that. It's simply not the case. We've targeted a very different social policy question with E-teams.

[1555]

The B.C. youth teams have been going for three years, and British Columbia has always had student summer employment programs. As a youngster, I think I was probably employed by one.

I just wonder: are they part of the government union? Or are they, because they are summer jobs, just employed for six-month auxiliary contracts?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

M. Coell: The minister, I think, mentioned that this money was an increase to her budget. Is there FRBC money coming into the E-team this year?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

M. Coell: I would presume that FRBC has been asked to cut back and meet a couple of targets as well. I wonder if the minister could just outline for me some of the projects that are on the books for the environmental youth teams in the next six months.

Hon. C. McGregor: We haven't made any announcements related to this year's program. If you will recall, we made some changes to how we -- how do I want to describe this -- divvied up the jobs in regions. We had two application dates, and we're repeating that process again this year to make sure that we're able to accommodate regional equity in terms of looking at the number of projects that come in -- rather than a strictly first-come, first-served basis, which was the case when I first took over this job. So we've made some modifications to that.

There's a lot of different kinds of work. I'll just give a couple of examples, if I could. This one is sponsored by the Alberni-Clayoquot Forest Society, and it was a work crew that worked on the China Creek Trail project. They rebuilt one kilometre of an old goldmining trail, constructed boardwalks and began construction on a two-kilometre trail section along China Creek. My guess is that they're probably going to apply again this year to continue that trail work. One of the things you find when you look through the applications is that there are often repeat employers who have begun a project and are looking at initiatives that they can continue.

Here in Victoria, through the B.C. Environmental Network Education Foundation, there was an intern who worked as a conference and research assistant for the "Helping the Land Heal" conference on ecological restoration. That's an example of an intern, which is a different type of E-team member than I described under the work crew part of the program. Interns are largely students who are actually in school, and they are applying their skills and knowledge to specific conservation questions within organizations.

Here's one from the Bonaparte Indian band in Cache Creek, which was an intern who worked as a fisheries technician on a chinook salmon enumeration project on the Bonaparte River.

[1600]

So you can see that there is quite a range of projects that can be funded through E-teams. Some of them are what we call interns. Some of them are what we call eco-educators; they have a function clearly related to environmental education. There is also the work crew component.

This is an interesting graph that I'd certainly be prepared to share with the member. I'm sure you can't read it from that

[ Page 12232 ]

M. Coell: I wonder if, with the total salary and. . .environmental youth team of. . . . What I'm looking for is the number of staff that administer the program and the number of jobs that will be created for youth.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are about five staff who administer the program, and that's for 1,700 youth positions.

M. Coell: What would be the average pay for the environmental youth team? Or does it vary? If you could give me a few examples or the range of pay.

Hon. C. McGregor: The statistics I have -- and we can try and get more accurate information for the member if he's interested in the per-hour payment. . . . I recall -- and I'm only working from memory -- that there was a capacity to reapply and extend. There was a look at the salary component for some of the positions like interns, and so on, to try and get them above minimum wage. So there may have been. . . . I seem to recall around $9 an hour as being possible for some positions, but the vast majority of them were minimum wage.

What I have here is, at the end of their overall contract period, what the average cost per position was. So for eco-educators the average cost per position was $6,030. That's the same for interns. For the work crew it was $5,921. For the express teams it was $6,803, and for the Campgrounds B.C. portion it was about $6,600.

M. Coell: With those positions, would there be a number of weeks of work for that amount of money?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, there would a range of weeks of work, depending on the application. There is a maximum that is permissible, and I'm not sure that I actually have that information right in my hands at this moment. If the member's interested, I'll get that for him.

[1605]

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll get that for tomorrow.

M. Coell: Okay.

The other area, relating back to B.C. Parks. . . . In the past, when there was an initiative where a park was built, did our staff build it? Or did we contract with contractors to build them?

Hon. C. McGregor: Since about the mid-1980s, all of this kind of work has been by contract. I'm told, though, that prior to the mid-eighties -- in the early eighties and the seventies -- there actually was staff that did that work, but no longer.

M. Coell: I'm trying to clarify for myself the role that the E-teams would play in the development of a new campground, let's say. Would they work with ministry staff, or would they work for a contractor? I'm just wondering. . . . I think the minister said it was about $2.5 million that was going into this initiative of E-teams.. I'm just wondering what role the youth are playing in the development of this campground initiative.

Hon. C. McGregor: We do a contract agreement with the contractor who is in charge of working on that site.

I. Chong: I'd just like to pursue some of the line of questioning that the critic has been posing. I'd like to ask the minister: when this process was initiated -- about the E-team and the jobs for youth -- was any study or any comparison or report prepared to determine whether it was necessary to have the government initiate this or whether it should have been handed out to the private sector?

If we need to take a break for that answer, I understand.

The Chair: We'll recess until after the division, and then you can continue on with the answer.

The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, I call the committee back to order.

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't think I'm going to be able to successfully answer the member's question. We're not aware of any specific studies that have been done in recent time related to how E-teams fit into a youth employment picture. We do know generally about categories of youth that are unemployed, and we wanted to try and target an initiative around a particular. . . . There are a number of initiatives across government, I should say -- youth options that provide youth employment opportunities for many different categories. But in the case of E-teams, we are targeting disadvantaged youth in particular, to provide them with employment opportunities and some skill development so they can go on to gain other employment. This builds on a number of youth employment initiatives that have been ongoing within government and this ministry -- different trail-building projects -- for about ten years. It's evolution, if you like, of youth employment through this ministry for some considerable time.

[1620]

[ Page 12233 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I guess the member wasn't here when I showed this little graph. It shows that these are all non-government agencies. So 45 percent in the non-profit sector, first nations, small business, private sector, forests, etc. . . . Private sector consulting, which actually is zero. . . . Actually, I'm not quite sure why that is, because I think there are a lot of categories of environmental industries, for instance, that might be quite interested in the internship program and so on. These are all non-government agencies that are in fact picking up on the E-team program.

This is not government saying what projects need to be done in communities. It's communities and private individuals and private businesses coming forward with environmental projects that they think will benefit the broader community and provide either recreational benefits in some cases or ecotourism benefits -- or it could have a broader protection agenda. In some cases, it might be a matter of doing inventory work in a very sensitive ecosystem, with a non-profit society that has come forward with an application to bring in a couple of interns who can do that kind of analysis and can provide data and information for the appropriate management of that area. It can range all the way to the other end, which is to say: "We're going to build this trail. This is going to promote our community." That's something that we're working on in Kamloops -- a rivers trail system that encompasses both aboriginal lands and city of Kamloops lands. I am fully expecting that they will be applying for some E-team members to come and add to that trail system. That's going to provide a broader economic benefit to the community. That application could come from the private sector, or it could come from the municipal government. But the broad purpose of E-teams is to provide an environmental benefit to a community. Those applications are not driven by government; they're driven from outside government.

I. Chong: Following along that explanation, how is it that you can determine a budget based on the fact that it's dependent on communities coming to the ministry? How can you presuppose that in the ensuing year, for example, it would be a $5 million budget or a $10 million budget or an $18 million budget or a $1 million budget, if you are not yet clear as to who would come to the ministry and request that certain projects be done -- unless the government has already gone out and identified those things? If so, then how does the ministry cost out what those projects may be in order for the minister to develop a budget around that?

[1625]

I. Chong: I do see in the "Business Plan, 1999-2000" that in fact nearly 1,600 new youth jobs were announced. I'm curious as to how you arrived at that number. Based on the fact, from what I heard earlier, that many of these initiatives are contract oriented and because there are varying scales of jobs, depending on whatever particular contract they are, how did you determine that it's 1,600 jobs and not 1,000 jobs or 2,000 jobs, if you don't have a definite per-hour wage allocated to those jobs?

Hon. C. McGregor: We'll go back to a question that the critic asked earlier, and that was: how do we pay these people? We now have the information, so let me read that.

For the work crew component the wage is set by the province, and it's $9 an hour. The supervisor is paid $15 an hour, but students are paid $9 an hour. For eco-educators and interns the wage is actually set by the employer -- and there is a contribution that is required from the employer -- and it averages about $11 an hour. Interns work about 15 weeks, work crews about 13 works and eco-educators as much as 18 weeks, but the average is about 14 weeks. That covers off the wage question.

More information about how the budget is established. I'm told that each economic region has been identified on the basis of youth unemployment and youth populations in that region. That kind of screen is placed over top of the applicants so that we can be sure, when we score the applications, that we go in a priority order on the basis of how they fit that economic screen, as well as how they meet the other kinds of criteria that are established before approvals go forward.

If I haven't answered your question, I'm sure you'll ask it again.

I. Chong: I hope the minister doesn't think that I'm trying to entrap her in any way; I'm just trying to get clarification. As she probably knows, I have one of the. . . .

M. Coell: You're allowed the entrapment.

I. Chong: Let's not talk about entrapment just yet.

I try to look at the measurements, if you will, especially those of a financial nature. On the topic of measurements, I'm wondering whether the minister can advise how the contracts

[ Page 12234 ]

[1630]

It can also link to government strategic objectives. So if we have objectives. . . . For instance, I will use the example of grassland preservation. It's a very endangered ecosystem. We have some projects come in that meet all of the other criteria and also fit government's priority to try and protect and enhance our management of grasslands. That can also be assessed in the applicants.

There also has to be a sponsor contribution. The sponsor has to be willing to provide a certain percentage of the total cost of the contract, either through skills and job training or use of an office in lieu of space -- that kind of contribution direct from the sponsor. Those are all the criteria that are applied to each project.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that, but what I gather from her comments. . . . The minister was referring to the criteria in terms of developing benefits for youth and the nature of the project in terms of a legacy, and I can understand that. But that would appear to be the criteria used to determine the acceptance or the approval of an application. That's at the beginning of the process. At the end of the process, you would have the outcome that you would have to have measured to determine whether it has been successful -- i.e., whether the youth have in fact gained employment skills and whether they will go on to more employment. That and, as the minister stated, the outcome of the legacy that is left behind are measurements that we need have explained or clarified.

If a project was intended to provide a trail and at the end of this contract period it didn't provide that, then the measurement would've been, I would assume, that it has been unsuccessful. If that is the case, does the ministry then use a reporting system that identifies all the contracts or projects that were let and a grade or some measurement as to whether those have been successful to ensure that in the following years, if similar projects are pursued, we do have some criteria to continue to follow up? Or will the ministry develop check marks to provide in the interim for projects that seem to have a good purpose but never seem to have the end result that's intended? There must be some measurement, and that's what I would find most helpful, if the minister can provide that to us.

Hon. C. McGregor: Of course, it makes good sense for us to make sure that we've delivered on the outcomes we've said at the beginning we hope to achieve. So there are processes, both formal and informal, that we've used to assess that. One of the more interesting reviews that I participated in was a meeting of youth themselves who'd participated in the projects in the past. They gave us feedback about how the process worked, the project they'd done and the skills they'd gained -- you know, the kind of information they could give us on how to make it work better in the future. That was an excellent session. We spent three or four hours one afternoon with some young people and had a really good dialogue about how to improve the program. Earlier in some of my comments I talked about some adjustment in the wage structure. That was an outcome of having met with youth. That's just one example of things that changed as a result of that assessment.

[1635]

Frankly, a lot of our sponsors are repeats. They've taken young people for a number of times, and they've developed a very good system of assisting students with certain skill development. They've developed a very good program on a regular basis, and they don't need a lot of guidance. They're excellent at making sure that young people, at the end, have gained certain skill sets so that they'll be successful in re-employment.

That's the point I want to go to next. We very carefully look at the re-employment of these young people at the end of some of these contracts. That's why, as I said to the critic about an hour ago, we've garnered some very good re-employment numbers -- from talking to young people and to employers who have hired the young people at the end of those contracts. As the member rightly points out, we should in fact monitor and assess outcomes, and we do that on an ongoing basis.

I. Chong: Again, I thank the minister for that, because it is very important that we are measuring outcomes in whatever form the ministry determines is the most appropriate. In measuring outcomes in terms of youth employment and re-employment, it's certainly very good to know that you're monitoring that in an ongoing process.

In terms of providing the other criteria -- that is, the nature of the project and the legacy that is meant to be left behind -- again I ask: is there an inventory or a report card of all those initiated projects that were in fact successfully completed? Is there a list that shows those which were not completed, with an assessment as to why they did not complete? I only use the trail as an example. If a trail was meant to be completed for maybe three kilometres and it wasn't completed, would the ministry then assess that -- determine why it wasn't completed? And would it continue with that? Or would it therefore allow that project to, I suppose, just disappear? If those projects that were initiated and were not completed adequately through the ministry's objectives or criteria, are there then, any penalties for those missed targets or missed outcomes? If so, what would they be?

[ Page 12235 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: To begin with, I think it's a good idea, on the part of the member, that we really try and list the legacy we've created through these projects. I think that would be a very impressive list, because E-teams have been going for three years now, and they have created legacies in communities. That is a very useful suggestion, and we'll definitely follow up on it, because that's a good way of measuring the outcomes of the program.

In terms of sponsors not completing projects, we actually haven't ever had that happen. As I said, we've have this monitoring on an ongoing basis, and we've always had completion of projects. However, if we had a problem with a sponsor, one of the tools we have is to do the intervention as we go along. We can and do use financial holdbacks. We don't release the full amount of the cost up front; some of the dollars are held back. If there were a problem at any point, we could say: "I'm sorry; until that problem is fixed, we cannot issue any more funding towards this project." Those kinds of checks and balances are part of the process we have used to date.

[1640]

I. Chong: It's encouraging to hear that you haven't had any unsuccessful or unhappy experiences with sponsors. Again, I reiterate that it's important to at least identify them, so that you can even measure those -- so that you don't have continued experience with those sponsors, if that were to be the case. It's still is important, I think, to identify that. Whatever initiative the minister takes up on that, I'll leave it in her hands.

I just have a few more questions on this area. The minister stated earlier, I believe, that the average number of weeks of employment provided for these youth was about 14. She also mentioned that there were re-employment opportunities. Can the minister clarify -- where there's re-employment of a youth who completed 14 weeks in one project and then went on to re-employment in another area -- whether that job would be counted as two jobs or would still be counted as one job? Again, I think it's important to recognize and to properly identify the actual number of youth jobs being created, for the success of this program.

Hon. C. McGregor: If there is re-employment, it's within the intern program. That has largely to do with the nature of the work. Often these are students who are partway through or have completed a degree in science or ecological study. They're hired through this program with a private sector or a non-profit agency to maybe do some inventory work or something like that. It is on a very limited basis, because we recognize that if we allow people to reapply for what's meant to be a short-term program, then we're limiting the opportunity for someone else. But from time to time we do permit a second phase -- we'll call it -- to an intern program -- that there can be justification for continuing it beyond its initial phase. It is a reapplication; they do have to reapply. They do have to demonstrate that there's still value -- that it has that environmental benefit, that community legacy benefit, that skills-building benefit -- so that you're taking the student to that next level of teaching them new skills and opportunities.

In those limited circumstances, we do permit. . . . I probably used the wrong word by saying extension. It's not really an extension; it's a reapplication. They have to meet those criteria again and build in that additional benefit to the youth prior to it being approved and meeting all the other criteria as well. Because they are separate applications, they are considered to be separate jobs.

I. Chong: I would ask the minister, then. . . . The 1,600 positions that were created last year and the anticipated 1,700 this year are all jobs that would have a duration of around 14 weeks. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is correct.

I. Chong: So after the 14 weeks, if there were no extensions by the sponsor or no re-employment, I would imagine that these jobs would virtually disappear. We would have these youth either back in school or going through other training. If they were to come back the following year, then they could possibly be identified again as part of the next year's 1,700 jobs. Is that a possibility?

[1645]

The idea is to have as many youth employed as possible, so we don't want to encourage hiring the same young people from one time to the next. But there could be, and I would say that it's likely to be very limited. Our experience in terms of follow-up on these projects is that many of these young people go on to other avenues to improve their skills. So if someone was on a work team, for instance, they may well go back to school at the end of that time. They may decide to go on to do some post-secondary training, or they may become employed in an area that's related to the skills they've learned. That's what has given them the boost -- the step -- to helping them move on and make some decisions about how to get themselves employed or to take employment.

I. Chong: Just to be clear, the minister indicated that her ministry was not actually doing the hiring but that the sponsors were. In the criteria manual or procedures manual --

[ Page 12236 ]

The reason why I am asking is the fact that the minister has made mention of people who are looking for interim positions while attaining degrees, etc. We know there are a lot of single parents who have returned to school -- a lot of young women who have returned to school -- who are beyond the 24 years and who are perhaps in a transition as well as trying to obtain a degree. Would they be specifically precluded from this because of the age criteria that have been set? Could the minister advise whether this is strictly adhered to in terms of age or whether there are exceptions that are permitted?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, the criteria are strictly applied, and the age category is 16-to-24.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise whether there have ever been requests for the ministry to look at this? Again, I reiterate the fact that the economic times today have certainly proved challenging for a lot of families, and certainly for a lot of single-parent families. Are they young men or young women who are looking to go back to post-secondary education and who are looking to obtain degrees, particularly in this field? While we certainly appreciate that there are difficulties in youth employment, there are also those who are trying to return to employment or obtain their first employment, as well, who are beyond the youth age. I'm just curious whether or not the minister has received any requests for her ministry to broaden this and to make exceptions on a rather limited basis. That's just a general question I have on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any requests for that kind of exception. We would have to take great care around making those kinds of exceptions, because we are trying to target it to youth. There are other programs across government in other ministries that are specifically designed for re-entry for women -- those who have been out of the workforce, for instance, or who find themselves at the end of a relationship and out of their main residence; or re-employment programs for people who are on income assistance. There are other opportunities, I think, for people who might fit into that category.

[1650]

I. Chong: I want to be clear to the minister that I'm not suggesting that she necessarily moves the criteria; but I am suggesting that if there are a substantial number of requests or complaints, that that be looked at. Perhaps it's no longer considered to be your youth environmental team; it may be your "a-little-past-youth" environmental team -- or whatever.

I can tell the minister that I have, on occasion, received calls in my office from people who feel that they're in that category of single parents -- the 29-to-35 category -- who cannot find opportunities. They feel that all these opportunities are with the youth teams. Granted, yes, it's difficult for them to obtain their first jobs. But in some of these cases, it's also difficult for these other people to find jobs, especially if they're going to university or some other post-secondary institution. If they're sitting amongst their 18-to-24-year-old friends, they don't consider themselves different than their classmates. So I'm not suggesting that we open the doors wide, but it is something that we need to consider, given the economic reality of the day and the changes that are happening in communities and families.

I'll leave that for a moment, hon. Chair, and ask quickly for a clarification about one other area that the minister mentioned earlier. She mentioned that in developing some of these projects and the budget, there are economic regions, and I'm just wondering whether the minister has a list of the specific economic regions. Are there nine of them or 12 of them in the province? Can she share with us what those economic regions are and what has been allocated to each of those economic regions? If she has it available and she is prepared to distribute it to this side, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. C. McGregor: These are the standard economic regions that are used in other ministries to report on different regions of the province. So it's Vancouver Island-Coast, Mainland-Southwest, Thompson-Okanagan, Kootenay, Northeast, Cariboo, North Coast and Nechako. I think I covered them all.

I. Chong: Would it be possible for the minister to provide us with a copy of those regions and the projects that have been approved for each of those regions? I'd appreciate that.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're just reviewing the April applications, and once they've been approved, we'd be happy to release the list.

I. Chong: If it would make it simpler, even if it were the dollar value per region rather than each project -- if that that would make it easier for the minister. In doing so for this year, perhaps she could provide us with what has happened in the regions for the past year -- regional comparisons -- and that would be very much appreciated.

With that, hon. Chair, I thank the minister and her staff for providing me those answers at this stage.

[1655]

On page 114, "Ministry Operations," the third line -- "Environment and Lands Headquarters (net of recoveries)" -- is a reduction of approximately $2 million; or, I guess, that works out to about 61/2 percent. Maybe the minister can explain to me what that reduction entails within headquarters.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not quite sure exactly what the member's asking. It's part of our overall reduction in the budget. That's why you can expect to see that there are going to be some reductions in that category, as there will be in other parts of the ministry budget. As I've indicated before, that will include some positions. I'm really not able to tell the member

[ Page 12237 ]

M. Coell: I guess what I'm trying to clarify in my mind is that when this document was printed, the ministry was assuming that there would be some reductions in headquarters staff. Then when we talked at the beginning, we identified -- since this has been printed and distributed -- that the ministry is now considering other cuts. That was the 150 that the minister had suggested. The minister is shaking her head. So that's the clarification I'm looking for.

[1700]

M. Coell: Okay, I think that clarifies it for me. What I was suggesting is some of the frustration we feel that things change after estimates. After the budget is passed, you may see further cuts. That was the question I asked: are we going to see a directive for further cuts after this? This budget, if the minister is correct, includes 150 position cuts to the ministry, and then. . . . Maybe the minister can clarify. Is that what she is telling me?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that is what I'm telling you. In fact, I made reference earlier to the fact that you can't know what the future's going to bring, and it could be that there will be other budget directives. That is a reality as well, and I don't know what that future might bring. We're not anticipating that the Minister of Finance will tell us that we have to make other reductions. We believe that we've made adequate reductions to get us through our program and our priorities, and to deliver on our objectives for this year. But it does include the 150 positions that we've been talking about.

M. Coell: The minister isn't able at this point to describe where the cuts are coming, because you're in the process of negotiating with the union. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, and we're also continuing to find additional vacancies. For instance, decisions related to retirement can be of some assistance. We've also agreed that if there are in fact contracts that we are offering with contractors and if it would be more suitable for those to be positions within the ministry, we're willing to look at that issue as well. So these are some of the ways in which we hope to accommodate employees who might have to move from a certain designated position.

M. Coell: Can the minister give me an example of people you'd be contracting with, that you would. . . ? I guess government employees would assume those positions or those roles. Is there an example of contracted services that you could use?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, one example might be with the increased capitalization program in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. With the new Highways announcements that have been made, there are going to be positions for environmental monitors, let's say. We would normally get a contractor to. . . . You would hire a contractor to do that work. We're looking to see if there's an opportunity for some of our staff to take those positions, because they would be qualified to do so. That's one example of a tool that we're trying to use to accommodate existing employees.

M. Coell: Would they then become government employees doing those jobs, or would they be in the private sector and be terminated?

Hon. C. McGregor: They would stay as government employees, and they'd be seconded for a period of time into those special positions.

M. Coell: So is the minister talking about contracted services provided by other government agencies, not the private sector?

[1705]

M. Coell: I won't belabour the point, but I find it interesting. If you were contracting for services provided by the private sector, they would obviously have to bid for those services. Would part of the bid, then, be that you would have to employ these people? I just wonder how you get from being a government employee to the private sector, through the bidding process.

Hon. C. McGregor: In these particular positions it wouldn't go out for bid. There would be a decision made that instead of putting it out for a bid, we would fill it internally with government employees and second them into that position for the time it would take to keep them working in that job. Then they would come back to the public service.

This is an idea that's been brought to us by the union, as a tool through which they believe we can work together to try and find appropriate positions for all of our staff. We're willing to work with them on seeing if that can be accommodated. It's an idea. We haven't tried it yet; we don't necessarily know. It might have been a poor example, because we haven't done it yet. We haven't worked out all the details about how we'd ensure that kind of accountability. We'd want to make sure that accountability is in place. But we're trying to work creatively with the union to solve the problem.

M. Coell: I may have some other questions on that later, as it relates to services. But I understand that if it's something you're just in the process of reviewing, it would be a little difficult to answer any questions.

With regard to "Corporate Services (net of recoveries)," it's down as well -- approximately $4 million. I wonder if the minister can outline where those cuts have been taken in the corporate services section.

Hon. C. McGregor: We talked about that earlier; that is the BCAL employment.

M. Coell: Sorry -- my understanding is that when we were talking earlier, we were talking about the regional

[ Page 12238 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: Sorry. I'm afraid I don't understand the explanation. But I understand that we made a commitment to have a briefing with you tomorrow morning, where we can go over this particular issue. My accountant friend here on the left can explain it, because I honestly don't think I can.

[1710]

Hon. C. McGregor: It is, I'm afraid, a very technical accounting thing that, after having had little arrows drawn all over this for me, I still don't understand. If I could just make the commitment that we'll cover those issues with you tomorrow morning in the briefing that's being offered. . . . If you're not satisfied with those explanations, we'll come here and Greg will write me handwritten notes, and I'll read them out loud into the record. Maybe we can handle it that way.

M. Coell: I look forward to the briefing. I'm trying to see where the cuts that have been made are identified in this budget. I would have thought that -- the way I was looking at it -- that would have been one area where staff were cut. Actually, when you look at the corporate services net of recoveries, it's down by $4 million; headquarters is down by $2 million. To me, that would mean that the staff have gone to BCAL, you're repaid, and then the net of that would be the areas that have been cut in the ministry.

It's very hard to follow the budget if you can't rely on those numbers somehow. I'll have some questions for your staff in the morning and then maybe we can look at those numbers in some detail tomorrow afternoon when we come back.

I wonder if I could just touch on the minister's office briefly. I don't see any changes in cost or staffing for that office. Is that correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, that's correct.

[1715]

M. Coell: When we're going through this, I have -- and I'll leave it to the minister to give me some direction. . . . There's a number of areas -- the Crown land account, habitat, conservation, sustainable. . . . I'll have those in more detailed questions later, if that's all right with you. I'll just stick to Crown lands from here until we finish. Is that fine?

Hon. C. McGregor: Okay.

M. Coell: Thank you.

There is in the Crown land account. . . . I am a little unclear about the relationship between this account and BCAL, and who has control over the account at this point -- whether they're your purchaser, your salesman or your marketer. Who is in control of the account at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's BCAL.

M. Coell: Then I have a question. Why is it in your ministry's estimates?

[1720]

M. Coell: I guess the control of it is what I was looking at. Does the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks have control over it? Or can it be added to or taken away by BCAL without first going through the ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: The control of the account itself is with BCAL. It's the place where the money comes in and goes out; it's a place where they deposit revenue and take out expenditures. They have the ability to do that.

M. Coell: If I can offer the following observation, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I think that if you have the statutory obligation to sign for it and then a basically unelected group, a board of directors, has control over it. . . . That probably would cause me to have a little bit less sleep at night. So, you know, what the minister's describing as the signing authority or a rubber stamp for a group of other people carrying out business under her name. . . . I'd be interested in your comments, minister, with regard to that situation -- whether it is one that is in need of review, or whether it's one that should be transferred in whole to the Minister of Finance, who would be accountable for that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I don't want to mislead the member that there aren't a lot of checks and balances here, because in fact the BCAL's board of directors are deputy ministers, and they're directly responsible to the Minister of Finance. There is plenty of review of decisions prior to BCAL making them. This is not a matter where I don't have confidence in their ability to manage these questions at all. It's because this is a delegated agreement, giving authority through, I think, the Land Act for BCAL to operate certain functions related to Crown lands. No decisions are taken without sign-off by the Minister of Finance, because there is line authority to the Minister of Finance. So when I am required through OIC to sign things off, believe you me, I don't do so without making myself very aware of the issue at hand -- whether it's been adequately managed. It doesn't go forward unless I've been thoroughly briefed as to its purpose and so on. I make myself accountable for those things that I need to sign. I have confidence in their ability to work with the

[ Page 12239 ]

[1725]

I notice the major change is in less return to the general fund. Last year you were looking at a number of $164 million, and this year you're looking at $66 million. I wonder what the reason for that rather large change would be.

Hon. C. McGregor: That's not a question we have the answer to. As we understand it, BCAL put together these numbers. I assure the member that the Minister of Finance will provide the answers to those questions.

M. Coell: It's getting stranger. I'm anxious to. . . . Maybe the minister can't answer this, but the Minister of Finance can: what was the rationale for leaving you with estimates that are produced by another ministry? And what was the logic for the Ministry of Environment to agree to that? I think that is what I'm looking for.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, the need to keep this in my ministry estimates is related to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, which is what gives me the statutory authority for dealing with the Crown land account. I have a delegated agreement with BCAL, and I've delegated to them the role of managing the account. I still have the statutory authority, so it's still reflected in my ministerial estimates.

M. Coell: I won't belabour this, but it strikes me that in doing that, it would've been easier to change the act and put this where it's actually going to follow a line of authority to the minister who would actually be responsible for the employees, the programs and the marketing. I'd be interested in the minister's thoughts, actually, on the process of. . . . I don't know whether this was overlooked or whether there was healthy debate -- it was debated and decided that it stays here -- but it seems strange that it's still here. I'd be interested in the minister's thoughts on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I don't disagree with the member thinking that there needs to be some legislative change, and I don't think that it was a matter that was overlooked. But legislative change agendas being what they are, when you have a lot of items coming forward, sometimes items that are viewed to be more administrative in role don't get the attention they deserve. I don't disagree with you, member. I think that's a good change, and we should propose it. But in the meantime, because the statutory authority continues to rest with me, it's here in my estimates.

[1730]

The fear that I have -- and if the minister wants to respond she can, but I'll understand if she doesn't -- is that it's taking an important role out of the ministry rather than fixing the job in the ministry. We've admitted that we had to take that role out of the ministry to find a new management set and a new method of operation. Personally, I think I would have rather seen Crown Lands be fixed inside the ministry. Then you would still be in control of this account. Also, the ability of Crown Lands would have been enhanced rather than changed the way it was. I leave you with that observation. I don't know whether you want to comment on it or not.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think that the goal we had in creating BCAL was to create a more business-oriented approach to how we manage Crown lands. We were looking for tools to give us the kind of efficiency that we felt we needed to gain through a more market-driven organization. By using the Whistler Land Corporation in its beginning stages and then developing that into the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, we were able to deliver that mandate using government employees on a Crown corporation kind of model.

We're still doing all those functions. It's not a change in role, in that sense. We still have an ability, as I explained to the member, to work on Crown land policies, to set general policy direction for the province and to include the environmental stewardship focus of our work. In particular, the exchanges around protected areas and creating new protected areas all remain within the mandate of this ministry. The land use planning functions and the key role that we play in advising land use plans across the province in terms of how to manage and move forward in planning models -- all of that still remains with this ministry. Those are key roles and very important roles that we must, in my view, continue to manage well on behalf of British Columbians.

There is a business side to that policy work, and I don't think creating and giving employees the tools to manage that business side is a wrong direction. It's just a different model, and it's working extremely well. We're getting a lot of satisfied comments from our stakeholders, local governments and others. We've worked very hard at reducing the backlog, and that, I think, has created an enormous economic benefit for regions. I think that what we have done is achieve what the member talks about: the need to maintain the integrity of a Crown asset but also be businesslike in the way we handle the business side of land management.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that comment.

I will just share a couple of further thoughts. This change undoubtedly will be in place for a number of years. One of the positive aspects of the ministry before the change -- I can comment on some that I don't think were positive -- is that environmental policy was very close to land use decisions. When we've now got the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation with a very high-powered board of directors, including deputy ministers -- yours being on that, which I think is important -- those decisions to sell, purchase or tenure land are made outside the ministry.

[ Page 12240 ]

[1735]

What I'm concerned about -- and maybe I'll try to be a little clearer -- is that because of the split. . . . It's because the land corporation is doing one job, basically, which is cleaning up the backlog, generating the sale of property and, I would hope, the purchase of property as well. That job is pretty specific, whereas the job of the ministry -- maybe in reviewing the idea of a piece of land that's purchased or a property that's sold -- is the environmental effects. Will it affect a park if it's next to a park? Those sorts of things. . . .

I would be interested in looking -- just for a bit, with the minister -- at the link between B.C. Land and Assets and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. How do we keep the policy and the direction from the Minister of Environment in place, so that the tail isn't wagging the dog and that sort of thing? The ministry is directing the policy for the sale and purchase of lands in the property, not just the generation of sales of lands.

Hon. C. McGregor: Each region develops a joint business plan with BCAL. So there are staff from Ministry of Environment and Lands working with BCAL staff on developing a regional plan. There's an opportunity for staff within the ministry who have particular concerns around an environmental issue or habitat or something to be able to say: "We don't want that property identified for purchase or sale or lease, because of these values. These are properties that we believe are appropriate, given the current land use." They would have to look at the official community plan. They work together in a region on a business plan.

We have 12 FTEs that are working specifically on planning, referrals and mapping. In the same way as we always did it when we were all together in the same ministry, there are automatic referrals from those staff, who were in our ministry and who have now moved to BCAL, that handle the side of the leasing or the sale.

[1740]

M. Coell: Actually, I can see how that would work in the regions. What I'm thinking about more is the potential conflict between policy in the Minister of Environment's office and policy in the Ministry of Finance, in that. . . . I'll give you an example. We've seen it in the past, where the Minister of Finance says: "I need some money. Revenues aren't good; find me some money." Generally that's been, in British Columbia history, the sale of some lands. That may be at odds with the minister's ministry, and I could think of issues in the past where that has been the case.

That was the point I was trying to make: that the policy and direction could be -- and I suspect will be -- at odds this year. If what I'm seeing at the "Less: return to the general fund" is a $100 million difference, that may be your conflict right there. I'd be interested in your comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: To date, I haven't noticed a significant policy conflict with the Minister of Finance. There is no doubt that these matters can conflict, but the Minister of Finance, like myself, is very committed to the environmental values that we hold important in the province of British Columbia, and we are a government that cares very much about environmental concerns and issues. So we work together very closely on this at a headquarters level, at a ministerial level as well as at a regional level.

That's not to say that conflicts won't arise from time to time. That's almost always the case on land use questions, because one of the areas of highest conflict in the province is on issues related to completing land use interests: recreational interests, preservation interests, development interests, resource extraction interests. We always have these conflicts on the land base. We have to do our very best, and we have to work together to achieve the best results and to look to the highest value that the land can offer. In some cases that might be urban development; in some cases that might be an ecological reserve. In other cases it might be a copper mine.

Those are the questions that we all struggle with. The land use plans in our own communities and back yards, when we're talking about whether or not the superstore is going in on this corner or that corner. . . . These are all matters that we debate, and we do have to consider the views of one another. I just want you to know that in this government, environmental issues are listened to very carefully and responded to very carefully as well.

M. Coell: I wonder if we could just spend a moment or so looking -- the minister mentioned the backlog that was identified last year and, I think, some of the reasons why the changes were made for B.C. Assets and Land -- at what success we've seen with BCAL.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm just going to generally say that I'm happy to answer this question because I have the statistics. But this is a B.C. Assets and Land Corporation question, and the Minister of Finance should be the one answering it. Because I began the process of doing this, I'm happy to provide the information. It's information of great interest to me personally too -- to see the kind of progress we've made on this.

[1745]

[ Page 12241 ]

The Chair: Noting the hour, member.

M. Coell: Maybe we can follow up tomorrow on the briefing with regard to this issue. Again, it's interesting that the minister is responsible for where the money is coming from and signs off, but the credit is going to go to another minister if you're successful, in that the backlog -- that is, how this land is used -- is the responsibility of BCAL and another ministry.

With that and noting the hour, I move we rise, report progress and plead to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada