Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12243 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Jarvis: It's my privilege today to introduce you to a young gentleman from my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour who says he voted for me -- one of the 60-odd percent that did. This young man is also the illustrious son of our member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I'd like the House to welcome David Whittred.

W. Hartley: Today we have groups of students from two different schools in Bothell, Washington. From Westhill Elementary School, we have some 50 grade 6 students with 12 adults and their teacher, Bob Jones. From Canyon Creek Elementary School, we have 55 visitors from grade 6, with adults and their teacher, Mr. Mayberry. Would you please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: We have 15 young people from Surrey-White Rock here in the gallery today. They are the crew from the Rogers Cable youth program called "Mestiza," accompanied by their youth producer, Matt Todd. They're here to interview the Premier at 4 p.m. this afternoon on a live cable show. They're also accompanied by the Rogers community relations manager, Marlene Gurvich. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Looking up into the gallery, I recognize a face that I think will be recognized by anybody who has worked in municipal government. Mr. Ted Pearce has a long record of working for the UBCM. I hope we can make him and his party welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a friend of mine, Mr. Minhas, who is joining us in the gallery today. Mr. Minhas is a retired general who now works as an advocate for the Fraser growers' association. Would the House please help me in making him welcome.

[1410]

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I guess, here is the proof, Madam Speaker, that they are finally distancing themselves from Grace McCarthy and Social Credit. It was her program; SuperHost was her program. We on this side are a little bit smarter, because we recognize that the SuperHost program has been an unqualified success. It has been marketed within this province and outside this province. We have made money from it. It's a good program. Most businesses in this province say it's worth spending the time and the energy and the money on that program.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If most businesses think there's a value to SuperHost, the government doesn't have to force them to take the course. Just think of this, hon. Speaker. This government is forcing operators to have at least two people take this course. That's at least $200 in lost pay. Add that to the $800 in additional fees that have been added. Add that to $150 for two people to take the SuperHost course, and you're at $1,150. My question to the minister is: does he have a clue how much work it takes to generate $1,150 -- how many pieces of glass you have to replace to generate $1,150? And if he does, why won't he stop this imposition once. . . ? Right away?

Hon. D. Lovick: It's understandable that the member opposite would get tongue-tied. He's having difficulty keeping a straight face as he asks that question.

As I said before, the SuperHost program has been an unqualified success. It's also important to remember that the entire program about glass repair was developed in cooperation with the business community. They want the program; they want the benefit of accreditation. I met yesterday afternoon. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, finish up.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . .with a delegation from the Automobile Retailers Association. They said: "Don't cave in to the negative pressure. This is a good program. Defend the program."

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The minister is clearly in need of this course himself. Small businesses across this province have said to this government: "Stop hitting us with tax after tax after tax and fee after fee after fee and overwhelming regulation. Please stop." They are begging the government to do that. Whatever happened to free enterprise? Whatever happened to allowing people to decide for themselves, to make their own choices? This minister has clearly never met a payroll in his life. He clearly has never met a payroll that he doesn't want to tax. My question to the minister is: will he not listen today and stop this attack and stop this imposition on small businesses across the province?

[ Page 12244 ]

[1415]

The member seems wilfully obtuse to the fact that the business community wants this program. They think it's a good idea. Chambers of commerce throughout this province have said: "We support SuperHost." They report success as a result of people attending those things. We are obviously committed to doing whatever we can to reduce red tape and needless regulation. Indeed, the budget makes that very clear. But to suggest that we leave business high and dry and not respond to their legitimate request for assistance is ludicrous.

M. de Jong: It was only a month ago that this government said it had a process in place that was going to prevent this kind of ridiculous, bureaucratic overkill -- the business lens, they called it. They were going to ask ten questions about whether or not government action was justified. Well, I've got one question for the minister responsible: how, in the name of God, is forcing small businesses to pay hundreds of dollars to learn the art of conversation consistent with cutting red tape in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, demonstrably, the member opposite could profit from such a course. I say that simply because what he might learn -- as the business community has learned -- is that civility and common courtesy are no bad thing. I suggest that he might want to remember that.

I think it's safe to say, and I always thought it was a truism in terms of business and everything I've ever read on the subject, that customer relations -- how you deal with people, how you treat them with civility, respect and courtesy -- are in fact as important to a business as the product you deliver. That's the answer to the question.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Respect means that you don't tell business on Tuesday that you're going to reduce red tape and then on Wednesday increase it and force them to take goofy courses on how to learn conversation. That's respect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: Government says it's got a business lens. Well, if this is the government's idea of a business lens, maybe it's time you went and found a new prescription. I can tell you this: in the two days that we've looked at this issue, we have seen how one group of small businesses has been saddled with an additional $1,100 in government fees. When is the assault on small business going to end? When is this minister and this government going to realize that the government hasn't managed to balance its books once, and now it's presuming to tell small business how to manage their businesses. It doesn't work. It's ridiculous, and it's time to get off the backs of small business.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member seems so captured by his own rhetoric that I think he forgot to tell us to whom he was addressing the question. It was a rhetorical question, and therefore I think it deserves an answer from me as well as from anybody else.

The Speaker: Briefly, minister -- perhaps briefly.

Hon. D. Lovick: Despite my own not so humble abilities in thespian and theatrical activities, I am going to resist the temptation and simply say that the question, frankly, deserves more silence that anything else, as a response.

[1420]

ICBC's accreditation program for auto body repair shops is indeed incredibly heavy-handed. These independent businesses are obliged to meet conditions that go far beyond facilities, equipment and staff that are necessary for quality repairs. Shop owners have been given a 40-page handbook that outlines the requirements, but they are denied an advance copy of the contract they're required to sign. They're also obliged to sign a confidentiality clause. How's that for open, honest government?

Does this minister support this ham-handed regulation of small, independent businesses in the auto body trade?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question. He raises two points with which I am not familiar, and therefore I can't answer in any definitive way. I will get back to him on that.

I want, though, to emphasize one point only. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The regulation he refers to -- the regulatory regimen, if you will -- that's been set up was indeed developed in consultation with the Automotive Retailers Association, specifically the collision division. I met with that group of people yesterday; they advised me they are supportive of the accreditation program. They represent, I gather, some 80 percent of all the volume of work done in this province in that industry.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Supplemental to the same minister. The 20 percent must all be in South Peace, because not a single body shop operator in the South Peace constituency has agreed to sign on to the accreditation program. They believe that customers should decide what services are important in their shops. Now these shop owners are being blackmailed with the threat

[ Page 12245 ]

Will the minister agree today to call his friend, Chairman Bob, and call off this dictatorial, socialist nonsense?

Hon. D. Lovick: I had thought my friend across the way from Peace River had forgot the old rhetorical flourishes, but I'm glad to see they're still alive and well.

No, I will not give him the assurance that we will withdraw this dictatorial, socialist plot or whatever it is -- because it isn't. It isn't. The reality is that the accreditation program was put in place at the behest, at the request, of people in the industry, because they said: "We are spending a huge amount of money investing in our businesses, and we're competing with some people who, frankly, aren't spending that money, either in their equipment or in training." We want them to be able to regulate the industry to ensure that people who go. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I'm having a very difficult time hearing the answer, and I know the minister is just finishing up his response.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's so sad, hon. Speaker. They simply don't want to hear the reason for the program.

But to continue, the auto repair people said: "We would like to protect the integrity of our industry. We also want to ensure that those of us who are investing the money in training and equipment will in fact be recognized for that investment in the industry."

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think it's a good program.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

ACCESS FOR SMALL CONTRACTORS TO HIGHWAYS WORK

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The question hasn't been completed yet.

[1425]

The Speaker: Your question is?

R. Neufeld: It doesn't seem to matter which union you belong to. This government wants to blacklist every small contractor. . .

The Speaker: Your question, member.

R. Neufeld: . . .every small person that survives on a shoestring, that works and depends on this work. It wants to blacklist them. . .

The Speaker: And your question, member?

R. Neufeld: . . .from working on highway work in British Columbia. When will this minister learn that we need small business in this province?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the member opposite for promoting HCL. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting local hire in local communities on the stretch of highway from Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting aboriginal hire on these kinds of projects. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting British Columbia jobs for British Columbians. Let me tell you, hon. member, that British Columbians will be first, and they will always be first on HCL projects.

The Speaker: The bell having ended question period, I recognize the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 53.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1430]

[ Page 12246 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it establishes that the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority can capitalize highways. It's merely a technical change to accommodate the fact that it can hold the historical highway assets on its books, as it has done for the new highways. That's all.

D. Symons: Just a further clarification: by the word "enactment," then, you are not meaning legislation. It's just some act that can have changes -- regulation changes and so forth. It can be changed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's correct.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

D. Symons: Just a couple of questions on section 4 and also on section 12 of the Build BC Act. It says in section 12(2) that all property of the authority is deemed to be the property of Her Majesty in right of the province for all purposes, including exemption from taxation. That particular part is being repealed. I'm wondering: when it moves over. . . . I assume that this in anticipation of our now moving the highway assets into the Transportation Financing Authority. Is the Transportation Financing Authority not also part of the Crown? If that's the case, then what purpose does this serve?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The act merely clarifies that the assets are the responsibility of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for capitalization purposes. We're moving in the direction that the auditor general has asked us to on this.

D. Symons: The last part of subsection 12(2) that's being repealed talks about exemption from taxation. This will not change the taxation characteristics now. It's just going to be taxation with the Highways minister rather than with the TFA. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

D. Symons: I have a few questions on section 5, which deals with section 16(1) of the Ferry Corporation Act. It basically increases the debt cap for the corporation by $375 million. It's close to a 40 percent -- 38 percent -- increase in the debt of that corporation.

[1435]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This increase is providing borrowings sufficient to complete the high-speed ferry program: start construction of two small vessels -- they still have to be approved by Treasury Board, of course -- and do maintenance improvements at routine levels. I can give you the specific amounts if you wish: fast ferry program, $103 million; other vessels -- the small ones that I'm talking about -- about $105 million; terminal upgrades, $47 million; minor capital, $61 million; and maintenance, etc., $57 million.

D. Symons: I assume that when the minister says, "Fast ferries, $103 million," that's $103 million above the cap that was in place for the ferries. And that had gone up a few times as well.

Before we pass this particular section, I wonder whether you can give us some indication of the -- I hate to use these words, but I'll use them -- debt management plan that you might have in place in order that you can end up eventually retiring this debt that we're building up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of our overall debt management plan; it's part of the overall budget that was outlined.

D. Symons: I thank the hon. minister for that answer. It's not very reassuring, I must tell you. We've watched debt management plans of this government in the past that have not achieved their stated goals. We seem to be getting the Ferry Corporation into a rather precarious position. I am wondering, since this debt cap has been going up considerably over a period of years. . . . Can the minister tell me whether there's a ceiling beyond which you would feel that the debt for that corporation becomes unsustainable? I have a feeling we've reached that ceiling now, but. . . . I'm just not convinced that you might not come back another year from now and want to go up about a few hundred million dollars more. Where's that ceiling where we say that the corporation is carrying so much debt that it's unsustainable to add any more debt to it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries has said that he's restructuring the operations of B.C. Ferries. In fact, we've announced the transfer of fuel tax to the ferries. I think that this is appropriate for exploration in the estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: It will be explored in estimates. But the Minister of Finance is asking to raise the cap by $375 million, and I think it warrants a bit of questioning here also -- particularly with regard to the debt management plan, which is a responsibility of the Finance minister. What we are trying to determine is: what is the debt management plan as it pertains to the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the plans that she has, as Minister of Finance, for overseeing that debt management plan? What plans does she have to ensure that the Ferry Corp debt is eventually paid off or paid down or managed in some fashion? Can she tell us what that plan is with regard to this amount of money?

[ Page 12247 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is, though, that the minister answered the question that was posed by the member for Richmond Centre as to what the debt management plan is for this money. The Minister of Finance is asking to raise the debt cap, not the minister responsible for the Ferry Corporation, or whoever it is. She's sitting here in this House; she's here to defend it. And if she can't defend it, then she should have the minister responsible for the Ferry Corp come in and defend it. The fact of the matter is that the government is making a request to increase the debt cap of the B.C. Ferry Corporation by $375 million -- an extremely significant increase, a huge amount of money -- and I think it warrants the Minister of Finance telling us what the plan is to manage that debt over the long term. Otherwise, why would this House approve it?

[1440]

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is that it need not be asked for every two years. This government inherited B.C. Ferry Corporation with a debt of, I think, $16 million, and it's now $1.35 billion. That's the increase. I think it's important for members of this House to have an understanding that when the minister comes and asks for that kind of an increase, statutorily. . . . There's a reason why that debt cap is set by statute. The minister has to come to this House and defend the request. It's not part of the estimates process necessarily, although we'll get into the details of what the debt's being used for; but the request for the debt is required to be done by statute. The minister has to come to this House and defend that request for a change in the statute, and this is when the minister does it -- in the committee stage process of the bill, not in the estimates process.

We'll talk about the structure of that debt, what it's for, what it's being used for and the capital plan for B.C. Ferry Corporation. But the fact of the matter is that in order to implement the budget, the minister has to bring in statutorily a raise in the cap of the debt. I think the minister is required to defend that request, because this is where the request is being made. She should tell us what her long-term plans are to deal with that massive increase in debt at the B.C. Ferry Corporation over the last little while and certainly the $375 million she's asking for today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is wrong, and there will be a perfect opportunity to have that discussion under estimates. Prior to 1989 it was the responsibility of the person responsible for the consolidated revenue fund to manage the debt of the Ferry Corporation. In 1989 the law was changed. I'm sure the member isn't aware of that. Not only were the debt and the debt management plan turned over to the responsibility of the Ferry Corporation. . . . We will have a chance to discuss that in estimates. If, indeed, the member wishes to know what the money historically was spent on, I can give him that information.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister doesn't understand. In fact, she's giving two different answers to two different questions. The member for Richmond Centre asked her what the debt management plan was for. She said: "Well, it's part of our whole debt management plan; it's part of everything we do." She's responsible for that. The fact of the matter is that by statute, she is required to come to this House -- or somebody is. However, if you want to put this in a separate act and have the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries come in and defend the request. . . . I don't care who it is. You decide; that's up to the government to decide. But somebody has to stand up in the House and defend the request that you're making under statute for an increase in the debt to the tune of $375 million. You can't just slough that over to the estimates process. There is a statutory requirement. It's not done by regulation; it's not done on a whim; it's done by a statutory requirement.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries tells me that I'm wrong. He'll understand if I don't accept his interpretation of what goes on at the B.C. Ferry Corporation, given the disastrous record of his oversight of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the. . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .200 percent increase in a project that he was supposed to be responsible for.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: So if he wants to get up and defend it and his actions, I will be glad to hear it. Otherwise, maybe he should just keep his mouth shut and sit there and listen.

Interjections.

The Chair: The Minister of Energy and Mines on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: The chippiness of that member is probably the reason why he has some problems.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: But to shout that across the way. . . . I ask that the member withdraw that statement.

The Chair: Members, the Chair should not need to remind members about parliamentary language. Let's try and carry on this debate in a reasonable manner. Questions have been asked and answered. Perhaps we should move on in this debate.

[ Page 12248 ]

The Chair: The member will withdraw the statement.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is the Chair asking me to withdraw the statement?

[1445]

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, if the member is offended, then I'll withdraw whatever it was that offended him. I can't imagine what it could have been, but I'll withdraw it.

My question was to the Minister of Finance, but if there's another minister of the Crown who wants to answer the question, I'll be glad to hear what their answer is. The fact of the matter, by statute, is that this government is required to come to the Legislature and request a change in the cap on the debt for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The minister is telling us what they plan on using it for. That's for the estimates process, and we'll get into that.

The question that was asked, first of all, by the member for Richmond Centre, was: what is the government's plan to manage that debt? That is a very legitimate question. You're asking for $375 million from the Legislature. The Legislature, in turn, is asking the government: how do you plan on managing that? How are you going to pay it off? What's the plan? How are you going to manage your debt? For the last seven or eight years, that debt has skyrocketed. It has gone from $16 million to $1.35 billion. That's a huge, huge increase. For the minister to stand up and say she doesn't have to explain to us what their plan is to manage that debt is, I think, the height of arrogance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is wrong once again. The issue of the debt management plan is for estimates. This is the legislation that increases the cap for current and future expenditures. That's exactly what the legislation is for. I have outlined what the request is for. I have offered to outline what the previous $1.02 billion has been spent on. The debt management plan, the operating deficit, is a responsibility to be discussed under estimates.

D. Symons: Just carrying on on the same theme, then, I wonder if I could ask the minister whether, when the Ferry Corporation comes and says, "Madam Minister, we have a wee bit of a problem here; it seems that our expenses are getting higher and higher, and we have no way of paying them off; we need some more money," she then might at some time say: "Well, before we consider that, let us look at how you're operating the corporation, and let's see how you intend to handle that debt as a corporation." I would assume that sort of conversation would go on before you would simply say: "Oh yeah. We'll go and ask for more."

I wonder if the minister might give us a flavour of those conversations that went on: as to what you asked the Ferry Corporation -- the fact that they're now getting a huge debt of over $1 billion in total -- as to what their aims are in paying it off. That's basically the question we're asking now. We're asking: how does the Ferry Corporation intend to handle its debt? And if it does not, then obviously the government is planning to pour more money in it. What you referred to earlier -- the money, the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax that is going there -- will not pay the interest on this debt. It won't pay the interest on the debt that was originally there, and it won't pay the interest on the debt that you're adding to it.

So we have some real problems. You've got a corporation that's having more interest go out in interest payments than money you're going to be giving it from a new stream that you're going to pour into the Ferry Corporation. You must have explained it to them and discussed the financial situation the Ferry Corporation is in, and discussed the situation of how this debt, which you've now asked to raise the capital of, is going to be paid off. Did those discussions not take place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's exactly what the budget-making process is about. The hon. member knows that. All of that information will be fully discussed in estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's why this bill is called the Budget Measures Implementation Act -- because the government is going to implement those discussions. That's the very same reason the Minister of Finance sat there and said -- I hope, anyway -- to the Ferry Corporation: "What is going on here? You need another $375 million? How do you plan on managing it?" I would think that if the Minister of Finance would ask those questions, it's certainly legitimate for members of the opposition to get up and ask the minister: "Why $375 million? How are you going to manage that?"

[1450]

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, perhaps we can move on, with section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would expect that the Minister of Finance is not going to give an answer to how that debt is going to be covered. I think it's just showing us exactly why there is that problem at the B.C. Ferry Corporation: she wasn't watching the Ferry Corporation, and the minister responsible wasn't watching the Ferry Corporation. Neither of them has a clue what's going on or how they're going to manage that debt over the long term. That's why they're sitting where they are. That's why they're going to be in as much trouble as they are, because they've consistently mismanaged the Crown corporations. They've consistently mismanaged the finances of this province. That's why they haven't hit one deficit target in eight years. That's why, when every other province in the

[ Page 12249 ]

Section 5 approved on division.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

I. Chong: Just some clarification from the minister. The Economic Forecast Council is cited here to consist of not less than 12 persons. Can the minister advise whether those 12 persons can be independent external persons, or must they all be members of executive council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They all are external people. There are no government people there.

I. Chong: My understanding of it was that the Economic Forecast Council did have members on it who were cabinet ministers. From what I'm understanding, they're all external persons. If that is the case, can the minister advise on what kind of criteria are sent out in order to solicit those who may be appointed to this council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the member is confusing the Economic Forecast Council with the Economic Council of Ministers, which is an entirely separate thing. That's a committee of cabinet. These are external experts. The ones that participated last year were people from the University of Victoria, the Conference Board of Canada, Informetrica, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, etc.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

D. Symons: I just have a quick question on section 12, paragraph (a), where you're striking out the word "limit." I gather that there had been some discussion with the GVTA over the word "limit" being a little bit confusing, the way it was inserted in that. Was this the purpose for removing it -- it was the GVTA's request?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is at the request of the GVTA, for clarifying their mandate.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

D. Symons: I guess the main problem I have with section 13 is that it comes after section 34 of the act, which happens to come after sections 32 and 33, which have to do with major projects. We have SkyTrain going on right now, so it just seemed to fit in there. Financing of the SkyTrain is a real problem. This power to exempt. . . . I'm curious why it's retroactive to March 1, 1999. Is that simply because the ownership of B.C. Transit now basically belongs to the GVTA -- the retroactivity of it? There's also the question about repealing on March 31, 2000. Could you explain the significance of that?

[1455]

D. Symons: You might just explain why, then, that section is repealed as of March 31, 2000 -- which is section 5, right after 4, which we just discussed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the power to make it retroactive to March 31, 1999. They lose that power. This is just to deal with the retroactivity until the orders are properly passed. So by the year 2000, it has to all be in place.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

S. Hawkins: I have some questions on this section. I'm wondering why the limit is being topped from $450 million to $500 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The expansion is to cover projects that have already been approved, such as Avcorp, Dynapro, Huckleberry Mines, Newbridge Networks, MTU Maintenance, Rebco Wood Products and then to allow for, perhaps, some further activity this year.

S. Hawkins: It seems to me that the government is getting into a habit of increasing this slush fund. In 1997 we saw the government increase the funding from $400 million to $450 million, and this year we're seeing it go from $450 million to $500 million. It seems that the government is getting into the business of increasing this fund. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of accountability questions that arise in this. These funds are used by the Minister of Small Business and the Minister of Employment and Investment in their ministries to provide small business incentive loans or industrial incentive loans and funds. But according to the act, in section 4, they are exempted from section 45 of the Financial Administration Act. So it seems to me that the ministers have the discretion to use these funds, and they don't really have to go through any process in cabinet to disburse these funds. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just clarify what the industrial incentive fund is for. Investments are made on a commercial basis. They're all approved by order-in-council and made public. They're done in partnership with the private sector. They're done to take particularly targeted action in various communities for getting the economy going and creating and retaining jobs. The loans and investments made from the industrial incentive fund fill a financing need that has been identified by the private sector. It allows for increased private-public partnerships. This is actually working in partnership with the private sector.

S. Hawkins: Well, there's millions sitting in E&I that isn't being used. In the auditor general's "Report on Financial

[ Page 12250 ]

[1500]

S. Hawkins: Well, it's transferred back. There are funds that aren't being used for the purposes that the minister's talking about now. And we're increasing this fund by another $50 million. We increased it by an additional $50 million two years ago. That's $100 million in about two years. Can the minister tell us what factors, then, are contributing to this fund being increased and other funds in E&I -- in the ministry -- not being used? There are millions being transferred back to general revenue, and yet there are funds being asked for in this act that are being used for industrial incentives and small business incentives. Why aren't those funds being used first?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're completely separate. The member has pointed out that they've been transferred back in. If the member is somehow questioning the value of the industrial incentive fund in terms of private-public partnerships, I would be particularly interested in hearing her put that on record.

S. Hawkins: My question is: why are we increasing these funds? Obviously there are problems. Maybe they're government-related problems. More businesses are asking for loans; more businesses are asking for help. Maybe the government needs to look at what they're doing to contribute to this problem. Maybe businesses and industry are asking for help because this minister and her government are strangling business. They need the help. We know the economy is bad, and we know the economy has been in recession. Maybe the minister should just be honest and admit that that's why this fund keeps getting topped up every year. You know, that's $100 million in two years. Frankly, in estimates we will question where this money is going.

This was enacted in 1984. I'll actually look at the history of the act. I'm pulling up the numbers now to see where it started and where this government has brought it -- to $500 million to date. It seems to me that if we were in good times, we would be decreasing that number, and businesses wouldn't be looking for that kind of support. Because the government has placed industry and small business in such dire straits, this government is now looking at topping up these funds.

It's incredible that the minister just sits back and says: "We need to increase this by another $50 million this year." I'm just asking her: can she tell me what factors went into providing $50 million for a top-up of this fund? What factors did her government use to say that we need another $50 million today to top up this fund to $500 million, when we topped it up $50 million two years ago? It's now at $500 million -- half a billion dollars.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My gosh. We're not off to a very good start when the opposition thinks they can just repeat the same question after getting an answer.

I am particularly interested to know this member's point of view on the industrial incentive fund. She seems to be questioning the value of commercial loans working in partnership with the private sector, perhaps to stimulate local economies. If the member is somehow suggesting that she, as a local representative, would not like to partake in any of this, fair enough -- put that on. Except if the private sector wishes to enter into commercial loans that are evaluated, that are paid back, that virtually every government, including Alberta and Ontario, participates in. . . . It's economic stimulation.

I have listed the projects that have been approved and said that there will be more coming. But if this member is suggesting that there is no value attached to the industrial incentive fund for community economic development, then I think she should stand up and put that on record right now.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think what the member is saying is that if this economy were in a little better shape, perhaps there wouldn't be so many people banging on the government's door for assistance all the time. They could make it in the private sector market and secure the funds that way.

The minister listed a number of the projects that some of this $50 million has already been attributed to. She said there's also room for further projects. Can she tell us how much is left in that $50 million that's not accounted for?

[1505]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sorry; I want to make sure I got this correctly. Is the minister saying that almost the entire $50 million is left, or has it already been attributed? Can the minister tell me how much of that. . . ? Is $49.5 million, $43 million or $35 million left? I'd like to know the figure.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Between $49 million and $50 million. The fund has not reached its cap yet. There are commitments that I listed out there that will push up right against the cap. There's almost the full $50 million left for economic development.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to be clear, because the minister listed a number of significant projects that are out there. Is she saying that those projects have pushed it up to the $450 million cap and perhaps just slightly over and that excluding the projects that she listed, there remains another $49.5 million?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is room; they will see from the estimates that there is room in the $450 million. The projects that I've listed will push the commercial loans to $450 million, and there is activity under consideration for. . . . There is actually activity under consideration from the private sector beyond $50 million, but we're capping it at another $50 million.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us whether any of that further $50 million is to be attributed. . . ? Are there discussions taking place on whether or not any of that $50 million is to be attributed or given to Skeena Cellulose?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I can get that answer, but Skeena Cellulose remains as it was announced two years ago.

[ Page 12251 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, not that I. . . . No.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister hesitated. I just want to get a clear answer. Are there, or are there not. . . ? Well, the minister hesitated. I just want to get a clear answer from her, because I'm hearing different things around here.

There's $50 million being asked for to increase the cap on this fund, and my question is: are there discussions going on now? Have there been discussions going on to try and get that $40 million from this fund? Are those discussions taking place -- yes or no? That's all I'm asking. Are they taking place? Have they taken place? Is there a plan, or potential plan, that that $40 million could come out of this $50 million cap?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I gave the answer: no.

Section 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

D. Symons: Just a brief question here. I gather from the auditor general that the reason section 18 is here is, again, the transfer of the assets and capitalization of the highways to the BCTFA. I gather that's the purpose that's here. But then I notice toward the end that this will allow. . . . The substitution will be:

"If the title to all or part of a highway is vested solely in the Crown in right of the Province or in the BC Transportation Financing Authority, the Minister of Transportation and Highways may apply to register the title to all or part of the highway in the Crown in the right of the Province or in the BC Transportation Finance Authority, as the case may be."

[1510]

D. Symons: Just one further clarification. Will not all the title of the highways now rest with the Transportation Financing Authority? This seems to imply that some of it may not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is right. The vast majority of highways will go with the BCTFA. There are some highways that apparently exist on leased land now. They're very small, but we're not disturbing those at this point, because they're on leased land.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

T. Nebbeling: Minister, you're aware that the Municipal Act has seen a considerable uplift or rejigging to give the communities that are regulated by it more power and say in how matters proceed in their community. Section 36 of Bill 31 gives the communities the right that. . . . When a council borrows for a capital project and a counter-petition is presented to council representing 5 percent of the community's voters, that council can be forced to have a referendum if the borrowing should actually happen for that particular project. Why would that same principle not apply to a hospital district when they contemplate borrowing that will have an impact on property tax in these communities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's question. Nothing has changed here in the process of approving debt. It's just transferring the current debt to the MFA -- at the request of the municipalities.

T. Nebbeling: So is the minister saying that this section will not apply to future borrowing by hospital districts? What would be done, then, would be in a different manner than that in which a local council borrows money for a capital project within a community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's nothing in this act that deals with approval of debt. All the same rules apply. This just lists where the debt is held.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

T. Nebbeling: The same question really relates to this section as well, except that here, clearly, is an authority created for a regional body to borrow for capital projects within that region. It clearly will have the power now to go back to the communities, through direct property tax assessment, to recuperate or find the funding for these projects. This is stronger than section 21 in the sense that here we are not talking about regional hospitals; we're talking about all kinds of infrastructure that may be needed for a transportation system, as in the GVRD's case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're providing this at the request of the GVRD and the GVTA. Those two entities, the GVTA and the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district -- oh, sorry; the third one is the greater Vancouver water district -- have the ability to borrow now themselves. This merely enables the GVRD to borrow on their behalf -- for short-term borrowing only.

T. Nebbeling: And that's the problem. Municipalities do not have the power, if they're questioned by a small percentage of the population of a community, to go ahead with the project until a referendum takes place even if it is for short-term borrowing.

[1515]

[ Page 12252 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no changes in the rules of approval for short-term debt. Right now the municipalities don't have to have assent for short-term borrowing. Nothing changes here except that if the GVTA or the water district, which now have the right to borrow short-term. . . . The same rules apply for borrowing: they can ask the GVRD to do it on their behalf. That's all; that's the only change here.

T. Nebbeling: If that's the only change, why would there not be a clause that even if the borrowing is done on behalf of a local authority, the citizens have the right to petition that particular issue with a counter-petition? Basically you give the municipality or the GVRD the power to add to property tax assessments on an annual basis for short-term borrowing.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, you do, because the GVRD has the right now to have property taxation powers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no change in the approval process. What existed before exists now. The only difference is that they can ask the GVRD to do it on their behalf. There's no change. If assent was required before, it will be required now. If there was no assent required before, borrowing on a short-term basis will take place in the same fashion. There's no need to specify it; the same rules apply as did previously.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going a little bit further. It's just that the change really is to Bill 31, which gives citizens the power to petition and counter-petition a decision by a council. That power is not being transferred onto borrowing decisions by the GVRD, although we're talking about the same taxpayers. It is the same people in the same community who will have to accept borrowing by the GVRD for which they are then partially responsible through property taxation. That's why there is a difference today compared to a year ago.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has no impact on Bill 31; Bill 31 applies.

T. Nebbeling: So the minister is saying that Bill 31 applies, that citizens have the right to counter-petition the GVRD?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, then Bill 31 does not apply.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is nothing in this legislation that changes the approval process that existed before. Whatever occurs under the approval process for municipalities or these authorities in terms of citizen input still applies. Nothing has changed here because of that.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

D. Symons: Again, it's just a clarification on this part, because there do seem to be some problems in financing regarding the SkyTrain situation in Vancouver. This part relates to it: "Prescribed debt obligations owed by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. to the government as a result of borrowings. . .from the government before March 31, 1999, are released." Does that mean the government is going to pick up all the debt that the Rapid Transit office has incurred up to March 31 of this year? Is that the understanding? It says here that this is self-explanatory, but I would like some explanation on whether that's the actual meaning of what's occurring.

[1520]

D. Symons: It was the capital debt before that date and will continue after that date as well? Or is it just the capital debt up to that particular date? Or will the government be holding the debt for the whole project, past and present?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This only deals with the debt that was accumulated to March 31 and puts it on our books now. It'll then be prepaid capital advances.

D. Symons: Those last few words caught my attention: "It'll then be prepaid capital advances." What you're saying, then, is that although the government is taking this debt onto their books, you're going to hold it as debt now for the GVTA. Is that correct, then? No?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has nothing to do with the GVTA. This is treating this debt, this capital expenditure, the same way as a school -- as per the auditor general's request.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 53, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 55.

PROBATE FEE ACT

On section 1.

[ Page 12253 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[1525]

One of the terms defined here is the value of the estate. As I understand the current practice, the affidavit that is filed -- which has a statement of assets, liabilities and distribution exhibited to it -- may disclose the value of assets both inside and outside British Columbia, but the fee is levied only in respect of the value of assets located in British Columbia. My understanding is that that is the current practice. Is that what is intended to apply on a going-forward basis? In other words, there is no intention here on the part of government to levy this tax or fee against assets, real or personal, of a deceased which are situated outside British Columbia.

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: Section 2 begins with the words: "In addition to any fees payable under the Rules of Court to commence a proceeding to obtain the issue of a grant or a resealing and to any fees payable under the Rules of Court to file documents within that proceeding. . . ." Those would be two different types of fees -- that is, the fee payable to commence a proceeding to obtain the issue of a grant or a resealing and a fee payable to file documents within that proceeding. Can the minister indicate what those fees currently are under the rules of court?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The fee doesn't apply for any estate under $10,000, and the fee is a flat fee of $208.

G. Plant: The $208 fee is a fee that applies in respect of commencing the proceeding and includes filing documents. There's no separate fee, in other words, for filing documents. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are smaller document fees -- yes.

G. Plant: So those fees would be similar to the fees that currently obtain under the rules of court for filing affidavits and motions and things of that ilk. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: So the fee which the government here chooses to call the probate fee, which is the ad valorem fee to be charged on estates, is the fee that is over and above those filing fees of $208 and the incidental or smaller filing fees for affidavits and the like. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: It seems to me that we have here an interesting question of characterization. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the problem with the fee that was levied in Ontario by regulation was that it was a tax and not a fee, properly so called. It seems to me that the government is being, at best, disingenuous by introducing a bill to correct the constitutional problem without being honest about what the fee really ought to be called. I think it is, at best, misleading to the public to call this a fee when it really amounts to a tax on the value of the estates of deceased persons.

[1530]

The amendments would replace the word "fee" wherever it appears in the act with the words "death tax." Once the amendment is passed -- as I'm sure the government will see the wisdom of it and join with me in supporting these amendments -- then there would be the consequential amendment required to ensure that the title of the bill is also honest -- by changing the words "probate fee" in the title of the bill and replacing those words with the words "death tax." Obviously the change to the title is a consequential amendment, but we are here dealing with section 2 of the act.

As a result, hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name in respect of that section.

[SECTIONS 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, are amended by replacing the word "fee" wherever it appears and replacing it with the words "death tax." THE TITLE is amended by deleting the words "probate fee" and replacing it with the words "death tax."]

But let me just say something. Of course, I absolutely defer to the hon. member's illustrious legal background. The court case that gave rise to this did not demand that the government name its action in any way. What it said was that the action that the government is taking on collecting money from the public must be debated and passed through legislation. That's what it said. So the hon. member is playing political games by suggesting that the courts ordered that this be called a tax. The court outlined what procedure had to be put in place in order to ensure that this met the test required by the court itself, and that's what this legislation is doing.

The Chair: Members, the Chair will rule on the amendment. The House gave second reading approval to the principle of this bill to amend the Probate Fee Act. To change "fee" to "tax" would be contrary to the principle of the bill.

G. Plant: Is it the minister's view that this is a fee and not a tax?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is defined, as required by the court that it be, through legislation. Whether it be called a tax or a

[ Page 12254 ]

G. Plant: I'm not surprised, hon. Chair -- and neither are you, I'm sure -- that the minister is very sensitive about this issue. I'm sure the minister's position is that she could call this revenue-generating device anything she likes. She could call it the probate gift act or the probate carpet act or the probate royalty act. I think that is the minister's position -- that the name is irrelevant and that she can call it anything she likes.

The question is: have they followed the right procedure? My understanding is that the reason that the court said they had to follow a different procedure was because the revenue-generating method was in the nature of -- for constitutional purposes -- a tax. My question to the minister is: why not call a tax a tax?

[1535]

Hon. A. Petter: The member is simply being provocative on this issue. The member knows full well that the requirements that were set down by the court required certain changes to be made in legislation. Those changes have been reflected in legislation. The fact that the constitutional jurisprudence uses certain nomenclature was not a requirement that the court said had to be incorporated into legislative nomenclature. The member is trying to do that for political, provocative reasons that, frankly, are not really relevant to the question of changing and correcting this legislation.

G. Plant: Well, I'm interested that the members opposite are scared to death to stand up and use the word "tax." Now, let me be clear about something, because I am not standing up for a moment. . . . This will assist the Minister of Finance, because she did completely misconstrue my statements a few minutes ago. I'm not standing up and saying that the Supreme Court of Canada told this or any other Legislature that you had to call it a tax; I didn't say that. The minister would like to imagine that I said that. But not surprisingly. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, the minister will in fact see what the record says. What the minister will see is that I am suggesting. . . . It's me that is making the suggestion that if the government were to be a little bit honest about this, they would call it a tax. Apparently they're afraid even to stand up and use the word.

Now, it may be that this is a mere matter of nomenclature, as the Minister of Advanced Education points out. We'll let the public decide that; that will be a matter for the public to decide in due course. When the minister says that I am being merely provocative. . . . Well, I don't know. I actually thought that occasionally debate was something one could have in this chamber. The issue is in fact a matter that is worthy of some debate, because there are many people out there who are. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yes. You know, the Minister of Finance is so terribly anxious to speak on this that she won't even get to her feet and use the word "tax," but she will sit in her chair and utter all kinds of interesting statements about what's going on in Ontario.

My question is this: why won't the minister stand up today and give a perfectly good public policy reason about why in fact it's not being called a tax by this government? You know what, hon. Chair? You'll be interested to learn this. The act that the government of Ontario introduced isn't called a probate fee act either. So maybe the minister could explain from her perspective: is it simply a matter of nomenclature, to use the Minister of Advanced Education's language?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, I look forward to seeing this Liberal opposition's budget, where they actually justify their actions by saying they wouldn't charge this, they wouldn't collect this amount of money, they wouldn't do what every other government has done to maintain the status quo. I look very much forward, after they return from seeing their Reform and Tory friends in Ontario, to seeing how they're going to manage the budget from a status quo point of view. Do you know what? They won't be able to. They'll be cutting, and they'll not be telling the truth about the cutting that they're doing.

We have complied with the court's decision. Yes, it is a matter of nomenclature.

The Chair: I just want to remind the members that I have made a ruling in regard to the amendment. I want to deal with section 2 of the bill.

[1540]

[ Page 12255 ]

My understanding is that the fees collected under the rate increase imposed as of April 1, 1997, under what is to become this probate fee, were something like $21 million in the first year and something like $28 million in the year just finished. For the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of section 2 and whether or not we on this side of the House would be prepared to give it our support, I wonder if the minister could confirm that those numbers are accurate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, we collected $24.5 million. We're using the same estimate in this budget this year.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: Just for the sake of clarity, hon. Chair, you ruled the amendment to section 2 out of order. I take it that. . . . It is the same ruling for the amendment that would be proposed to sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 -- is that correct?

The Chair: That would be correct, member.

G. Plant: Right.

On section 3, I want to make sure that I understand the limits of the regulation-making power that is conferred here. Maybe the way to do it is this. For the last ten years, according to the government, there is at least a risk if not a certainty that the government has been collecting these fees illegally, and therefore this bill is being made retroactive to April 1, 1988.

There is a status quo. That is, there were regulations in place throughout that period. Under those regulations, at different times and at different levels fees were collected. The bill before us gives the government the power to legislate and regulate retroactively. That creates, perhaps, the risk that the government might seek to legislate or regulate retroactively to change what was the status quo between 1988 and 1999 by, for example, imposing a higher or a lower charge in respect of all of the estates that were probated during that period.

My assumption is that that is not the government's intention. My assumption is that the government does not intend to do anything other than retroactively validate that which was done between 1988 and 1999, or between 1988 and when this act comes into force, and that the government has no intention of imposing new fees or different fees for that 11-year period, higher or lower than the fees that were actually charged. Is that a correct statement?

[1545]

G. Plant: All right. Well, that's fine, then.

Section 3 approved.

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the Legislature today is a group of grades 10, 11 and 12 students from Austin O'Brien School in Edmonton, Alberta. Accompanying them this afternoon are their teachers and teachers' aides. I trust they are enjoying their time in beautiful British Columbia, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

On section 4.

G. Plant: Let me try another really complex question. Why is section 4 here?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's to ensure that. . . . It's a precaution against perhaps an opposite view being taken by the courts that this legislation could. . . . It's actually very cautionary. If someone argued that this contravened the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act. . . . We're doing that as a precaution against the courts upholding that view.

G. Plant: I take it that the government doesn't consider that there would be any legitimacy to that argument.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's correct.

G. Plant: So there's absolutely no need for this section, is there?

Interjections.

G. Plant: Let me just establish this, for clarity. The Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act, in its terms, did not expressly include or extend to probate fees at any point. Is that correct, or is there some confusion about that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is correct. This is taking a cautious approach.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: What happens to people who have made overpayments? Do they get the money back?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The current policy applies. They can file an affidavit and get a refund.

G. Plant: And, of course, they'd have to pay a filing fee for the affidavit.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the current policy, and my understanding is that they don't now, so they won't. . . . It's whatever the current policy is.

G. Plant: The government's position is that section 5 would not in any way affect the existing practice with respect to refunds of overpayments, and if there is a situation where someone is entitled to such a refund, this bill would not stand as an obstacle to that entitlement.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[ Page 12256 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I'm not sure what section the member quoted, but it's the beginning of section 5 that does that.

[1550]

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the member asking whether it's section 5(2) that does that -- that prevents the court case from proceeding successfully?

G. Plant: That was the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: One thing that can happen in the course of the administration of an estate is that the executor or the personal representative can discover that there was insufficient disclosure of the assets of the estate, which would conceivably result in an increased value in the estate. My understanding is that the intention of section 5 and the act as a whole, I suppose -- it may also be section 2 -- is that in those situations, the personal representative would have to file new information with the court and presumably pay the fee applicable in respect of the additional amounts so disclosed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and they'd pay the rate that was in force at the time they first filed.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Plant: The minister will forgive me for making her life more complex for a moment by asking a question that applies to more than one section. I take it that the way sections 6, 7 and 8 work together with section 9 is to essentially ramp up the fee through the 12- or 11-year period from 1988 to date to give effect to the intention, which is to preserve the fee as it was charged and increased in stages over that period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It puts in place, through legislation, what actually occurred -- yes.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 55, Probate Fee Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Attorney General -- in a few seconds.

[1555]

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's rare that I read my speeches. This one I'm going to read because I want to put on the record many things that we have done and many things that we think we're going to do over the next year or so.

I'm waiting for some of my staff. Now, before I begin my remarks, I'd like to introduce my deputy minister and Deputy Attorney General, Maureen Maloney, who is sitting to the left of me.

We all know that our world is changing rapidly, and the needs and expectations of British Columbians are changing as well. Two years ago we began a journey to reform British Columbia's justice system. I'm proud to say that we're well on our way to building a justice system in British Columbia that better reflects the priorities of British Columbians -- a justice system in which everyone in this province can have confidence.

In March, I spent a day with our key justice partners -- the chiefs of police and members of the legal profession -- to discuss progress on our justice reforms and how we can make the justice system better. The judiciary also participated in this justice system consultation. We continue to work with our justice partners towards a vision of the province where people feel safe and secure at home and in their communities, where civil disputes are effectively and sensitively resolved, where access to justice processes is timely and affordable, where communities actively participate in the justice system, where businesses and individuals can prosper in a fair and effective regulatory environment and where diverse cultures are valued and respected.

I want to tell you about some of our accomplishments and our plans for the year ahead. We are taking tough action to reduce serious crime and protect communities. The encouraging news is that for the sixth year in a row, B.C.'s crime rate has decreased. Preliminary 1998 crime data suggests that the crime rate in British Columbia dropped another 5 percent between 1997 and 1998. Am I satisfied with these results? No. Although crime rates have levelled off, the type and nature of crimes have changed.

We have all heard about cowardly attacks on British Columbians in their homes -- the so-called home invasions. These despicable attacks are often against the most vulnerable in our society. We have also heard about people being robbed in their garages. Schoolyard fights now involve curbing and

[ Page 12257 ]

[1600]

We've taken other actions to protect communities from serious crime. The work of the unsolved homicide unit has now led to a total of 20 charges being laid in previously unsolved murders. An independent, provincewide, police-based agency has been established to fight organized crime under the leadership of Beverley Ann Busson. A 12-member joint police task force to combat auto thefts has been created. B.C.'s provincial prostitution unit has assisted police in 50 arrests and charges against johns who sexually exploit children. We are also aware of nearly 100 other charges by police as a result of increased awareness in British Columbia of this terrible issue.

We continued our highly successful weapons amnesty program. More than 2,000 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition were turned in. Auxiliary and reserve constables will continue to be involved in community policing and crime prevention activities in addition to handling some restricted general policing duties under the direct supervision of a police officer. British Columbia continues to call for a national strategy to address the major crime and social problems associated with illicit drug use. A working subcommittee was established. On behalf of the subcommittee, my ministry conducted a national survey of injection drug treatment approaches to identify appropriate and effective treatment approaches.

I would like to mention that last year we also appointed Don Morrison as B.C.'s first and brand-new independent police complaint commissioner, who deals with complaints regarding municipal police. I have said that Ottawa should actually do likewise and make sure that they do amendments to their legislation to ensure that the RCMP in British Columbia are subjected to our complaints process, which is different and new.

At the same time, I'm continuing to lobby Ottawa to make changes to other federal laws that will further protect the people of our province and all Canadians -- for example, raising the maximum penalty for stalking from five to ten years; establishing a national registry of high risk, violent and sex offenders, especially pedophiles, to give justice system staff and the public more accurate and timely information; raising the age of consent from 14 to 16; allowing DNA samples to be taken from individuals charged rather than convicted; and allowing mandatory HIV testing of people accused of sexual assault.

I was pleased to see Ottawa introduce a number of the changes to the Young Offenders Act that I have been calling for, such as facilitating the transfer of more serious cases involving violent young offenders to adult court. I am pleased that the federal government amended the Criminal Code to make it easier to charge and convict adults who sexually exploit children and youth. These changes are now in effect, as of May 1. And I have received unanimous support from Canada's Minister of Justice for my proposal to expand protection from hate crimes to include more people, to make possession of hate propaganda a Criminal Code offence and to look for ways to prevent the use of the Internet as a medium for hate crimes and child pornography.

[1605]

We are also continuing to take steps to ensure that the voices of victims are heard and that their needs are served throughout the criminal justice system. In addition to our provincewide, toll-free victim assistance line, British Columbia has now more than 150 victim service programs across the province, the most extensive network of programs to serve the needs of victims in any province in this country. We are continuing to implement British Columbia's Victims of Crime Act. This innovative act, the most comprehensive victim-rights legislation in the country, gives victims specific rights to information and involvement throughout the justice process.

Dealing with low-risk offenders, when it comes to less serious offences without violence, British Columbians have made it clear that while they believe offenders must be held accountable for their crimes, they prefer an approach which repairs the harm caused to individuals and communities, a restorative justice approach. We gathered information and advice, based on our conferences throughout this province, that people of British Columbia agree that it's the appropriate approach to take.

We are implementing this approach in a wide variety of programs, strategies and processes through the criminal justice system. Last year we encouraged communities to set up local community accountability programs. To date, 35 communities have received startup grants. We are considering proposals from 11 more communities. We see community accountability programs and other restorative justice measures, such as alternative measures programs, as beneficial in two ways. They help B.C.'s justice system to deal more effectively with low-risk offenders, and at the same time, they allow the traditional court system to focus its resources on high-risk offenders.

Last fall I had the opportunity to speak to a group of elementary school students in the interior. They had a message they wanted to give me. That message is that it's important that we respect the differences in each other. These students told me that their views are the result of some of the crime prevention and early intervention programs delivered by the Ministry of Attorney General.

[ Page 12258 ]

Children in elementary schools are getting help in developing crime prevention skills through the All Together Now program. Our youth drama groups, such as 841-KOZ, TCO2 and TROO reach nearly 300,000 young people and community members last year.

The British Columbia youth police network has linked 150 specifically trained officers with youth, schools and parents to develop youth violence prevention strategies in more than 135 communities. In 1998 we added a new tool for police officers, an orientation and reference guide, that provide links and resources for officers working with youth throughout the province.

With respect to civil and family disputes, sadly, most parents only come in contact with our court system when their relationships break down. The traditional court system is not necessarily the appropriate forum for resolving these disputes, especially when children are involved. That is why we have implemented changes to the civil and family side of the justice system. These changes encourage the use of more effective, timely and affordable alternatives to traditional court processes to resolve disputes.

[1610]

There is another matter that is of particular concern to me and our government: ensuring that we support children and families in this province. When relationships fail and children are involved, one parent often ends up shouldering an unfair share of the responsibility of raising the kids. In addition, the other parent often fails to live up to his or her financial responsibility to the children. The government has a responsibility that the maintenance commitment to children and families is met, and met on a timely basis. That's why supporting children and families is another priority for our ministry.

This past year, the family maintenance enforcement program collected over $100 million. We also implemented new enforcement measures for child support, such as garnisheeing defaulters pensions and company assets or charging an annual default fee in addition to measures introduced by the federal government.

Initiatives such as mediation in civil cases and community accountability programs for low-risk offenders help to take the pressure off our overburdened court system by providing opportunities to resolve disputes and address conflict outside of the court process. As such, they are part of our ministry's ongoing strategy to reduce backlogs and delays in provincial courts and make our court system more efficient and accessible.

Chief Judge Robert Metzger completed a review of the provincial court system last year to identify strategies for addressing backlogs and delays. The ministry is acting on his recommendations. Last year we appointed five new judges to the provincial court to help tackle the backlog of cases, starting in the communities where they are most needed. The year before that we had appointed four other new judges. The judiciary and the ministry's criminal justice branch are now in the process of implementing the new 14-day rule to make sure that fewer criminal cases move from one court to another. In addition, we are encouraging the use of new technologies, such as video conferencing, to increase access to our courts, reduce remand escorts and help reduce the cost of civil litigation.

Far too often I receive letters from British Columbians, especially seniors, telling me how they have been duped out of their savings by unscrupulous business people. I'm proud of the steps we have taken over the past year to protect the interests of consumers and ensure that scam artists who make their living by preying on vulnerable citizens are brought to justice. We strengthened the Trade Practice Act to better protect consumers and to send a clear message that deceptive, misleading and unconscionable business practices will not be tolerated.

British Columbia also worked with our federal, provincial and territorial partners in reaching a cooperative enforcement agreement to enhance information-sharing and mutual assistance during cross-jurisdictional investigations. The agreement came into effect April 1 this year. British Columbia helped create Canshare, a national computer system for sharing consumer information. Canshare represents a significant achievement in information-sharing and consumer protection across the country. Our province has taken the lead in working with other Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions to shut down fraudulent businesses on both sides of the border, particularly those using telemarketing.

[1615]

Turning to my other area of responsibility, multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, I had the honour of being invited to join human rights dignitaries from around the world, including South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, at the International Human Rights Conference on human values in Edmonton in November last year. At that conference, which marked the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I told delegates about the leadership role that British Columbia is playing in Canada in the area of human rights legislation.

[ Page 12259 ]

As I said earlier, I'm proud of the progress we have made in reforming B.C.'s justice system over the last two years. At the same time, I recognize that there is still much more work to be done. As we move forward into the 1999-2000 year, my ministry will continue to build on our progress.

Let me tell you about some of the issues and initiatives we'll be focusing on in this fiscal year. Too many British Columbians feel afraid for their own safety and the safety of their children. During '99-2000 my ministry will continue not only to make innovative crime prevention programs and public safety initiatives a priority but also work to increase British Columbians' sense of security. That includes taking additional steps to ensure our schools are free of violence. Clearly, children and young people should not have to fear bullying, intimidation or threats when in school.

Following the tragic events in Littleton, Colorado, and in Taber, Alberta, the topic of keeping our schools safe has been on the minds of many people in this province and across North America. Our ministry will continue to enhance the tools and resources we have made available to help educators, schools and community groups develop strategies to keep our schools and communities safe. For example, one of our plans is to build upon our successful Safe Schools, Safe Communities initiative -- a joint venture between our ministry and the Ministry of Education.

We will also be expanding our efforts to educate British Columbians on how they can be safe and feel safe in their communities. For example, I can tell you that later this month we will be mailing out to households across the province a crime prevention publication called "Be Safe." This is a public sector-private sector partnership. As part of our efforts to improve the safety of women and other victims of violence, we'll be making an announcement on clarifying the process for changing one's name for people who feel that changing their identity is the only solution to staying alive.

I've directed the provincial prostitution unit to explore ways of addressing another very disturbing threat to the safety of women and children -- international trafficking in women and children. A special joint forces police operation is currently providing training to police officers on how to respond to this despicable crime. I've also announced my intentions to provide $75,000 for the DISC program developed by the Vancouver police department to better battle prostitution and the sexual exploitation of youth and children.

[1620]

We'll be taking further action to address the serious and growing problem of drug abuse in our province and across Canada. As part of our ongoing drug abuse strategy, British Columbia is working with the federal, municipal and health authorities to develop a pilot drug court in Vancouver's downtown east side. Drug courts involve mandatory treatment under judicial supervision. They have proven to be an effective alternative to jail for certain less serious kinds of drug offences. The ministry is also looking at establishing a community court in the province that will focus on less serious non-violent offenders. At the same time, we will continue to work with other jurisdictions on the development and implementation of a national drug strategy.

Increasing the efficiency of our court system to reduce court backlogs and help ensure that all British Columbians have better access to the justice process will be another important focus this year. Planning is currently underway for the September implementation of the new criminal case management rules designed to improve the efficiency of the court process. This will be the first significant change in the criminal court rules in 40 years. We will also continue to expand the use of video cameras and monitors in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court of B.C. to allow lawyers, witnesses, offenders and parties involved in civil disputes to participate in proceedings from locations hundreds of miles away. At the same time, we will continue to work with communities to develop the most efficient, cost-effective options for regional court services, including our decision on the Fraser Valley regional justice centre.

While I'm on the subject of our courts, I'd like to inform the members of this House that this year, 1999, is the twenty-fifth anniversary of our court services and criminal justice branches. The hardworking members of the court services and criminal justice branches -- in fact, all employees of my ministry -- provide the services that go with the day-to-day operations of our courts and other services. These are the men and women that make these services real. I don't have to tell you what an increasingly challenging job that has been over the last few years as the pressures on our court system and other branches have continued to grow. I want to express my appreciation to the court services and the criminal justice staff and other employees of the ministry for their work and dedication in ensuring the smooth running of not only our courts but all our branches and for their contribution to our efforts to reform the court processes and other processes in our ministry.

Another concern I want to address this fiscal year is the issue of inappropriate sales of medicinal and culinary products containing alcohol, such as rice alcohol and other cooking wines. This, of course, is an issue that ties into the whole larger and complex social problem of alcohol abuse. There is no easy answer. There needs to be a balance to ensure that such products are not abused but are also available to those who are using them for legitimate daily purposes. My ministry's liquor control and licensing branch has consulted with the key stakeholders, and my staff are in the process of developing recommendations.

[ Page 12260 ]

[1625]

Hon. Chair, that concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: Another year passes, and I'm pleased to find myself with the opportunity to respond to the Attorney General's opening remarks and to have the opportunity to participate in the estimates process.

The Attorney General has outlined some -- well, probably all -- of the major initiatives that have been underway in his ministry over the last couple of years, with the addition of a bit of a sense of where he is going and where he wants to take his ministry over the next year. The ministry for which the Attorney General is responsible encompasses a broad range of the activities of government, not only the core. . . . I mean, leaving aside for a moment the obvious fact that in addition to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the minister is responsible for multiculturalism, immigration and human rights -- which are themselves significant responsibilities -- the fact is that the Ministry of Attorney General itself is a broad and diverse ministry with a wide range of responsibilities. I suppose that if we were to scrutinize here every single program of every division of every branch within that ministry, we could be here for a long time. Pleasant as that thought may be, it might not advance the real purposes of this process.

When I look at the broad range of issues and responsibilities that are encompassed by the Ministry of Attorney General and try to think of what it is that is perhaps at the heart of all of it, it is both the institutions of justice in our society and in this province, and the question of public safety. That is what our police do; it is what our court system does. It concerns itself with public safety.

The Attorney General has talked about some of the initiatives that his ministry has pursued over the past number of years in the area of public safety, and the Attorney General has talked about what he sees doing over the next year under the heading of public safety. In the course of his remarks, the Attorney General drew an important distinction which I want to re-emphasize. On the one hand, the statistics tell us that crime, in many ways, is on the decline. In fact, as the Attorney General said, rates of crime have been steadily declining for some years. At the same time that that is happening, the public's sense of its safety -- public perception around crime and public safety -- is not changing much for the better. In fact, it may, if anything, be growing slightly worse.

[1630]

One of the most obvious measurables imaginable would be to look at rates of crime -- to be concerned with whether crime is on the rise or on the decline. Because if crime is on the decline, then the need for most of the infrastructure must surely, eventually, decline. We have courts to deal with people who are charged with criminal offences. We have prisons and other programs to deal with people who are convicted of criminal offences. We have police, of course, to detect and investigate crime. We also have police in other programs and services to prevent crime.

If those prevention programs are working, if something is happening in society with the result that crime is on the decline, then people who make public policy -- governments, people like the Attorney General -- should have a sense of accomplishment, that they've achieved something. Yet sadly, notwithstanding the fact that according to objective measurements, rates of crime are on the decline, there is really no positive movement on what we call the perception front -- that is, the sense of safety that people have. It may be that in part that's due to the way in which crime has changed. The Attorney General talked about home invasions, garage robberies -- kinds of criminal activity, certainly in urban British Columbia, which create an enormous amount of fear. Clearly governments have to respond to those threats.

I just want to spend a moment or two looking at a couple of sort of isolated, anecdotal instances of this continuing problem. A group of people who help the B.C. Liberal Party in terms of our outreach into the Chinese community conducted a very informal survey -- probably not a very scientifically legitimate survey, but a survey nonetheless -- over the course of the lunar new year earlier this year. The questions that were asked were open-ended questions about what public policy issues were of greatest concern to the people who responded to this survey, the majority of whom were members of the Chinese Canadian community. When we do those surveys or learn about those surveys in terms of the broader community of British Columbia, I think we tend to find that the economy is top of mind for most British Columbians, and health care or education will follow shortly behind.

In this survey, the winner, if you will -- the issue that was top of mind, of greatest concern, for this particular community -- was crime. An extraordinarily high number -- I think it was on the order of 91 percent -- of people who responded to

[ Page 12261 ]

[1635]

The last point along the road I want to just highlight for a moment is a headline in a more recent issue of the Vancouver Sun: "Police Cite Revolving Door for Thieves." This is a story about the case of one man who had become a suspect in a vehicle break-in and who had been convicted 94 times. The headline suggested that his case highlights the problem known as "the 4 percenters," a group of chronic crooks blamed for most crime.

There are other examples, and I'm sure I don't get as many letters as the Attorney General does from people who are concerned about these issues. I know I get lots of those letters. I know that for whatever reason, they are not yet comforted by the statistics that show us that rates of crime are declining. It seems to me that that creates a twofold challenge. First of all, there is still more that needs to be done. There is more in the way of substantive policy-making, program design -- whatever it takes. There is more progress we need to make in terms of reducing the actual incidents of crime in our society.

But secondly, there is a more enigmatic challenge. That is a challenge around changing the culture of public perception about crime and criminal activity and whether or not we are as safe as we should be in our homes and our communities. The minister would probably agree with me when I suggest that he and all people in government face that challenge as well. Call it a challenge of education, a challenge of communication -- those are, I think, fundamentally important challenges for government.

A year ago we had just received the report of Chief Judge Metzger which informed British Columbians that their Provincial Court system was in crisis. Backlogs in that court had reached unacceptably high levels. The result of backlogs in the court system, in the case of criminal cases, is that judges eventually get the power under the Charter to stay a charge against an accused person because the system has taken too long to bring that person before the court for trial. I suppose we as politicians can all say that one charge stayed on the basis of unreasonable delay is one charge too many in a justice system that is working to maintain public respect.

Be that as it may, a year ago things were, according to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, in a state of crisis. The Attorney General has referred to some of the action taken over the course of the last year to address that. During the course of this debate, I hope to explore some aspects of that and to get a bit more detail from the Attorney General on how his ministry and other actors within the justice system are responding to that challenge.

[1640]

The Attorney General referred to the problem of home invasions. Maybe by way of concluding my response to his remarks, I'll make one or two comments on that question. Frankly, speaking for myself, I can only barely imagine the horror that people who have been victims of home invasion have had to experience. It is clearly a serious problem and, if left unchecked, a serious threat to public order and public respect for our institutions of justice.

What then is the way in which we, particularly those in government, ought to respond to that? I think that there is often for all of us in this profession -- politics -- a temptation to look for that which is, if not a quick fix, a message or a solution which has the appeal of being easy to communicate and easy to understand. That, to give it credit, is an intention to send a message from government about its attitude towards a problem.

In this case, the Attorney General responded to one aspect of the recent rash of home invasions by calling upon the federal government to change the Criminal Code to make home invasions a specific offence. Now, the fact is that under the Criminal Code of Canada, breaking and entering is already an offence, which in some circumstances can yield a life sentence, which is about as serious as you could possibly get in our criminal justice system. So it could be said -- and I think can rightly be said -- that the law already has the tools necessary to deal with the problem of home invasion and that, really, the way in which governments, police forces and social organizations are going to make progress on the home invasion front is probably by doing things that are more difficult, more complex and less immediately productive than changing the Criminal Code.

[1645]

[ Page 12262 ]

Now, that's not to say that changing the Criminal Code might not actually ultimately be in the public interest in this case. But it's a point by way of making the comment that, really, there are no quick-fix solutions to any of these problems. The problems the Attorney General has talked about -- the problems that he has to concern himself with in his ministry -- are complex problems. They have a huge range of origins in our society and ultimately require responses at a whole different level -- a whole different number of levels. Federal governments, provincial governments, municipal governments, social community organizations and individuals all have a role to play here.

The Attorney General's ability to effect change in the area of justice is constrained by the constitution as much as it is by limited fiscal resources, and I acknowledge that that's a challenging path to walk. But nonetheless, we're going to have a look at some of these issues over the course of the next little while, and I look forward to that debate.

Let me say this by way of concluding my opening comments. Each year, as I have had the privilege of occupying the position that I occupy as justice critic, I have had the opportunity to call upon the minister's staff to assist in preparing me for the estimates process, and each year I have been assisted by the minister's staff. This year I thought that we made more progress in terms of finding ways in which to ensure that I had my questions answered, and I want to express my appreciation to all of the minister's staff from the deputy on down, I guess, for their help to me in ensuring that my questions were answered. It may well be, if we're lucky, that the result of that will be that we won't have to spend quite as long standing here dealing with some of the details. But there's no time like the present to get to the details.

Under the Attorney General Act, the minister is required to file an annual report every year. I'm holding the last such annual report -- at least, it's the last one that I have. It is the annual report for the year 1995-96. Now, as it happens, the minister was the minister in that financial year. But that financial year actually precedes my election into politics, and the news in this annual report, however interesting, is rapidly becoming out of date. I don't have an annual report for the year 1996-97, I don't have an annual report for the year 1997-98, and I don't have an annual report for the year 1998-99. Is the Attorney General in a position to tell us when at least some of those reports will be delivered? Hopefully, it will be before the millennium.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the '97-98 report is almost ready. Within the next few weeks it should be available to the hon. member. The '98-99 report will take some time, because the fiscal year has just finished. So we are a bit late with the other one, but it's coming.

G. Plant: As a matter of clarification, though, I don't have a '96-97 report. Is that also about to get published?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sorry. I understand that '96-97 and '97-98 are both being worked on at the same time.

G. Plant: Well, that's reassuring, I suppose. I'm tempted to say that maybe it would be helpful if we just kept the estimates going long enough so that we actually provided some incentive to have those reports published. The fact is, though, that in terms of some of the detail which is contained in these reports, much of the information is, I suspect, in the public domain and has been for some time. But it's useful, particularly if we're talking as the Attorney General was about ideas of accountability and openness, that these things be done.

[1650]

Let me say this. I hazard a guess that at least 90 percent of what is in that book, while I won't say it's entirely uncontroversial, is information which, in the interests of accountability and openness, probably ought to be in the public record. I know that year by year, opposition politicians send FOI requests for the briefing book. The minister will probably forgive me if I suggest that his ministry's ability to deliver copies of the briefing book is about on a par with the ability to deliver annual reports -- maybe slightly better.

I want to make the suggestion to the Attorney General, and I make it seriously, that if we in this chamber are actually committed to opening up the way government does business, to raising accountability to a more meaningful level and, along the way perhaps, ensuring that there is enough information out there so that people understand issues and then can focus public debate on the things that really do need to be debated -- rather than what sometimes happens, which is debate around questions where the root of the question or the problem is just a lack of understanding -- we could take a pretty big step forward along the road to accountability and openness if the document which comprises the briefing book were disclosed to the opposition. I don't mean disclosed on undertakings but, rather, made public. What would be wrong with a little blast of fresh air into the Ministry of Attorney General? I'd be interested in the minister's response.

Oh, and maybe, if I may. . . . Let me be clear. I am serious, so let me be a little bit more thorough. The minister may receive, in his briefing, information about matters which quite legitimately ought to be privileged to government. I can imagine that there may well be information about, perhaps, some civil lawsuits where there is an issue about whether that should be public. I'm not supposing for a moment that those rules would be ignored. I thought I should add that bit of clarification.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that much of the information, perhaps, in these briefing books is already in the public domain, but it's all intermingled with advice to the minister and other issues that are obviously not accessible through freedom-of-information legislation, and I think that's appropriately so. While there is information, it's mingled with advice on other issues that can't be disclosed. It's pretty difficult to disclose the briefing book.

But if the hon. member is ever interested in seeking information on a particular issue, if the FOI doesn't stand in the way, the hon. member can get it. I have no difficulty with that. In fact, I have tried in the last three or four years, sometimes even against the advice of my own ministry, to talk about things in public that I think we should talk about. But there are issues that can't be disclosed, and that's really not within my power; that's the law currently as it is.

[ Page 12263 ]

[1655]

I suppose, in the interest of pursing the subject just an inch or two further. . . . I sometimes wonder whether that fact that something takes the form of advice to the minister is a particular reason why it should not be public. The minister earlier, in his opening remarks, referred to a meeting that took place at the end of March with -- I guess you could call them -- significant stakeholders in the justice system. I think the Canadian Bar Association was there and the Law Society. There may have also been representatives of the judiciary, and undoubtedly there were people from the minister's ministry. I misplaced my invitation and therefore wasn't able to show up -- that's actually sarcasm. That, it occurred to me, is an example of a process where I can appreciate that sometimes it is important to have discussions in private. But I question whether or not public confidence in the solutions to these problems is enhanced or eroded by what amount to behind-closed-doors meetings, oftentimes, where people are presumably agreeing to speak in relative confidence.

Let me say this. I am mindful of the fact that over the past couple of years or so I have generally had disclosure of information, where I'd been careful to ask the question in a way that I thought defined some category of information that the minister would see as being legitimately in the public interest to disclose. It may be that the thought I'm pursuing here is a thought that needs to be pursued more aggressively in other ministries, where perhaps there hasn't been that disclosure. That's because I am speaking about not just public confidence in the justice system but public confidence in government generally. It just happens that this is my first opportunity to make this request.

I assume that the Attorney General, partly because of his professional background, has an interest in these issues and therefore has an opportunity to take a leadership role in respect of the issue generally and of the rules that he referred to in the course of his last answer as being impediments to disclosure. So I'm interested in hearing the Attorney General express either a level of satisfaction with the current state of disclosure or a desire to improve things and, if it's the latter, some ideas for how we might make that happen.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll address the two issues, firstly the issue around consultations. I want the hon. member to know that in fact I don't have any knowledge of how much consultation took place in the previous ten years before I became the Attorney General. But I think I've been out on the road, meeting with ministry employees as well as the public -- sometimes separately, sometimes together in public meetings -- to talk about the direction the ministry should take and the reforms of the justice system that we should undertake. I've been impressed with both the dedication and the commitment of ministry employees, as well as of the public that chose to come to those meetings. In that sense, there has been free flow of information and ideas back and forth.

[1700]

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's statement in that regard. Let me follow up with one last comment on the general subject.

As the minister knows, there's a committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have been a member of that committee and therefore have learned a little bit about how that act works. One of the aspects of that act which is interesting is to see how putting in place a statutory regime that encourages openness -- that encourages government to make documents and records available to the public -- but then subjects that general principle to certain exemptions actually becomes a records management issue. It creates either a problem or an opportunity, depending on your point of view, for governments creating documents to do so in a way which ensures that they are more easily disclosed -- that those parts of them that ought to be disclosed can be -- while preserving the parts that ought not to be.

Those are very mechanical, hard, practical, real processes. They ultimately manifest themselves in something as practical as putting together a briefing book. Obviously if that process is to be revisited, it's not going to happen on the floor of the Legislature this afternoon with a book that already exists. It might be interesting to think of 12 months from now, about what could happen over the course of the next year to change that process in a way that at least made progress along that road. If the Attorney General is at least interested in the idea, then that may be progress. I'm going to take him as having been interested in the idea, unless he wants to stand up and say that that would not be a useful exercise. Maybe we'll come back a year from now and see whether there's been any progress on that front.

There is another document, though, that I want to have a look at, and that is the document called the strategic plan, which was recently made available to me. It is a publication of the Ministry of Attorney General, entitled "Strategic Plan 1998-2001." It has a number of parts.

I want to just ask a very humble question about this document which I am currently holding: is it in place? Is it the plan, opposed to what sometimes happens when there may

[ Page 12264 ]

If the minister needs to have a copy for the purpose of answering that. . . . I haven't done anything to this document; it's just the way it was when it came into my office. If it's the first time the minister's ever seen it, then I may have some questions.

[1705]

G. Plant: The document contains things that are typical of strategic plans: mission statements, value statements, goals, strategies, key success indicators. Would it be fair to say that this document does represent a commitment by the ministry to certain ideas, values, principles, goals, strategies and outcomes over the course of the three years of its intended life span?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: It's interesting to me that. . . . I think I've only had this for two or three weeks. I take it that it's actually the strategic plan by which the ministry has been living for the last year also, since it began in 1998. Is that right, or is it another example of retroactive implementation of ideas and goals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the final form in hand, but I believe that is the plan that we've been working on since 1998, and it goes through to 2001 -- a sort of rolling plan. We expect to do what it says within that period, but we may not be able to achieve all of those things, while there are other things that aren't in it that we might achieve, because those things might become important in addition to what's in the plan. It's a framework for us to continue the work. But there are always additions to it, and sometimes other things that might be in the plan become less important.

G. Plant: The minister's response highlights one thing that I think is interesting about the idea of a plan. Oftentimes, I think, the challenge for government is to do something more than react to a problem that appears in yesterday's newspaper or last week's correspondence. I think that that probably is particularly a challenge for the justice system, because so much of what happens in the justice system -- and I now speak broadly to include even issues like consumer protection -- seems to be the need felt to respond to an issue that has arisen, a new matter of public concern. That's going to happen. Public services, like operating the justice system, are always to some extent going to be demand-driven.

The challenge, it seems to me, is to find a way to get above all that and to actually say: "Well, in addition to responding to whatever crisis happens next week or next month or that happened last month, there are actually some things that we're committed to achieving over a longer term. There are some outcomes that we'd like to achieve. There is a goal or a strategy that we intend to pursue -- that we've decided is worthwhile pursuing. We're going to do it even if we get distracted along the way by whatever appears on the front of the Vancouver Sun tomorrow." This document is at least a step in that direction. I'm very interested to see it.

As the Attorney will recall from the message that he included in it, he says: "A strategic plan's value is in its application." I think that is self-evidently so. The question that I wanted to. . . . Obviously time will tell whether this plan is really going to amount to anything. In the copy of the document that I have, there is a foreword. The foreword talks about the consultation that has led to the plan. It points out that the plan builds on previous work, which includes "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System." I believe that is the document that the Attorney General introduced at the beginning of the estimates two years ago.

[1710]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it's pretty close to being finalized, and once it is, it will be available as a public document.

G. Plant: Is the minister able to assist by saying whether we're talking about a matter of days, weeks or months? I mean, are we talking about something that's going to be available within the next two or three months, or is it a longer period than that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it would be concluded by the end of this month. If it's not, and if there are no problems with respect to the FOI deletions, it would be available to the hon. member completely.

G. Plant: Well, the minister refers to FOI deletions, and that suggests that the document is not being prepared in a way that contemplates that it will be entirely a public document but rather is generally an internal ministry document. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

G. Plant: So in order to be disclosed outside the ministry, it will have to be edited in accordance with whatever requirements apply to it under FOI. Am I understanding the minister correctly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The strategic plan has some interesting parts to it. The situational analysis, I think, identifies a number of the challenges that the minister spoke about in his opening remarks. But I guess the most initially interesting part of the whole thing is goals, strategies and key success indicators. It looks like there are about 12 goals -- everything from enhancing community safety and the public's sense of security, reducing the level of serious crime, ensuring that all offenders are held accountable for their actions, improving the efficiency

[ Page 12265 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would say yes, but it's such a large ministry that you could always find other worthwhile goals that would continue to be pursued. But these are the 12 major goals that we've outlined.

G. Plant: Well, I'm not trying to cross-examine the minister. I don't have in mind identifying two or three other goals and then asking him why they aren't here. Maybe a better term than goals would be priorities or priority goals. I mean, clearly we could have an argument about the difference between a goal and an objective. But is that a fair statement, to say that what these really represent are priority goals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As always, the hon. member is very helpful. Yes.

[1715]

We've talked about the other document, the ministry service delivery plan. I don't know what is in that document. It is conceivable that what is in that document includes an elaboration of these goals, strategies and success indicators in the context of perhaps specific programs, so that what we have here is a summary of what will be fleshed out in perhaps more useful detail in the other document. But I'm guessing. Is that how it works, or do these success indicators listed on the three pages of this document represent the total success indicators in respect to these priority goals for the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that document would include what the key deliverables would be to achieve each of the goals, how you then measure the performance in achieving that goal and whether or not we've been successful, or to what extent. So there would be a lot more details in that document.

G. Plant: Within the government -- perhaps particularly in 1995-96, maybe '97 -- there was an initiative that involved the deputy ministers and, I believe, the auditor general's office, under the general heading of enhancing accountability in the public sector. The objectives of that project were to find ways of moving government ministries beyond the traditional indicators of whether or not a program is working into a different sense of success or failure that maybe looked more at reasons why the program was in place, discussing what its objectives might be in terms other than simply having a bigger caseload than you had last year, and that kind of thing.

It's been hard to see where that initiative is in government over the last couple of years. One has had the sense, from time to time, that the deputy ministers had been putting out other fires perhaps, rather than focusing on that initiative. This strategic plan looks to me like it represents an attempt by the Ministry of Attorney General to respond to that initiative. I'm wondering if I should be looking at it on those terms.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is correct. This is an attempt to satisfy the concerns of the auditor general on the behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General. Part of that would be the plan that you allude to, which would be internal to the employees.

[1720]

Is there any accountability within the ministry that will be attached to this? Is this something where, ultimately, programs and perhaps even the people who administer them will be held to account for the extent to which the programs themselves meet these objectives? I mean, is there a process or a structure that the minister or ministry has in mind for how to ensure that this document doesn't just become a nice, happy occupant of the minister's no doubt already busy and occupied bookshelf?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the plan is that the ADMs would be accountable to the deputy minister for the performance with respect to all of these. Then the deputy would be reporting to me as to how we're doing, on a six-month basis.

G. Plant: I want to pursue a couple of miscellaneous items, and then I hope to deal with the criminal justice branch. The Attorney General will recall that from time to time I have stood in the estimates debate and asked him for a progress report on the implementation of the adult guardianship legislation. The last time I raised the issue, the minister had relatively recently been in receipt of a report with some ideas for how the legislation might be implemented in a way that was less expensive than would be required if it were implemented exactly as drafted and enacted back in 1993. But that report was rejected by government. The status quo was that the matter was still under review, but there was not really any progress. Has there been any progress in the last year? Or does this matter basically remain out there in limbo?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This has been a very difficult issue. Despite the fact that I wanted to have this proclaimed, it has not been possible. That's because when we had discussions earlier -- and it would have been very expensive to implement the entire package -- we then started working on getting it down to a smaller, more manageable situation. We then

[ Page 12266 ]

There have been discussions with the community. I would say that there is significant consensus, but not the kind of consensus that I would like to see before an announcement should be made that we are going to proceed with some of those recommendations. Those discussions are still underway. The deputy met with many members of that community, in fact, just two weeks ago. We're anxious to proceed; we're working on it. It's uppermost in my mind. The fact that we haven't been able to do it isn't for lack of trying.

G. Plant: Then it sounds like the Attorney General would say there has been progress -- that there is, if not a process, at least some ongoing dialogue that is aimed at attempting to identify some parts of this legislation which can be implemented. But I suspect that there is as yet nothing like a timetable which the Attorney General could identify as being a target date for announcing some progress.

[1725]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would certainly like to be here a year from now, but having implemented a plan with respect to this matter. That's the intent. Whether or not I'm successful in doing that really depends on the consultations with the community. It is not an easy issue, as the hon. member understands.

G. Plant: I wouldn't want the Attorney General to take my continuing interest in the issue as in any way an endorsement of the entire package of legislation or its fiscal implications. I have formed a view on the basis of probably much less knowledge than the Attorney General has about this. If you look at the legislation, the four statutes as a whole, in some respects there are internal contradictions which may not be reconcilable, at least on the words used in the statutes as they were enacted. It follows that without some attempt to reconcile those problems -- which may even require further legislation; I don't know -- we're not likely to ultimately make much progress.

Having said that, though, it does seem to me that there are some good ideas buried here. I'm sure the Attorney General gets some of the same letters I do. I get a continuing series of letters and phone calls from people who have reached. . . . Within their family, there's somebody who has reached a certain age, who needs help with decision-making in particular, but the existing legal tools -- whether the power of attorney or the appointment of a comity -- don't work. There is therefore a continuing present need for action to deal with that situation. It may be that the Representation Agreement Act represents the best possible way of dealing with that, or it may be that that act needs to be changed significantly.

But one way or another, it seems to me -- and I think the Attorney General would admit this -- that there are continuing concerns out there in the community that were the reason why these bills were enacted in the first place. Those problems haven't gone away; they continue to act as, I hope, constructive irritants for the Attorney General in making him want to move to a resolution of this problem.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question about the emergency communications centre. That, as it happens, is one aspect of government where I have not recently taken the opportunity to have a look to see what's happening. But a day or so ago a question was raised that I didn't have the answer to -- perhaps the Attorney General does -- and that was with respect to the status of ambulance services. The building in downtown Vancouver is up and running. There have been some discussions about budgets, but as I understand it, some initial concerns about budgets were resolved. The question that was asked of me is: what is the status of the housing of ambulance services? I believe there was a question about whether the ambulance services were going to be part of E-Comm or not. It's a pretty technical question, I suppose, but if the Attorney General has the answer to that, I'd be grateful.

[1730]

G. Plant: Apart from the issue of having an update, I guess the question is also the issue of responsibility. Is the Attorney General saying, in effect, that having helped give birth to the idea, his ministry has no responsibility in relation to the question of whether ambulance services should or should not be part of the centre?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't want to sound absolutely disinterested. That's not the intent. But we need to recognize that there is on board of which the AG has a representative, I think, of that membership. I don't recall the exact makeup of the board. But it's the board that runs the affairs of E-Comm, and it's up to the agencies to then determine whether or not they want to participate. I have encouraged everyone to participate.

G. Plant: We may pursue that again later.

Let me now, for a few minutes, move to the criminal justice branch. There are two issues I want to explore in relation to the criminal justice branch. The first is the question of relations with Crown counsel. Over the past year those relations -- that is, the relations between the ministry and Crown counsel -- have been at times strained. Obviously there is a matter of public interest there, because if Crown counsel aren't available to do their job in court, then the court system won't function very well. I think that the issues -- and I'm primarily focusing here on contractual employment issues -- reached a head with the threat of job action in, I believe, the

[ Page 12267 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First, I think I should say that like all employees of the ministry, I appreciate the dedication and the commitment of the Crown counsel as well as the work that they do, despite the fact that there may be disagreements between the branch and the ministry on the one hand and the Crown counsel on the other. That is more of a contractual and an employment situation that the Attorney General doesn't directly deal with. They deal with the government institution called PSERC, I think.

[1735]

G. Plant: Well, let me first of all second the Attorney General's remarks in terms of support for the work of Crown counsel.

I had occasion to speak with a number of Crown counsel during the months before this agreement on a process was reached, and I was struck by their dedication to the job they do and the personal struggle many of them were having, frankly, with resolving what they felt were their professional responsibilities in the context of growing concerns about the terms and conditions of their employment.

We are talking about more than just issues of money; we're also talking about workload. I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the issue of Crown counsel workload is a part of the larger puzzle of the demands on the courts system generally and how the business of criminal justice has been changing. Sympathetic as I am, in many ways, to the aspirations of the Crown Counsel Association, there is, of course, the public interest in ensuring that the business of the courts continues. So that leads to a question. This process that the Attorney General has referred to, which involves Stephen Owen, has an end-date in mind. There's a report. Presumably there will or will not be some action on Mr. Owen's recommendations. I take it that, at least in the meantime, the threat of job action, work-to-rule -- anything like that -- has been averted, from the ministry's perspective, and that justice will continue without interruption, at least until the outcome of Mr. Owen's work in the fall. Is that the minister's expectation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I think that there are some interesting issues presented by Crown counsel in the context of workload and so on, but I think that those issues are probably, at least for the time being, better dealt with on the floor of Mr. Owen, as it were, rather than on the floor of the Legislature. Perhaps the Attorney General wants to say something.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As well, the implementation of the case management review recommendations would be helpful.

[1740]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member hasn't really missed very much. That's exactly what it is. It is also to enhance the individual Crown ownership of criminal files so that there is consistency and not undue problems for the Crown and the courts.

G. Plant: My understanding is that this project has reached the point where there are some pretty specific ideas about the changes that need to be made. Those ideas are currently being discussed within the profession and I suppose, most importantly, within the Provincial Court. They are being looked at there, and there is some sense of, in the broadest possible sense, a time line within which it is hoped that the government will be in a position to begin to implement this project. Is the minister at liberty to confirm some of that and roll out a bit of the timetable?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The implementation is going to begin, hopefully, in the fall of this year. I understand that there have been discussions with the Chief Judge, through the assistant deputy attorney general, on that issue. I'm satisfied that things are moving. We always wish they could move faster, but given the way our system works it takes some time to bring everybody on board.

G. Plant: I can imagine that in effecting significant change in the way in which the Provincial Court criminal process works, particularly if we're looking at issues like the number of appearances and things like that, clearly there are going to be questions around ensuring that the independence of the judiciary is maintained. I can see that there is a real need for involving them in the process in a way which respects that independence.

[ Page 12268 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that all of the stakeholders are involved in the implementation committee. That includes the courts, the court services, the criminal justice branch, the bar, the Law Society and others.

[1745]

I also recognize that this is the kind of project where it would be a challenge to conceive of how one might consult in the community of organizations like CAVEAT and so on. Nonetheless, it would be unfortunate if, at the end of this process, there was lack of public acceptance for want of some consultation that went beyond, strictly speaking, the legal and judicial community. Can the Attorney General indicate whether there has been any consultation with victims' groups? And, if so, what? If there hasn't, perhaps the Attorney General could explain why that hasn't happened.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that these rules would be of benefit to victims as well, because sometimes they come to court, can't get on and have to come back again after waiting an entire day or two. Within the ministry, victim services has been involved in all of the discussions and the implementation discussions. As well, our ministry, particularly the criminal justice branch, has ongoing regular discussions with CAVEAT and others. They would be informed and advised of this, and if they have any concerns, they would obviously be taken into account.

G. Plant: So those organizations like CAVEAT will get an opportunity to provide some input before all this is cast in stone. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The report of Judge Metzger contained a number of recommendations for dealing with the backlog situation in provincial courts. The Attorney General has acted on recommendations in respect of the appointment of additional Provincial Court judges. I take it that the case management project represents the Attorney General's response to another -- perhaps larger -- group of some of those recommendations. Would I be fair in suggesting that those two initiatives represent the government's response to Judge Metzger's report on his recommendations? Or are there other initiatives underway that the Attorney General could briefly identify, which represent a response?

Maybe in that context I could ask specifically about case tracking. I'm not sure whether that exists. One of the issues that Judge Metzger identified was the absence of reliable data about the state of the backlog. My understanding is that there's been some progress on that front. Maybe the Attorney General could talk about that too.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there has been some progress on other recommendations, including that particular one. I understand that some improvements have been made, especially in the lower mainland and Fraser Valley regions. Other data quality and reporting improvements are ongoing, so we are paying some attention to that as well.

G. Plant: There was a set of recommendations in Judge Metzger's report around legal aid. I take it that those recommendations have not been acted on, in the sense that we'll get to this in due course. The level of funding by government to the Legal Services Society has remained at $81.5 million, and what LSS does with that money is continuing to be a challenge, I suppose, for LSS.

[1750]

G. Plant: Are there any other of Judge Metzger's recommendations being acted on by the ministry, which should warrant inclusion in this discussion for the sake of completeness?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are other recommendations that we have been working on. Of course, the backlogs are down somewhat. I'm not completely satisfied, but we are working. . . . As well, the family case management rules are being implemented; I believe they have been implemented provincewide already. So we are working in different areas on different recommendations.

As well, I understand that a central JP is available for weekends and after hours. Bail requirements throughout the province, using appropriate technology -- those are some of the enhancements we're making.

G. Plant: Lastly, on the criminal justice branch front I gather that there is expected to be some progress on the JUSTIN project over the course of the year that we're now in. There's been a lot of work done on this over the years. I wonder if the Attorney General could just briefly summarize what his expectations are for the current fiscal year for the JUSTIN project.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that program is expanding to Vancouver in June and to four other locations afterwards, so we are making some progress.

G. Plant: I appreciate that.

It might just be opportune for me to indicate that I expect, over the course of the estimates debate to follow, an order

[ Page 12269 ]

This would be a convenient time to note the hour and move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1755]

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

Private Members' Statements

A HARD NIGHT OUT

Many of these young people are runaways -- that is, they've left their parents, for whatever reason. Some of them are thrown of their homes. They come out -- nowhere to live, no money. Often there's substance abuse -- alcohol or drugs -- and they end up on the streets of downtown Vancouver in my riding, Vancouver-Burrard. They wander aimlessly -- not much to do. They sit on corners, and they try to go into the McDonald's restaurant. Some bump into other young people who put them onto drugs, and they become addicted. Some, of course, take up alcohol to the point they're drunk a fair amount of the time. Others are just bored and sit about and do nothing. Some go into prostitution to try to raise some money.

I'm sure that you've all seen these young people on the street. You've bumped into them or walked past them. Sometimes they're panhandling. I wonder where they come from and why they're there, and who helps them.

I want to talk about two organizations that have been doing a great deal of work with these young people. One is Dusk to Dawn, and the other is Covenant House in Vancouver. Both of these organizations, I should say, are in Vancouver-Burrard, and both of these organizations I've had a hand in starting up and was at the opening of.

Dusk to Dawn is an organization that is in St. Paul's Hospital -- just at the rear of St. Paul's Hospital. It's kind of a safe haven for young people. They can come in off the street. They can come in when it's cold or when it's wet, when they feel unsafe. They can get away from sexual predators and dry off and have something to eat and maybe get a little bit of sleep, although there are no beds. They have to sit up. It isn't a kind of a residence of any sort. It's mainly a place where these young people can get dry, feel safe, talk to one another and spend, as the name suggests, from dusk to dawn. They can get off the street for a little bit.

[1800]

I want to just talk briefly about what that experience was like for me. At about 7 o'clock, we went to Dusk to Dawn -- to the organization -- and checked in with them. They asked us for all of our identification and our money and let us have just $2 and a blanket to go out in the street. Then we were sent out in teams of about six of us, with two young people with us who were streetwise and had spent a lot of time on the streets themselves -- so they knew where to take us and where the good sleeping spots were, and so on. It was a very cold night, and we headed out and, for the first several hours, just wandered about the streets. That's all there is to do, really. We just wandered. Actually, I found the whole evening quite boring. That was kind of the overall impression, because there isn't anything to do. We wandered and looked about and talked to some young people.

After a while, we decided that maybe we could panhandle to get a little money. And so, indeed, I did panhandle. I wasn't terribly successful. I noted that you have to be very aggressive in order to be successful at panhandling, and yet I know from my experience as an MLA that merchants don't want aggressive panhandlers out in front of their shops. But in order to be successful, you had to do that. I wasn't terribly aggressive, but I did manage to get a little money, and then we went to McDonald's. We stayed in McDonald's for some time, but McDonald's got quite uncomfortable with us being in there. Obviously they're not wanting to have street youth just hanging about and asking for a glass of hot water, or just having one small something and sitting in their seats.

We spent some time in McDonald's, and then, at about three in the morning, we needed to sleep, and so we started to wander down the alleyways looking for a place to sleep. We found one place that was relatively sheltered, and myself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs slept outdoors together that night -- there's a picture to prove our time together under a blanket. We were asleep for no more than 20 minutes when all of a sudden a security guard started poking at us and telling us to get up and move on, so we had to. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, with some reluctance I have to point out that the red light has come on. But, as you know, there's another three minutes at the end to complete your story.

T. Stevenson: Well, luckily, I'll have another few minutes, so I'll just wrap up here and say it was a very hard night and an experience I won't forget.

G. Hogg: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, a man who I spent some time on the street with, as he

[ Page 12270 ]

[1805]

I also received a lecture -- about a 20-minute lecture -- from an elderly gentleman who thought it was awful that I was sitting on the street -- and why didn't I go get a job and do something constructive and useful and worthwhile. At the end of the 20-minute lecture, he gave me 10 cents. After a short period of time -- after about half an hour or so at that point -- the police came along and moved us on. We went outside a concert that was going on, with limousines parked there and a band called 54-40 playing. The people in the limousines stepped out of the limousines and ignored us totally -- looked the other way and didn't want anything to do with us or to know or to say that we were even present. Then outside a restaurant a little later, we had some success. A fellow gave me a package of cigarettes. We had some money, and I was eventually able to go buy two 91-cent slices of pizza, which got me though for the evening.

I think the hardest part was not being acknowledged. We felt that we were invisible. People were not willing to make eye contact with us. It has forever influenced the way I see and deal with street people as I walk down the street now. I acknowledge and understand them -- an appreciation for the way they understand their lives. I went, like the member, and found some cardboard, found a nice place to sleep. I just got comfortable and was told to move on. I found a dumpster, because it was starting to rain. It seemed like a dumpster was a great place to be, so I climbed into the dumpster. I almost got to sleep and about ten minutes later, somebody else climbed into the dumpster. Then I was worried that the truck was going to come along and take the dumpster away -- and me and everybody else -- and compact us somewhere. Although I could use some compaction, I wasn't interested in having it at that point in time.

I recognize, as the member said, that people come from all over the province. I think that these experiences -- these feelings and perceptions -- must have some value to us. We must be able to interpret that experience into something that has some value in terms of public policy, in terms of the way that we look at the world, in terms of the needs that we have for health, for education, for housing. They must look at and temper the decisions that we have for people who are in those types of need. I know that Churchill said that it is out of adversity that we grow in strength, and I really saw a sense of compassion and caring amongst the people on the street as they were, I think, growing some strength. I think it was Hemingway, in his theme in The Old Man and the Sea. . . .The theme was that circumstances can defeat me but they can't destroy me.

There was really a sense of collegiality amongst the people on the street that they really were not going to be destroyed. Most of them want to get off the street and want to have some type of life for themselves. They have some ambition; they have some dreams; they have some hopes. I think that they need some support, some motivation and some facilitation so that that can happen. I think that we as legislators must look at the way that we manage social policy, the way we manage the policy in these areas, so that we can facilitate that type of growth so that they can be like most people want to be: positive and productive people who exist within our society.

I thank the member. I thank Covenant House for the work it does for Dawn to Dusk, for the way they assisted us in having this experience and giving us a chance to look at the world a little bit differently -- to look at the world from a different perspective, to understand it differently and hopefully to use the basis of those experiences for some decisions that we will make to assist those types of people in the future.

The Speaker: With closing remarks, I recognize the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[1810]

Covenant House is another organization, a residence, that is doing a great deal of work with these young people, and they know the seriousness of the problem. They estimate that at any given time, there are 100 to 200 youth on the streets in downtown Vancouver. They estimate that there's another 100 to 200 that are underneath the streets in parking lots and hidden away. Then they think there's another 100 to 200 of these young people who are sleeping at a night. . . . Did someone say they got picked up by or at a pimp's place or something like that? We're talking about very large numbers.

I know this government is addressing some of this through the Children and Families ministry. We now have three full-time workers out on the streets, trying to deal with these young people, trying to get them to access what's available around the city and in the province. This has alleviated some of the problem. We're looking now, of course, at more low-cost housing, with 1,200 units coming on stream in this next year.

Obviously this is just a small piece. . . . This is a huge societal problem. We need to address it openly and honestly

[ Page 12271 ]

I thank the members from the other side who came down into my riding to experience this night. Hopefully, we'll be able to do some more of that in the future.

ISSUES IN MENTAL HEALTH

The first one is Claire. For months, Claire was unable to sleep. Every night she would awake around three in the morning, burdened with pervasive melancholy, feelings of guilt and feelings of total worthlessness. At work she wasn't able to concentrate. She no longer could sit down and watch TV. At home she was constantly crying. Hobbies that used to interest her were long cast aside. And some nights, when Claire would drive home from work, she was so tortured by the thoughts and feelings she had that she would contemplate driving over the embankment before her home, just in order to escape.

Then there was Jim. Jim knew he needed help; he knew something was wrong. For weeks he had been preoccupied with his bodily functions. We call these thoughts ruminations. He had lost weight. He was unable to taste his food. Monday he would ruminate about having heart disease, and all of a sudden he would develop chest pain. Tuesday he would read about bowel cancer and start to develop the symptomatology of that particular disease. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday he would go on a bender. When he was intoxicated, he found that all of the pervasive thoughts of death and disease would subside. Years later, Jim committed suicide.

Claire and Jim had something in common. They both suffered from depression. Everybody goes through feeling sad or lonely or unhappy. That's part of life. But when feelings last for weeks or months, cause intense distress, interfere with relationships -- with work, with activities that people normally would enjoy -- then depression should be considered as the diagnosis. Studies estimate that 25 percent of all women and 12 percent of all men will suffer from a major depressive episode in their lives. If you look at the Canadian population, 10 percent of Canadians suffer from depression at any time. This is a very large number of people in this country, hon. Chair.

[1815]

Depression is not just a disorder that occurs from the neck up. It is a disorder of the entire body. Individuals with untreated depression are more likely to suffer from osteoporosis, and they are more likely to have a risk of heart attack. This is increased even if they already have risk factors. The risk factors for depression include a number of things. A parent with a history of alcoholism or a parent, sibling or child -- in other words a first-degree relative -- with known depression put the individual at risk even more. Besides what we now know is an inherited tendency, children who lose parents in early childhood are at higher risk for depression.

Depression is a disease that crosses all ages, all lifestyles, all nationalities and all incomes, yet only about 30 percent of those ever suffering from depression receive help. Why would that be? The answer is simple and unfortunate. Among the general public, there exists a pervasive lack of understanding about all psychiatric disorders, including depression. Because the stigma of mental illness still exists in this society, many who suffer are afraid or simply refuse to seek help. The human and socioeconomic toll of depression in Canada, when it is undiagnosed and untreated, is immense.

As a society, we must encourage a new understanding of mental illness and create an atmosphere where individuals are not ashamed to come forward to seek help. It's crucial that the public be educated about depression. This is a disease with treatment. There is no reason to ignore this anymore than you would ignore cancer, osteoporosis and emphysema. There is a treatment and a cure.

At a time when patients take more of a consumer approach, we need to provide them with information. Organizations like the Canadian Mental Health Association have worked tirelessly to achieve those goals. As a non-profit society with a mandate to promote mental health education and public awareness, CMHA has pushed solid, practical reforms in the mental health system in many Canadian provinces. For two decades, CMHA has been a vehicle for positive change.

In my years as a physician and now as an MLA, I've encountered many citizens like Jim or Claire with undiagnosed and untreated depression. I see the toll it takes on the individual. But I also see the toll it takes on their families. Like the CMHA, I consider it my duty to ensure that all elected officials and all governments are made aware of the impact and the reality of depression. We must not, in government, overlook psychiatric diseases. Mental health must be given the attention and the profile it deserves. The stigma must be removed from mental illness. We owe it to our families. We owe it to our society. We owe it to our economy. We owe it to ourselves.

The Speaker: A good bit of timing, and I recognize in response the hon. member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

J. Cashore: I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon for her very insightful comments that are obviously based on considerable time spent working, both professionally and personally, in an area that she obviously cares deeply about.

I want to say that I totally agree with her comments, and I appreciate the fact that she has pointed out that quality of life for those who suffer from mental illness and for those who are members of the families of persons who are mentally ill can include feelings of hope, of dignity and of being understood. Therefore the opportunity that I think all of us have to show understanding and to receive learning with regard to this very significant factor in our society is something that it behooves us all to take.

[ Page 12272 ]

[1820]

I know that we as government have a responsibility to work in this field, to address issues that ensure that there are supports to families and that there are services that address, as far as possible, all aspects. But I think that the member makes a very important point: if there is not the kind of understanding out there in general society, and if we do not fulfil our role to ensure that that understanding is enabled, then all the work that can be done in an institution and all the work that can be done by government -- and it can always be more -- will be inadequate. I think that all of us look to that day when the quality of life for those with mental illness and for their families can indeed be improved and strengthened by our willingness to look at this as an illness that can be addressed and where there can be healing -- and where there cannot be healing, that there can be a kind of a caring presence. I thank the hon. member for this presentation today.

The Speaker: With final comments, I recognize the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: Just a few comments on the CMHA and what they do. Their services are based on the essential belief that all individuals have the capacity and the ability to grow and change. Accordingly, the CMHA funds projects that support these belief systems. Specifically, they support it in three large areas: one is research; the second is education; the third is advocacy. Wrapped in those thoughts are the projects that they do. Their projects include a number of very important issues.

The first is National Depression Screening Day. This is a free test for anyone who suspects that they may be depressed but does not feel that they can overcome the stigma of admitting it and going and seeing their family doctor or talking to their family themselves. The CMHA will provide the test, and the test will give a screening for depression, and then you will be referred to the care that is most suitable for you.

Community drop-in activity centres are organized by the CMHA. They develop working skills and increase self-esteem in a very therapeutic environment for those suffering from mental illness. Education information pamphlets are developed. They have, at the CMHA, everything from the web site down to the brochure.

The most important thing that the CMHA does, in my opinion, is its affordable housing projects. They develop and operate projects aimed at low- and moderate-income individuals with mental illness, and for those individuals nothing could be more important. Housing is the most important issue.

I'm grateful this week, Mental Health Week, for the CMHA and for the valuable contribution it brings to the lives of people in this province and country. Their efforts go a long way in raising awareness of mental illness and caring for those who are ill.

[1825]

DOUBLE STANDARDS IN CYBERSPACE

Today I want to talk about Internet gaming. Internet gaming demands very little from the gambler except a personal computer, a modem and a credit card or ATM card. It's all so easy for the virtual casino operator. Although there are some costs involved in developing and staffing a virtual casino site, they are insignificant compared to operating a traditional casino. Licences to operate Internet casinos are relatively easy to obtain in jurisdictions where Internet gaming is legal. Add some advertising on other Internet sites, and you have a huge instant expansion of gaming activity. Reports indicate that some Internet casinos have received over seven million web site visits in a single month. It is estimated that in 1997, Internet gaming generated approximately $300 million (U.S.) in revenues, with a forecast of $2.3 billion (U.S.) by the year 2001.

Let's look at one organization called Cyberbetz. It is a typical on-line casino. It's owned by GIC -- Global Intertainment Corp. Although there is a domain address in Vancouver, the casino is registered in Roseau, Dominica, in the West Indies. This single company reported $6.3 million (U.S.) in wagering revenues in the month of March.

Here is where I see strong double standards and indeed hypocrisy. CKNW radio in Vancouver, owned by WIC, has chosen to accept a banner ad on their web site for Cyberbetz. One click on the banner, and you are into the Cyberbetz home page. So while WIC and CKNW harshly criticize this government for proposing modest and regulated expansion to gaming, they accept the financial gain from advertising Cyberbetz. Because of the prominent ad, one can only assume that CKNW must then approve of Internet gaming. They must approve, even though Internet gaming leaves almost no money in British Columbia. Cyberbetz deals in U.S. dollars, and money is to be sent to First Union National Bank of Florida. Very few British Columbians are employed, and certainly no money goes to charity.

What of the social concerns? Cyberbetz may be perfectly legitimate as virtual casinos go, but there are implications intrinsic in all Internet gaming. WIC and CKNW have certainly considered social concerns when they looked at government policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, this is not appropriate. The member has the floor, and interruptions, including mine, are not appropriate but sometimes necessary. Let's come to order.

J. Cashore: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I may need some extra time.

WIC and CKNW have certainly considered social concerns when they looked at government policy. But have they

[ Page 12273 ]

[1830]

The other problem for government with the exponential expansion of Internet gaming is that it is so difficult to regulate. Enforcement of legislation or regulation is almost impossible. A number of small countries, especially tax havens, issue on-line licences for easy Internet gaming, usually requiring only a one-time fee. The casino is technically located and business is conducted in another country, and the transactions are not in Canadian currency. It is unlikely that Canadian courts will be able to exert jurisdiction over the operator.

MLAs are frequently warned by business that we should not have double standards. I am now turning the tables. Before they criticize government, they should make sure that they meet the standards they espouse.

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

I. Chong: I thank the member opposite for raising the very important issue of Internet gaming, because it certainly is a very expansive problem in terms of gaming in this province. The idea of Internet gaming coming to British Columbia is very offensive to a lot of local communities. I heard the member provide us with a lot of facts which I won't dispute; he's actually correct. What I didn't hear, and was hoping to hear, were possible solutions. We all know that it is difficult to regulate the Internet, because to do so would imply censorship -- something that those who want to advance the opportunities of free speech would clearly step in. . . .

However, I do believe that governments can and must play a role in this area. We have to ensure that there is protection for our families and communities. As the member has stated, it takes very little for an Internet gambling operation to exist. What's worse is that it takes very little for those who wish to participate to become addicted very quickly. As he stated, a home computer is all you need. Thereby, the hundreds of thousands of home computers that now exist have now virtually been established as lottery terminals, if you will, throughout this entire province. It means that children -- those who have access to these computers and who are actually more adept with them than adults -- would have access to Internet gaming.

It is very disconcerting to many of us. U.S. studies -- not many have been done in Canada -- have shown that up to 10 percent of juveniles under 18 are problem gamblers. That is twice the rate of adults; it has been indicated that 4 percent of adults can become addicted to gambling. Now they're suggesting that for juveniles -- those under 18 -- the percentage is actually 10 percent. That's a huge amount.

I do believe that while the member has given us some of those very important facts, which I agree with, we have to turn our minds to finding solutions. We can't take the "we can't do anything about this" approach. We have to take a look at some regulation. Whether or not that means speaking to governments across this country and in other jurisdictions and other countries, it means that we have to get around this issue to prevent this from growing at the phenomenal rate it is now.

[1835]

Internet gambling is an expansion of gambling. I have to say that on this side of the House, and for myself particularly. . . . I am opposed to the expansion of gambling. There are serious, serious implications if we do not step in now at its earliest stages. As has been stated, it is already escalating at an alarming rate. If we do not step in now, it will become uncontrollable. I do believe that we can. . . . I wouldn't say regulate. I do believe that we can offer some solutions and let those who are actively trying to expand this industry know that we are watching and that we will not allow those who would profit from the most vulnerable group in our society. . . . They would not be allowed to get away with that.

It's unfortunate that the Internet, which was meant to provide such a vital service and launch us into global competitiveness around the world, has come to this. We hear the transactions that are going across the border so quickly in terms of our purchases of items. The flow of cash across the border should not be permitted. We should do something about it. I would implore that this government take a look at this in a much more serious way.

J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for her very thoughtful comments. I think that everyone is aware of the very controversial issue, which certainly has been an issue in this House, with regard to the expansion of gaming. I know that sometimes the discussion in the House has been very hot and heavy on this issue. There have been times when I, given my background as a United Church minister, have been asked about my position, in view of government plans to have a moderate gaming expansion. I've said quite clearly, when those discussions came up, that within our parliamentary system I would much rather be able to be present and to have an impact on modifying that policy that might be different were I not there. I think that that's how it works within our system.

But you know, we often hear about the Alberta advantage. We are compared to Alberta by the opposition and, often, by the media. The fact is that if we looked at the dollars

[ Page 12274 ]

I think that there are issues that -- in the spirit of what the hon. member just said -- cause us all to pause and maybe try to avoid this approach of pointing fingers at each other, and to say: "What can we really do when we have to address serious revenue needs and when we have to deal with our comparative and competitive position vis-à-vis other provinces?" Then you overlay on top of that this Internet situation and find out that in a very quiet, unregulated way, that takes serious dollars out of the province and causes untold harm in terms of social costs. There's virtually no way of dealing with that, and indeed, that could have the impact of making redundant all other activity that we've spent most of our time discussing.

I want to say in conclusion that it was stated on the 5:30 news today that CKNW has stated that a few days ago -- I think it was Friday, to be exact -- they did remove Cyberbetz from their site. They said on the news that they did that as a result of a legal opinion. Again, I think the issue still obtains that when the media expects high standards from those whom it provides a critique for, we have a right also to expect high standards of the media.

[1840]

MAKING MONEY GOING DOWNHILL

Most British Columbians know Whistler. They've heard about it; they've been there; they've read about it. I think that every time people talk about Whistler, they really talk about success -- a success story. That association is something that I think Whistler can claim. But I think that there are few people who understand how successful the development of an international ski resort has been over the last 25 years.

Two weeks ago something very historic happened in the history of Whistler. For the very first time, a North American ski area welcomed its two-millionth skiing visitor in one season -- something that is unheard of, something that has never happened in North America before. Aspen always aspired to have that record; Vail never achieved that record. Mammoth Mountain in California -- a much bigger ski area -- never had that number of skiing visitors. I think that it is a recognition that what has happened in Whistler is so unique that there are only two other towns, ski areas, in the world that can claim two million skiers in one seasons and those are Plagne in France, which is, again, a large ski area, and a ski resort in Japan called Naeba.

Just to give a perspective of what two million skiers in one season means, in 1970 the season had a record 100,000 ski visitors. This year Whistler had ten weeks in which we had more than 100,000 skiers in that town. So that just puts it in perspective. When things like that happen, we have to stop for a moment and just say: "How did we do this?" That's what I want to spend some time on.

The first thing, of course, is that Mother Nature has been extremely favourable towards this coastal area, in particular when Mother Nature put two ski hills -- two mountain ranges -- close together, coming together at the bottom with a plateau, where Whistler village is today. I'm talking about Blackcomb Mountain and Whistler Mountain. These two mountains combined form the best ski area with the longest vertical drops anywhere in North America. That by itself was the reason that some people began to realize in the seventies that the local ski area that Whistler was up until then could really be expanded into something that was endless insofar as its potential. And that's what happened. There was a group of very dedicated people who created a dream, and sometimes that's all it takes. It begins with a dream.

There were many naysayers, no doubt about that. There were very few people outside the Whistler area who believed that this could happen, because of the formidable investment that had to be made in the facilities that had to be built. But in spite of these naysayers, these people that believed in that international resort moved on, and they did it.

And it wasn't always easy. In 1981-82 the naysayers almost had their way because of the economic decline, or depression, that Canada went through. But in spite of that depression -- and there were some people who did lose everything they invested in Whistler -- the people with the staying power, the people who said, "No, we're not going to give up," continued pursuing their dream of that international ski resort.

[1845]

The second person is Peter Alder, a Swiss immigrant. He arrived in Canada in the sixties and became a surveyor for B.C. Hydro. He came to the area where Whistler Mountain is and decided that he wanted to work on the hill as well. He also became a ski instructor. He also worked himself through the system to upper management.

Peter Alder was single-handedly responsible for convincing a lot of people that the opening up of the north side of Whistler Mountain would indeed create a ski area that would entice the world to come there. So it is the people and nature that together form the base for what today makes Whistler a success, and I think Whistler as a community and as a resort can be extremely proud of that feat.

E. Gillespie: It's really a pleasure to be able to respond to the member's statement today, and I would just add one

[ Page 12275 ]

I haven't been to Whistler since the early seventies. At that time, I was working in public recreation and took a group of fathers and sons out to Alta Lake on the train. We stayed at the hostel there. I regret to say that I have not been back to Whistler since then. I saw it before development ever took place, and I know that today it's a completely different place. But the member is absolutely right in saying that it is a world-class resort that brings attention from all over the world to opportunities for skiing in British Columbia.

As you well know, I represent a constituency that also has a very significant ski resort, and that is Mount Washington resort. Again, in partnership with government, Mount Washington resort has been able to move forward in its development plans. One of my early responsibilities shortly after being elected was to open the road up to Mount Washington, which was paved and which has opened up that area for both summer and winter access. The terms of that partnership are that over the next 20 years, there will be a surcharge on the lift tickets in order for Mount Washington to pay a share for that road that has been built to open up that access.

This year has been a particularly good year for skiing all across British Columbia. Where we had two million skiers in one season at Whistler, we had 290,000 visitors to Mount Washington just this winter alone. Again, because of ease of road access, we now have up to 25,000 visitors in the summer who are able to use that access to get into Strathcona Park.

You know, when we opened that road, there was concern. The road was built in order to improve access and to improve safety. There was concern expressed at that time that the road itself would lead to a loss of safety. It's such a good road that perhaps there would be speeding coming downhill. But it has certainly proven its worth over the last couple of years, and people have really appreciated that improved access.

[1850]

British Columbia offers a competitive business environment and a young, well-trained labour force; and of course, we all know that Canada and British Columbia are among the world's most livable areas. Added to all of this, we have well-coordinated marketing efforts, which are raising awareness about the facilities available in both summer and winter.

I regret to say that I speak tonight not from a place of experience. This past year, unlike other years, I've been unable to avail myself of the skiing opportunities in my own community. I always look forward to at least some cross-country expeditions throughout the year, and even though we've had an extended ski season at Mount Washington and across British Columbia, I've been unable to avail myself of that.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

E. Gillespie: I appreciate the member's comments.

T. Nebbeling: I was really impressed with the statement by the member opposite until, in the end, she started to claim that all that is good is because of government policies. For me, one of the most significant reasons that Whistler has developed as a resort into what it has become is the spirit of free enterprise and allowing people to take a shot at their own future by starting a business. That is the component that I think has really made a difference in Whistler's achieving success.

It's also true that this is only a day in the page of the history of Whistler that we are experiencing and celebrating today. I focused very much on two individuals; I could have focused on more people that made a difference in Whistler -- people who came into a low-level job in the system and developed a career from there that is an example for anybody to follow or to admire. Often when I hear -- and this is not in this House but in general. . . . When people talk about jobs in the tourism industry, I really find it shameful that people do not understand how this tourism industry indeed has tremendous opportunities for young people to go into and for rising above what people consider to be initially minimum-wage salaries. That is part of what I would like to leave today as part of my celebration of what has happened at Whistler.

I truly hope that more and more young people are going to look at this industry and see the tremendous opportunities and what you can come to. If you come to Whistler today, you will see that many of the middle management or upper management people involved are people who were there in the seventies or who came to Whistler in the eighties and grew with the resort into these positions. If we can focus on that, then I think we truly have an opportunity to look towards the future for tourism as an industry and a natural resource product and to make British Columbia a lot better for that.

Thank you for your words, as well, and I hope that we can find common ground on that level.

The Speaker: Thank you, members, for those private members' statements tonight.

Hon. D. Streifel: I too would like to thank the members for their insightful and provocative statements, and with that, I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

[ Page 12276 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

M. Coell: I would just like to again thank the ministry staff for their briefing this morning and also for the agreement of the minister to discuss flooding first on the agenda. I know that it's an issue that is important to many of the ridings in the province. If the minister is willing to give us just an update on programs or changes to programs that have taken place in the last couple of weeks, since the announcement from the ministry on flooding and potential damage control, that would be greatly appreciated. I know that members of the opposition caucus have some questions for the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: I do appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit about some of the preparatory work that's gone on around the issue of flooding across the province. About six weeks ago, actually, was the first time I became aware that we had such elevated snowpack levels around the province that there was a potential for some very serious flooding around the province. Even prior to that, in my work as Minister of Environment and in touring different parts of the province and talking with local communities about flood preparedness, there was a need to replace some of the programs related to diking work that had happened or gone on in the past.

Everyone understood that through the provincial emergency program, which gives great support to individual homeowners once an emergency has occurred. . . . But it seemed to them -- and they raised with me the issue of preparedness -- that spending dollars prior to a flooding event was a more efficient use of resources than to spend it post-event. In fact, it was a way of achieving some savings, really, for the province as well. As a result of that, the Attorney General and I last year announced a flood preparedness program -- $3 million. Some work began around the province.

I think that at this point it's important to acknowledge the lead that local communities play in flooding protection. That's because, while the province works very closely with local communities, it is local governments that have the first line of responsibility related to flooding. The province -- largely through my ministry in a pre-flood stage, but then to the provincial emergency program once it reaches a flooding stage -- then assists those communities in their preparation and provides the support they need. As the members opposite know, we've taken a great deal of care to provide as much information as we can, as soon as it becomes available, to all communities and to all members of this Legislative Assembly, so we can make sure that people have as much information as is necessary to engage in the preparation that needs to go on prior to flooding events.

The most recent information we have about snowpack levels, the May 1 snowpack readings, is just starting to come in. While we can't establish a trend yet, it does appear that due to the coolness of April, we've had very little snow melt in the higher elevations in regions that are most likely to be flooded. That includes the Kamloops-Okanagan region as well as the Fraser Valley and the Kootenays. In recent days, Neil Banera, who has been giving a lot of technical advice and works diligently on this file each and every day, met with both myself and the news media and talked about the probability of a catastrophic event in the Fraser Valley. The good news is that there is a very small likelihood that it would happen. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to engage in a level of preparedness and readiness.

[1440]

We are putting a lot of dollars -- $5.3 million to date -- in really trying to reinforce the diking work that's gone on or, in some cases, to actually install permanent diking works -- anything that can be done within this window of opportunity we have between now and spring freshet.

That has put some limitations on the applications that have come forward, and some of the members opposite may want to ask specific questions about the applications that have come from their own communities. In the case where an application has asked to do some permanent works that can't be completed in this window, it hasn't been approved. That's not to say that it isn't a good project and isn't worth doing, but we don't have the time to complete that work.

We also haven't approved projects that would be considered to be routine maintenance work and that the local diking authority is assumed to have responsibility for managing. That, of course, doesn't include provincial dikes. That is our responsibility. Most dikes are local or private dikes, as opposed to provincial government dikes.

We are also doing quite a bit of public relations work on making sure that the public is prepared. I know some of the members opposite have done work in their own communities with our staff, as well, to really talk with individuals and specific parts of communities about how to prepare. We've done work with the agricultural community, for instance, on readiness in case of high water or a flooding event. We've done work with municipal governments, which are holding regional and local meetings to talk to the public about whether they live on the floodplain; how to prepare their homes in the eventuality of a flood; emergency escape route planning for families; and community-based plans in terms of where sites will be for people to go for social assistance or other support in the eventuality of a flood.

That's largely the preparatory work we've done. I do appreciate the cooperation that we've received from members on the other side of the House. This has been an issue where all of us have been able to say that we're working together in

[ Page 12277 ]

[1445]

The public's expressing a lot of concern about our -- meaning the government's -- prioritization process: how is it decided that one project will receive priority over another. And when those projects were completed, was due thought put into the question of what would be affected downstream? The reason for these inquiries is the rising concern about the threat to individuals' own property. I think that all members on the opposition side are grateful for the excellent briefing we were given as this program of emergency preparedness came on. There is some puzzlement on the part of the public and local government about the short notice to local governments of their opportunity to have input. I understand that there still is some opportunity for input for emergency funds.

The minister's predecessor, Art Charbonneau, who I once heard refer to himself as a river engineer, was certainly concerned about this issue years ago. He and I both worked to try and ensure that some of the funding that still seemed to be available under the federal cost-sharing process was devoted to head off some of these risks. As we all know, that didn't happen for Kamloops.

In our briefing meeting we were told that in many of these local areas of concern, the government's position was going to be to respond where needed. Essentially, the Ministry of Highways, for example, would be given the authority to respond to the threat as it arose in particular locations. That makes sense. Assuredly, you can't be diking the whole river.

But certain specific concerns are being raised by residents. I don't think many of those are going to be new to the minister. Since this is one of the more pressing issues to all of us right now, I'd like to have some direct answers on those.

The first is about a group of ten residents from Birch Island who have written to the provincial emergency program. They make this point: one individual, for example, lost approximately 30 feet of property from the river pushing at the bank in the last 12 years. Her name is Bonnie Ruttan. She says: "We have watched the government spend thousands of dollars putting rock on the opposite side of the river in the past, building the bank up. They are now safe from floods. It doesn't seem very fair that they are protected and did not have to invest any personal money in the project. We all pay taxes and feel that we should be treated fairly."

In fact, they and the other nine residents have spent substantial money trying to protect their properties. Now they feel quite certain that they're under threat from the high water, as it is going to come down the river. They've written to the provincial emergency program and been told that PEP responds when the crisis has occurred. For the time being, it's the ministry that responds to these situations.

Is there a plan in place for local Ministry of Environment authorities to be given the autonomy to act on situations liked this, before the water actually rises to dangerous levels?

Hon. C. McGregor: First, I'll review again with the member the sequence of events that has to happen prior to dollars being given in order to fix problems related to flooding. I think we have to separate flooding information from erosion issues, because people who live on rivers and streams, and whose back yards or businesses or what have you. . . . When their property is on the edge of a stream or river, there are natural processes of erosion. This is one of the risks that face anyone who owns property where a river or stream goes through it.

There are some precautions that homeowners can take in order to stabilize that. But that is in fact what nature does from time to time. The channels can change. I know that the member for Abbotsford knows that well, because we visited the Chilliwack River together. We talked about this matter of how erosion occurs in a natural way. We all have a tendency to want to stop that from happening. We have to find the right balance, in fact, of what work we can do without interfering and, with one action, causing a subsequent problem.

[1450]

There's also other activity that the member made reference to: gravel removal and dredging. We understand better now, I think, that in some cases it's necessary activity, and we certainly don't resist that. But we think of the other values we could destroy prior to engaging in that activity. For instance, on the Fraser River, where there's been some considerable resistance to the idea of stopping gravel removal while we have a moratorium in place to study the matter, it does not appear that gravel is a factor in flooding.

So while it might appear to an individual resident or a group of residents that gravel or sand bars or accumulation can harm their homes through causing flooding, largely that isn't a factor. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and talk to the public about it, but in fact largely it isn't. And in the Fraser Valley we're doing a study that to date has not shown that gravel removal is a significant factor related to causing flooding.

When a group of residents believes that their homes are threatened by flooding, then their first line of contact must be

[ Page 12278 ]

The member also talked about short notice. That could be quite true -- that it was short notice. I think we responded as quickly as we could and said: "We'd like to hear from you as soon as possible about what works you believe are necessary to do right away in order to protect your community from flooding." If that meant there was a short time window, well, I'm afraid that's true; there was a short time window. But we haven't closed the door, so to speak, on those applications. And as the members know, I've made three announcements of different projects to date. As soon as we get new applications in, they're immediately considered by staff, and decisions are made very quickly on the basis of the criteria that we have put in place.

Just for the record, I want to make sure that everyone in the room understands what those criteria are, so we can potentially avoid other problems. All proposals are ranked according to snowpack and flood potential, on the basis of whether they're in high-risk areas or not-high-risk areas. So that's the first criterion that's applied. If they include routine maintenance issues. . . . That includes brush-clearing of dikes, grading of crests, minor repairs to riprap, clearing of bridges and culverts, etc. That is considered to be routine maintenance and the responsibility of the local authority, and those were screened out.

[1455]

Proposals that were not felt to be an effective approach to flood management were eliminated. So if someone says, "We think you should remove the gravel," and we don't believe that gravel is an issue, then we don't approve those projects.

Proposals such as the purchase of flood-fighting material -- sandbags, water barriers, riprap -- as well as temporary measures felt to be within the local capacity were put aside. Although I must say that we are considering the purchase of some of these water barriers to try on a pilot basis, perhaps, with one government, just to see if they work. That might be a good solution for us to consider in the future: to have a series of those available to use around the province, because I think they have potential as portable structures that could be moved from community to community.

Some proposals were too complex to be finished before freshet. Proposals recommended for funding had to achieve significant flood protection benefits and could be constructed in the time available.

Those are the specific criteria that were used by staff to evaluate. In the case of the Birch Island residents, I stand to be corrected, but I do not believe there has been any application from the local government on behalf of those residents.

K. Krueger: Of course, local government has more of an ability to respond in an incorporated area than in an area where one lone director for a regional district is responsible for far-flung rural geography.

The minister was careful to differentiate, or to attempt to, between flooding problems and erosion problems. The point that I was making in the preamble from Mrs. Ruttan's letter was that the erosion threat, in her mind and in those of her neighbours, is brought on by the fact that the government has previously done river control works which have caused the thrust of the current to move to their properties.

I'll just briefly touch on another paragraph of her communication. She says:

"We have been paying very close attention to the flood situation, as past experience tells us we are in danger of major damage to our homes. We have heard that the government has allowed money in the Birch Island area for more rock and to build yet another dike. The problem will not be corrected unless the dike is placed properly on the correct side of the river (railway side) diverting the river back to the original flow. There is a large sandbar down the centre of the river, so the river has expanded and is not flowing as it should. This is why we are having so many problems and losing our land."

The point that is being made to me by these people, including a marvellous group called the Clearwater preparedness program. . . . People named Tracey Wynnyk and Gary Rushton are coordinating that. They're the kind of people who go out in the middle of the night and respond to other people's emergencies, through the search and rescue program and so on. They're facing emergencies of their own now, and they're actually people who we'll really need to be able to get out of their homes and get on the scene of flooding problems as they occur, because they're always there for other people. Those individuals are pleading that they haven't really had the opportunity to have input for the protection of their own homes, let alone the threatened areas around them. They need a faster process than trying to go through the TNRD.

I'm aware that Mr. Doyle, in the ministry's regional office, is a person with expertise. I wonder if we couldn't have an arrangement where someone like Paul Doyle can review applications from individuals, such as the people in Birch Island that I've been talking about.

[1500]

But I will assure the member that in the Kamloops office and in other offices around the province, we are quite pre-

[ Page 12279 ]

K. Krueger: I'm going to try and rush through these particular matters that I need to raise, because we don't want to take up any unnecessary time. There are also situations where the interests of the provincial Crown are almost in competition with the interests of other landowners. The next case I want to raise involves what seems to be a situation like that -- an area called the Dairy Road peninsula. It's across from the Rayleigh correctional centre. One of the governments installed wing fences at some time, probably decades ago, to protect the Rayleigh camp property from erosion. Now that seems to be causing dramatic change in the river's flow, which is putting the entire Dairy Road peninsula area at risk.

The point that a large number of residents in that area are making to me is that there are several different options where these problems could be dealt with. A couple of them are very expensive. I'll just read their concluding paragraph:

"Wing fences protecting the province's property caused the problem. A wing fence at the appropriate location could solve the problem cost effectively for all concerned. The longer the problem is left uncorrected, the more costly remedial action will become and the more land lost by property owners. . . . We, the landowners in the affected area, request your earliest consideration. All stakeholders must move to find a solution soon."

Hon. C. McGregor: I had a conversation about this situation yesterday with some technical staff in the Kamloops office. Technical staff there advised that there is no evidence to show that any work that has been done in another location has adversely impacted this location. I tried to cover that off in my earlier remarks. I understand why people believe that to be true. But when we go out to do this kind of engineering and river examination, what we find, in fact, is that these are natural events, and they do impact on people's property.

The case in point here. . . . I understand that most of these homes are at the top of a 45-foot steep bank, and there is virtually no risk that they are going to be flooded. So it's not appropriate. . . . Economically, it doesn't make sense for us to spend $2 million to reinforce a steep bank to protect against flooding. Again, I think there's a difference between erosion that can happen as a result of high water and threats to people's homes by flooding.

Now, I do understand that there is a part of this area where there is a dip and that the water could flow across. What that will do technically is create an island at one end. What I believe is appropriate, and what we should do, is work with those residents to develop an emergency plan in the eventuality that that happens, and we have to exit people from that area to another area. Because there is a low point between the areas, that could cause them to become isolated. There is no imminent threat of flooding concerns in this area because of the nature of the steep banks and the geography in that area.

[1505]

I have been working for many months, as the minister is aware, I'm sure, with her staff and staff of the Ministry of Forests around the Dairy Creek area and the McQueen Creek area with regard to changes in the way the water table affects those residents, changes which they believe are a direct result of the government-sanctioned changes made upstream. There is argument about whether a Ducks Unlimited project that was allowed by the government has created the issues or not. This all happens to be in the same area.

I'd written the Minister for the Public Service, thinking that when his position was established it sounded like the government had an intent to work with these interministerial problems through his ministry. I got a very disappointing letter from him, dated April 28, 1999, which essentially said that the homeowners would have to file due applications and so on, even though he's had notice of this for months, and the problem now is imminent. Because the government has now created a park in the affected area, it isn't likely -- it sounds -- that the residents will be allowed to work together as they had proposed, for a commonsense solution that ministerial staff from several ministries seem to agree with. The residents wouldn't be allowed to create a diversion, which sounded to pretty well everyone who was in the field with me looking at the problem over the past months to be a plausible solution. I wonder if the minister would comment on the Public Service minister's response with regard to the Westside flooding problems at this time.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I can't respond on behalf of another minister, hon. Chair. If he's received correspondence from another minister, I think he needs to take that up with that individual.

I'm sorry, I don't remember the specifics of the McQueen Creek question, but I'll take the question under advisement and get back to the member on what information we have related to McQueen Creek and the restrictions as they relate to park areas.

I would like to go back, though, to a previous point that the member made about abandoning communities or individuals who are harmed by floods. Let me assure you that it is not my intention, nor is it the government's intention, to do that. I would strongly encourage any local resident who believes that there is a case to be made for work that needs to be done to apply through the permanent flood protection program that we've had since last year and that makes available $3 million on a 75-25 cost-sharing basis between local governments and the provincial governments. Seventy-five percent of that cost is picked up by the province, 25 percent by the local and regional government. We've prioritized a number of projects like the one the member makes reference to around the province, but those applications need to come forward.

We've given money for studies, for instance, to determine what the nature of the problem is -- why is this happening? -- and to determine if it is a flooding question versus a natural

[ Page 12280 ]

K. Krueger: I appreciate that answer. Of course, the problem that residents will immediately raise is that the threat is now imminent and that there is not time to make such applications, and so on. I'll certainly refer the minister's answers to them.

The last individual whose case I wish to raise at this time is one of the minister's own constituents in the riding of Kamloops, Geraldine McDonald. I don't know if the minister would have had time to review her correspondence of April 27, but she starts out: "Please help me tell my story. I am a 76-year-old woman and have lived on the Thompson River bank for the past 15 years. . . ." She goes on to say that she has essentially been beseeching the government for at least the last 12 or 13 years, since she was 62 or 63, to help with the problem that she now feels is urgent. The minister may feel that this also is an erosion issue rather than a flooding issue because, indeed, this woman is substantially above the river. But the river is cutting deeply into the bank below her home, and she sees her lawn sinking. There are half a dozen other households around her, and they seem to be falling through the cracks of the city program and the various programs that have been in place. She's desperately concerned, so she's hoping for an answer from the minister. I wanted to afford her this opportunity to give one.

[1510]

The works we are approving at this time are works that meet our criteria. That is to say, they are permanent in nature and the conditions have met the criteria of being potentially at high risk for flooding. They have to meet those criteria, hon. member. If they didn't meet those criteria originally and we didn't give approval for permanent works. . . . It might be because we can't complete them in time. If the water rises to a certain point, that community will be assisted through emergency works. We are taking steps at both the pre stage, which is in preparation for potential high water. . .and we will take more steps as they are necessary in the eventuality of actual flooding.

Now, in terms of Ms. McDonald, I've met with her on at least one occasion and corresponded with her fairly regularly. In fact, I encouraged the city of Kamloops to apply, under the permanent flood protection program that I made reference to earlier, for dollars to do a study to see the nature of the problem with her home and some other homes in that area. The city completed the study. The idea was for them to then apply, on the basis of that study, for preventive works. The city has chosen not to apply. Again, it is a matter where we, as a province working with local government. . . . I understand from the correspondence I received from Ms. McDonald that the city indicated that they would consider her application and would consider putting it forward. But as I understand it, hon. member, the city has not.

G. Abbott: I want to ask a few questions on behalf of my constituents in the Shuswap. As the minister well knows, the Shuswap is an area that's very much prone to flooding and has had some substantial floods. The major ones were, I guess, in 1948 and 1972. But we've had others in some of the lower areas as well. So there are obviously a lot of people, as I'm sure there are in many other parts of the province, who are very concerned about the current flood threat.

I want to begin, though, by asking what the latest information is with respect to the area of Salmon Arm and Silver Creek that was damaged by the catastrophic fire of last summer. Does it appear that we are going to have, as some feared, significant immediate flood problems there? Or has the weather of the last few weeks abated that particular fear?

[1515]

The CSRD and the district of Salmon Arm are going to reconsider filing applications for funding. Government agencies are going to review the commitments made at the January 13 meeting. There would be no monitoring of tributaries to the Salmon River for the long term.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways will remove metal taken to the Stony Creek gravel pit. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the district of Salmon Arm together will look at ditch damage in the vicinity of Branchflower Road and 7th Avenue. I'm sure that has significance for the member.

The CSRD will finalize its freshet emergency plan and undertake a table exercise of the plan. MELP will continue to talk to outside sources for funding, to try and find money for water quality and ongoing monitoring -- between $5,000 and $10,000 that would form the basis of analytical work. That's been done.

The Ministry of Forests will distribute one more information newsletter to a variety of participants.

We also understand that the district of Salmon Arm did submit an application for funding works and was granted $79,000 for the construction of a debris flow barrier to be built prior to May 15. However, it does appear that they may not be able to do it, because they haven't been able to get permission for rights-of-way from some private property owners. This is an issue I haven't raised yet, but it is of concern to some communities because we don't have an ability to go onto private land without the permission of the landowner. In some cases, that limits the ability of a region or a local government to undertake works.

[ Page 12281 ]

When the minister announced the various projects that had been approved across the province, there was the project that the minister just referred to in Salmon Arm, which I think was on Rumball Creek -- or maybe Rumball Creek is in the CSRD. But there was one project approved for Salmon Arm, and one approved for the CSRD. Has the CSRD one proceeded or has it run into a roadblock as well?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it appears in two different spots in this document. There is one under the district of Salmon Arm -- Silver Creek fire "A" and Rumball Creek -- for $79,000, and that was approved. Then there is another one under the Columbia-Shuswap regional district: Silver Creek flood protection for $22,000 for deflection berms at three sites.

G. Abbott: My question was actually whether those projects had proceeded as anticipated, or perhaps the minister is not aware of. . . . I'll leave that for the moment, then.

[1520]

Hon. C. McGregor: If the work that is designed through these projects doesn't go ahead, then what we would have to do is wait until a local emergency was declared. That gives the local government the capacity to go in and take those kinds of preventive measures -- to do sandbagging and so on -- and the province provides assistance as is necessary.

G. Abbott: One question that has been raised to me -- just yesterday, in fact, by a constituent -- is whether, because of the potentially grave problems facing Salmon Arm's Silver Creek fire area, there may not be an opportunity to properly address flood protection issues around the perimeter of Shuswap Lake and, I suppose, along the tributaries of Shuswap Lake as well -- the Eagle River, Shuswap River and so on. In the one call I had yesterday -- and I hope the minister can straighten this out -- a lady called me and said that, because all of the sandbags for that particular part of the world -- the Shuswap area -- were being stockpiled for the potential floods that might come in the burn area, there wouldn't be sandbags available to the public for, say, people who lived on the lakeshore or on a riverbank and who would want to do that kind of protection. It didn't ring quite right to me, and so I guess I'm looking for some assurance that that won't be the case. The lady said that in one case she was advised to go and buy sandbags from a hardware store and get a load of sand brought in, but that doesn't seem to be the usual way these situations are dealt with. Perhaps the minister can provide some clarification.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, what the member says doesn't sound right to me either, so we'll look into the matter and see what we can find out. There should be sandbags available in the community area generally, so that people can come and access those to be able to shore up parts of their property where flooding is an issue. We'll look into it for you.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that because certainly I think all my constituents -- and, I'm sure, every British Columbian -- expect that when they face an emergency situation they will be able to go in and get sandbags and assistance and all that stuff.

Is there an ongoing monitoring process -- whether it's in Shuswap or elsewhere in the province -- that raises the alarm at some point? Let's use the example of Shuswap Lake. If one is a homeowner on Shuswap Lake, will the rise in Shuswap Lake at some point give rise to notification that an emergency exists and that sandbags are available here and there and so on? Perhaps the minister could just briefly outline what that will be.

[1525]

G. Abbott: The minister made reference, in response to questions from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, to the new or reactivated flood protection assistance program, which I think is the same as what used to be called the stream bank protection program. It's the longer-term protective program against erosion -- as opposed to flooding, particularly. I know that there was last year -- and, I gather, again this year -- $3 million in that program. As a matter of information, has the value of applications to that program exceeded the $3 million, and if so, by how much?

Hon. C. McGregor: There were 159 applications, for a total of $27 million, to that fund.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

G. Abbott: As I recall, that's comparable to the demand on the program last year as well -- which I think was in the range of $30 million. Obviously it is going to be a challenge for the ministry to deal with these situations on a priority basis, when -- if the last two years are consistent with the future -- there's going to be, over time, an ongoing 10-to-1 ratio of demand to ability to fill that demand. That's obviously a significant challenge ahead for the ministry.

I want to talk finally here about a situation that, again, is in my riding. It's the Hummingbird Creek situation. I know that the minister is familiar with it. I've been receiving lots of correspondence -- and I know that the minister has been receiving lots of correspondence -- from residents of Swansea Point, the residential area along Hummingbird Creek. I want

[ Page 12282 ]

Briefly, just in terms of background to this situation, back on July 11, 1997, there were. . . . We can term them floods, but, more accurately, there were debris torrents on, I think, over 40 creeks in the Shuswap constituency as a result of ten days of very heavy rains. The most catastrophic of these 42 events was a debris flow on Hummingbird Creek at Swansea Point, which was, I think, from the subsequent study that was done, the largest debris flow of its kind that has ever been documented in British Columbia. It was a very bad situation, and it was remarkable that there was no immediate loss of life. Regrettably, one gentleman suffered a heart attack during the fighting of the debris torrent, but it could have been a lot worse.

[1530]

Subsequent to the events of July 11, the Ministry of Environment did commission a study by EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. to look at them. They made some recommendations with respect to dealing with this situation which, to this point at least -- largely because they are expensive, I think -- have not been put in place. I met with the residents of Swansea Point about two or three months ago, and there was a huge turnout for the meeting. People are very concerned about their situation. They are concerned from a personal safety perspective, because, among other things, EBA said that there might well be a repetition of the sort of event that occurred on July 11, 1997. They are also concerned from the perspective that, in response to that event, the CSRD put some constraints -- justifiably so, I think -- on the development of property in what's termed "the red area" -- the area that could be impacted by a follow-up event of the sort that occurred on July 11, 1997. So there are very significant concerns.

I just want to ask the minister's indulgence, to briefly read a portion of a letter from Caroline Waugh of Swansea Point. She is just one of probably 40 or 50 people who have taken the time to write me and, I know, the minister and let us know their feelings about what is going on there. I'll quote here briefly.

"We suffered" -- and she quotes from the EBA report -- " 'the largest debris flow derived from granitic source rocks that has been documented so far in British Columbia, close to 100,000 cubic metres of solids' on our community of 200 to 600 persons. . .18 months ago, on July 11, 1997. I personally suffered three and a half feet of rotting debris and mud in my home. My mother-in-law and grandson were traumatized and my husband -- recovering from bone fusion surgery and wearing a cervical collar -- was overwhelmed.

"EBA and KWL, in their report to MELP, said they 'strongly recommend the construction of a debris basin on the upper part of the fan above Highway 97A.' We residents and taxpayers on Swansea Point insist on that debris basin to ensure our safety. As the report states: 'it is very fortunate that there was not a number of fatalities due to direct impact by debris, given the magnitude of the event, the high density of development on the alluvial fan and the erosion of the Highway 97A crossing.' To do nothing for this community is totally unacceptable. We have been patiently waiting for remedial action from the government for the past year and a half. Our patience is at an all-time low.

"We are told that it is 'very likely that high magnitude debris flows will recur on the Hummingbird Creek fan' and that significant 'recharge has taken place in Mara Creek in the last 47-plus years since the last event, dated between 1947 and 1951. A debris flow mobilizing this stored material may be as large as the 1997 debris flow. We live in fear as winter snowpack on Hunters Range above us is at a 46-year record level. Once the spring freshet begins, we are going to be holding our breaths and sleeping restlessly. We are not prepared to live like this indefinitely and expect our government to build this debris basin to return us to a level of safety that is only to be expected."

The question, then, is where we go from here. I know the minister has met with the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and representatives of the Swansea Point Community Association. I know the minister has tried to find some innovative, cost-sharing way in which the debris basin could be constructed. I guess my first question is to invite the minister to bring me up to date on where the possibilities for resolution of this unfortunate situation on Hummingbird reside.

[1535]

It's important for all of us to understand that the Hummingbird Creek situation is extremely tragic but that we've probably got hundreds of examples like that all over the province of British Columbia because we've chosen to build on an alluvial fan. It is incredibly high-risk, and it's not until an event like this happens that people really seem to understand the reason why we've put a lot. . . . Regional governments have put building restrictions, and so on, in place in certain areas. I think we all have a responsibility to understand that Mother Nature can do these events on the basis of weather and so on. No one is putting fault on anyone for having caused this debris flow. Nonetheless, it can happen and does happen around the province.

Having said that, though, because of the specific nature of this event and understanding the very real concerns that have been expressed through the letter that the member read, as well as by the members of the community that I met with, I called a meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Highways directly and talked with him about the need for us to work co-operatively on a way in which to resolve this question. I argued -- quite successfully, I think -- that there is a major highway asset that could be destroyed in the eventuality of another debris flow and that Highways would then have an interest in wanting to invest in improvements that could cause that to end. I think I did persuade the Minister of Transportation and Highways to that effect.

I also met with the Attorney General and talked to him about using provincial emergency program dollars that had already been assigned to do some repair in the upper reaches

[ Page 12283 ]

We haven't brought it all together yet, but I have been working very hard on it, and I'm very optimistic that we can find a solution that will cause us to be able to put the debris basin in place so that we can avoid another situation as has occurred at Hummingbird Creek.

G. Abbott: I salute the minister for her efforts. At the risk of being unfair here, because I know that the minister obviously can't control all of the variables that will determine the ultimate timing of the installation of a debris basin, can the minister give me -- and, I guess, more importantly, my constituents in Swansea Point -- a sense of when they might expect that work towards a debris basin to get underway?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we're continuing to try and move ahead on this and to bring the parties and the dollars together to be able to do the work. We are working actively now with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I don't have an exact date, but I give my commitment to try and keep the member as fully informed as possible -- as soon as we're able to make a decision -- and to let him know when we're going to be moving ahead and what the time line for that will be.

[1540]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to make this information available to the member -- through you, hon. Chair. There was $575,000 of disaster financial assistance funding to restore the Hummingbird Creek channel. We spent about $375,000 of that for the restoration of the channel at the lower end. There's about $200,000 remaining, and what that was meant to do was restore the channel in the upper part of the fan. We haven't engaged in that work yet, because if we go ahead with the debris basin, we may not need to do the upper channel work. That's the phase 2 portion of it. So until such time as we've made a decision around whether we're proceeding with the debris basin or the upper channel restoration, we're not spending the money on the upper channel restoration.

G. Abbott: The most recent correspondence that I have seen with respect to the Hummingbird Creek issue is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Forests that was copied to me by the deputy minister. The deputy notes: "The minister has recently been made aware that a routine terrain analysis study in the area may raise some questions with the findings of the EBA report. I say 'may' because the report is still in draft form and has not been fully reviewed by forestry personnel." I'm not sure if the minister is familiar with the more recent terrain analysis. I'm just curious as to whether there is new information that will affect the discussions.

Hon. C. McGregor: We have a copy of the report, but it has not yet been evaluated.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the minister's suggestion about the partnering between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with respect to this. Clearly, as the minister has stated, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has some interests that will be affected in the short and long term by a debris basin there.

The other question I have in terms of partnering is whether the ministry has explored -- and I presume they have -- the possibility of including Forest Renewal B.C. in any partnership of that character, given the watershed protection activities that are undertaken by that agency.

[1545]

G. Abbott: Just a final question on this. I presume that the terrain analysis is being done by the Ministry of Forests. Could the minister explain whether that is the only analysis that is currently going on, or are there analyses being conducted by the Ministry of Forests as well as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? And perhaps others -- I don't know. What analyses are being done? And at what point will the draft analyses become analyses that will be public and available to us to help form some conclusions about how to proceed at Swansea Point?

Hon. C. McGregor: The terrain analysis was done by the Ministry of Forests. We are working with them in an analysis of their work, and I've been given an indication that it should be available in about a month.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that response. Again, we have a very tough problem to resolve here, and I want to extend to the minister, certainly, my appreciation and support for her efforts. I hope those efforts can continue, and I hope that we can find a successful resolution to what has been a most perplexing and most disturbing problem for my constituents.

J. van Dongen: I just want to ask the minister a few questions. First of all, I want to say that we did have in my constituency two very successful public information meetings, which involved the participation of local and regional governments, Ministry of Environment staff from Surrey and PEP staff. Virtually everybody who had a stake was there, and they were very appreciative of the Ministry of Environment staff who participated. I think it is a very useful communication tool for us to use. In fact, the staff said to me -- particularly after the Yarrow meeting -- that they found it helpful also.

[ Page 12284 ]

Secondly, I want to commend the minister for the decision last year to do the $3 million, 75-25 cost-share program to do flood protection works. I think that a program like this on an ongoing basis -- a permanent program -- is an absolute necessity. I didn't agree with the decision about five or six years ago, when federal and provincial governments pulled out of the structural maintenance of dikes and that kind of thing. I think that local governments can do the mowing and brush cutting, but anything of any consequence in terms of capital improvements on dikes requires the involvement of senior governments. I'm pleased that this ministry has seen fit to expend some provincial dollars this year and last year.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what efforts have been made to get the federal government involved in this program again. I think there are lots of legitimate arguments to be made for federal involvement -- as we've had in the past. I think that B.C. generally suffers from a lack of federal participation and federal dollars in a lot of our programs. I think this is one where there are some very good arguments to be made, and I wonder what initiatives the ministry has made to try and restart discussions with the federal government.

[1550]

As a resident of Kamloops, and someone who has come to know the situation where the North and South Thompson rivers join. . . . We did not benefit from the federal-provincial partnership that was available up until 1990, I believe. As a result, we are the most seriously threatened community in the province for flooding this year. It certainly brought to my mind the need for us to be able to benefit in the same way that many other regions of the province did in the past. It's a $17 million issue in Kamloops, and that's a very significant commitment that any community would have to make in order to keep itself ready for a flood.

When the Premier and I were recently on a tour of the province -- in some of the flood-prone areas in the Okanagan and the Kamloops region -- the Premier made clear at that time that he was prepared to lobby the federal government and, in fact, had already begun conversations with them on the need to reactivate that program. He indicated to me that he felt there were several other governments across Canada that were interested in trying to re-establish that kind of shared-funding arrangement.

It's certainly my intention -- if I get the opportunity at my next meeting of Ministers of Environment across Canada -- to raise this issue again with my colleagues. I think there's value in us doing some work to try and reinstate a program that would be cost-shared between local governments, the provincial government and the federal government, because there are still works that need to be done. I think we should be trying to co-operate together on that matter.

J. van Dongen: I wonder if I can ask the minister if she's aware. . . . When the Fraser River flood control program was in place -- I imagine there were parallel programs in other parts of British Columbia -- did the federal participation come through the federal Ministry of Environment or some other ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it did come through Environment Canada.

J. van Dongen: If I could make a suggestion to the minister. . . . Certainly the Lower Mainland Municipal Association has an active diking committee, and I suspect that the Union of B.C. Municipalities also has an interest in a committee working on this. We may want to approach them and really take a run at this thing. I think we're going to learn this year that we are vulnerable in a lot of areas, and there's just no good reason to let the federal government off the hook. I think there are a lot of mayors and local governments that would be pleased to participate with the province in this endeavour.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm given to understand that the chair of the Fraser Basin Council is in fact trying to pull together such a meeting. She has indicated that she is going to ensure that the ear of Paul Martin is available for the results of that meeting. It will involve, of course, local governments as well as the UBCM. I think that's a real opportunity. Because we have federal, provincial and local government representatives on that council, we should make sure that we take that opportunity to really solidify our agreement that this is an important area for us to move forward on, and then pass that on to the federal Finance minister.

J. van Dongen: I wish the minister well on that endeavour. I think it's an important effort.

The next topic that I want to raise -- and I just want to put this on the table, because I think it's an issue -- is what I call conflicts between fish habitat values, to use the minister's term, and flood protection values. There are many situations that arise. I had a situation in Agassiz, for example, where local governments had complained about an inability to cut down some brush or trees on a dike. I have a situation in Yarrow where local residents feel very, very strongly that log debris that is currently lying on the bed of the river should be removed so that it doesn't jam up in front of the pillars of the railway bridge. Of course, we've got the gravel removal issue, where we've got some various interests.

[1555]

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the fact that the member and other residents from time to time have concerns with how

[ Page 12285 ]

We don't really have an appeal mechanism, it's true. But I think there is an informal appeal mechanism, and the member will be familiar with some of the negotiation that goes on as a result of people having a concern with what has been said either by provincial Ministry of Fisheries staff or by DFO. There's an opportunity both to engage at the regional level and, if the individual isn't satisfied with that response, to move that to the ADM level or the deputy minister level or even my level. While it might not be a formal appeal route, we do our best to accommodate the concerns of the public while still protecting the important fish values that exist within the stream or river in question.

J. van Dongen: The minister gave the answer that I expected, and that's okay. I'm hoping that, this year especially, all of the staff involved, whether federal or provincial, will recognize that on a practical basis there are sometimes other considerations that have to be taken into account. I don't want to have to hear about local governments having to fight like crazy just to remove a couple of trees on a dike or something because they feel it is necessary for flood protection purposes. Hopefully, as we go through this year in an education process, those relationships will improve.

In that vein, I thought I would raise the gravel removal issue -- on a couple of fronts, really -- just briefly. One of them is this: one of the aspects that is causing great pressure on the gravel removal situation is that there is economic value to the gravel, particularly in the lower mainland where sources are becoming more and more scarce. I have talked to staff about the three-year study that is being done, and I'm sort of vaguely familiar with it. But I can't recall if the issue of the economic value of the gravel is being considered in this whole process. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, we are.

J. van Dongen: So the study is going to attempt to weigh the value of the gravel versus the fish values that may be impacted by removal. Is that correct?

[1600]

J. van Dongen: The reason I raise it. . . . I think that some of the parties that are arguing that gravel may be a flooding issue or have flooding implications are really driven more by the fact that gravel has economic value. I think it is important to recognize that. The aggregate industry is a small industry in terms of the people involved, but it has significant economic implications.

That brings me to the second aspect of that issue, particularly with reference to the situation we have right now with the Cheam band in Chilliwack, where as I understand it, the ministry issued a stop-work order about ten or 12 days after the removal started. I think the real concern there is the appearance that there are two sets of rules: one for native bands, and one for other aggregate operators. Other operators have a significant economic interest in removing gravel, as they've done for many years prior to the moratorium, and feel that both the ministry and DFO were very slow to respond where there was a large-scale gravel removal operation going 24 hours a day. They're saying: "If we have to sit on the sidelines, why doesn't somebody else?"

I wonder if the minister could comment on the slowness of the response and what action is being taken subsequent to the stop-work order.

Hon. C. McGregor: We certainly don't want to leave anyone with the impression that there's a double standard. There's a gravel moratorium, and that applies to all parties. However, as is usually the case with this ministry, we don't try and provoke confrontation. We try and work with the individual who's not in compliance, whether it's an Indian band or a farmer or whoever. When we become aware of a non-compliance issue, we move to inform and request that it be stopped and so on. In this case we did, in fact, have to issue orders to cease and desist from the removal of gravel. We were ready to move forward on an injunction, but the work had stopped, and it wasn't necessary for us to do that.

The member may know that there are existing charges outstanding against the band from a previous gravel removal activity in another year, and those are still under consideration by the court. The case hasn't been heard yet, as I understand it. We have put in place cease-and-desist orders under the federal Fisheries Act and the Water Act, and we have conservation officers currently investigating to see what charges might arise as a result of that activity in this period.

[1605]

Hon. C. McGregor: The previous charges were under DFO, under the federal Fisheries Act.

J. van Dongen: I guess, just to register the concern. . . . My understanding is that there were charges laid in 1996, probably by DFO. I understand that they were dropped and that there were, I think, 22 charges laid against one individual and possibly the band in 1998. They're the ones that are still pending and that the minister's talking about. When you've got this kind of a record, I'm concerned that that operation was able to continue for another ten days before either the Ministry of Environment or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans reacted. This is a very large-scale operation. It isn't some small-scale deal.

[ Page 12286 ]

This was a question that came up on Monday at our public information meeting in Matsqui village, and we couldn't answer the question. The minister talked today about if anyone's house was at risk, people would be able to possibly get sandbags or get assistance. I wasn't clear on this. I know that the province, under the provincial flood control plan, has got these various stations where they've got sandbagging equipment, bags ready to go and a source of sand. Is the minister saying that anyone whose house is at risk could go to one of those centres and get sandbags to protect their house? Can a citizen go down and get a supply of sandbags if they feel they need it?

Hon. C. McGregor: Again, it's local government that takes the lead, and it's through local government planning that we provide assistance. We are currently stockpiling sandbags and so on, and we will be deploying them into regions on the basis of need as fast as we can when the situation arises. That's why we're doing the stockpiling now. But it will largely depend on the local community's plan. They will prioritize, I'm sure, some areas first, on the basis of which areas will be flooded first. So there will be local plans designed to deploy those sandbags.

J. van Dongen: What I understand, then, is that anyone that had. . . . I know that the city of Abbotsford, for example, has a supply of about 150,000 sandbags. There are going to be 5.5 million at the provincial site in Abbotsford. It was certainly my understanding that that will provide a backup for a fairly widespread area; it just happens to be Abbotsford where this one stockpile is. So individuals who felt that they were in a unique situation or felt that they had a risk would approach their local government. If their local government felt it was warranted, then could they draw on the provincial supply? Or would they have to draw on their own municipal supply first? I think that's the question. Even the local government representatives that we had at our meeting were not entirely clear. I had the impression that even their supply and the provincial supply were only to deal with provincially approved projects or the stuff that they had approved themselves.

Again, if an individual homeowner decided, "I'm going to try and sandbag around my house," and if they went to their local government, and their local government agreed that that was a worthwhile endeavour, could they then draw on the provincial supply? I guess that's the question.

[1610]

J. van Dongen: I guess when we're in the height of an emergency, that's what we'll do. We'll just drive and go and get them.

I want to thank the minister for her responses today and for the work she's doing, particularly on the flood protection issue, and I look forward to working with her in the future on other issues.

J. Wilson: I had a couple of questions for the minister about water. The city of Quesnel has put in for some assistance on flooding this spring, and for the most part, they have not received the funding that they requested. Could the minister explain why?

Hon. C. McGregor: As this document summarizes, there were four applications from the city of Quesnel. Three were termed long-term projects -- that is to say, they didn't fit the criteria. They couldn't be completed in time for freshet, so they weren't approved in that category. The one that did fit the criterion of being able to be completed was approved.

J. Wilson: The minister is right; they have received funding for an area on the Quesnel River, on the north side of it.

But there is an area on the west side of the Fraser, south of Baker Creek, that does need some diking. Whether you call this a long-term project or not, it's something that's necessary. The city has undertaken on its own to start. They've already started diking there so that they will have it in place by the time high water comes. Now, the minister says this isn't possible to fund, because we can't do it in time. But we don't believe in waiting until the last minute to get a project going, because it is needed. My question to the minister is: will the ministry fund this project once it's completed and in place on time?

[1615]

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that reply. This will be a permanent structure. It is a berm that will follow along the edge of the floodplain there. It hasn't been built before because, as that area's developed. . . . Back when we've had severe floods before, this area was not developed. It was basically farmland, and now it is subdivision. It is something that is necessary. I feel that the cost should be supported in some way by the provincial emergency program here, because it's going to be something that will be in place and will be there for years to come. So on that, I would leave it.

[ Page 12287 ]

It does point out again that we do have this tendency to build on the floodplain. We should be careful where we decide to build new subdivisions, if we know that they're in low-lying areas that have been subject to flooding in the past. That's something we're working on with local governments. We're making sure that we do that kind of floodplain mapping and put the appropriate kind of building restrictions in those areas. As well, we're making sure, if a development is going to go ahead, that diking, for instance, might be a part of that proposal so that when the development is going ahead, it's approved on the basis of putting appropriate protection in place for that new subdivision.

B. Barisoff: I have just a few questions for the minister. In '97 we toured the South Okanagan and the farms above drop structure 13 on Tuc El Nuit Drive. That area is flooding again. Of course, the argument was that the sediment buildup in the river was the cause of this. I remember showing the minister where that entire area was flooded, and we talked about it being just an anomaly of that particular year. Well, it's happening again, and I'm wondering whether. . . . I have talked with the local environment office, and they said they are doing some type of profile. But I wonder if something is actually going to be done to alleviate this problem for the farmers directly east of the river channel.

[1620]

B. Barisoff: Thank you -- because it is flooding again. They told me that they were possibly going to be doing a profile sometime after the freshet, hoping to see whether the cause of that flooding is actually the buildup of silt. For the minister's benefit, it would be above drop structure 13 -- you've seen the area, anyhow.

A couple of areas that I wouldn't mind touching on. . . . What's going to be happening on the Similkameen in the Keremeos-Cawston-Hedley area?

Hon. C. McGregor: Largely in the eventuality. . . . Things are approved on the basis of risk assessment first, so those areas that have been identified as highest risk are the ones that we want to look at first. In the case of many of these ones along the Similkameen, the assessment is that they're not at this time at a high-risk level for potential flooding. They believe that at a later date, under the direct flood response program, those works could go ahead in an emergency situation if it's necessary.

Two of the projects are assessed as being more long-term in nature. In other words, they couldn't be completed in time, either. So those would fall under the other category of funding that we talked about -- the permanent diking program, flood protection works program -- for which we announced the $3 million. I would urge the regional district to apply to that fund for some of these longer-term projects. There was in fact one approved at Hedley. There was a repair of bank protection at Hedley. The other ones could be done during a flood response stage; or if they're long term, they should apply for them out of the other funds, because we're not able to get them completed in time. For instance, one says it's a new dike. Well, we need to do some work before we're ready to do that.

B. Barisoff: The other one is, of course, the Kettle River. The regional director there indicated to me that it wasn't a matter of if it was going to flood; it was a matter of when it was going to flood. I'm just wondering what's taking place on the Kettle.

[1625]

B. Barisoff: It would probably be. . . . Would it be the Kootenay region? I don't know if it's the. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No. It's part of the Okanagan-Boundary riding, but it is the Rock Creek area. I think it's part of the Kootenay-Boundary regional district.

Hon. C. McGregor: According to this document, there was an application. There isn't even a cost estimate for it. It is a new dike, so again, it's considered to be one of the longer-term projects that just can't be completed in this window of opportunity we have. I would encourage the member, actually, to get the regional district to work up a more comprehensive application that includes the cost estimates and so on, so that we can do a better assessment of what they have in mind.

B. Barisoff: I thank the minister for the capital projects that were done. The Bassett Creek area was done. There is some concern, of course, with Shuttleworth Creek and Okanagan Falls. I don't know exactly what's happening there. If the minister could. . . . That's one of the areas that continues to flood. I guess it has a lot to do with the stilling basin that overflows and takes a lot of silt down through the river. I've brought that issue up every year. I think they have cleaned it out, but it might have to be done more than once in the coming year if that much water comes down.

The other area that I'd like to touch on is in the Cowichan Valley. I'm just trying to think of the name of the river that runs off the Cowichan River there. The Somass, I think, runs up into there. There's a lot of flooding up in that area. That's an ongoing problem; that's not just a freshet problem. I'm wondering whether the minister has looked at that problem up there.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, Vancouver Island is viewed to be at far less risk than the rest of the province as it relates to flooding, so there hasn't been any urgency to do any flooding works on Vancouver Island. In some places on Vancouver Island, their flooding is actually in the fall and winter as a result of rain, as opposed to freshet in the spring. They have a little bit of a different problem from the rest of the province because of rain versus. . . . It's more of a weather issue than a flooding issue.

B. Barisoff: I do realize that, and I just want to bring to the minister's attention that it is an ongoing problem up in

[ Page 12288 ]

If there are any other things that the minister noticed last week when she was in the Okanagan, could she refer to that now? That would be the end of my questions.

Hon. C. McGregor: Just to respond to the member on what the Premier and I did on our tour, we went into Penticton and looked at an existing dam and water control structure. It was very interesting to us, actually, because as the member knows, there are a lot of these kinds of dams all through the Okanagan. We talked about how we could use that dam as a flood control mechanism. So that was the purpose of our visit to Penticton. I'm not immediately aware of, and I don't believe that there were, any flags raised for us in the Penticton area.

[1630]

The other project we viewed from the air was around Mission Creek -- some of the work that's gone on in the past and is continuing to go on. That would be an area where there might need to be more work done in the future, but there was evidence of ongoing work there from previous years, as well as what they are doing now in order to make that area floodproof. I think we were fairly satisfied, from the perspective of the locations we went to, that we were putting in place the works that were necessary. Again, it's a matter of waiting for waters to rise to see if there's a need to go in and do more shoring as a result of emergency measures.

B. Barisoff: If there's one comment that I could leave with the minister, it's that over the years the Okanagan River channel all the way from Penticton to Osoyoos was probably lacking -- and probably "lacking" is the right word -- the overall maintenance that it should have. I know that dollars and cents are always a problem. My concern, when we have years like this, is the possibilities of what could happen. I guess I would just like to put on the record for the minister that if there is a possibility in time -- you know, on a long-term basis -- of looking at the slow improvement of the entire Okanagan River channel. . . . Probably the most important one is where the buildup of silt is in the Tuc El Nuit area, where it's flooding all those farmlands. If I could get some kind of information on what would take place. . . . That's not something that's going to happen for this year's freshet, I know -- but on a long-term basis.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd certainly be happy to set up a meeting for the member with someone from the region who has expertise on that Okanagan channel and who could assure the member that we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that we are doing the kind of maintenance that's necessary. Having the member's perspective and the community's perspective on what needs to happen next is also a very important part of our assessment of work that needs to be done on an ongoing basis.

M. Coell: I just have a couple of areas with regard to flooding that I'd like to touch on, and then we'll move on to other items. It's my understanding that there are a number of older contaminated sites along the Fraser that have been used over the years for anything from the dumping of gasoline-soaked soil from gas stations. . . . I suspect some of these could be quite old as well -- old dumpsites that go back. . . . I just wonder: with flooding, we may find that the water overflows these areas, and if there is any leachate, a toxin could flow into farmland. What I'm concerned about is: do we know where these sites are? Are we taking remedial steps to make sure that leachate from a flood doesn't contaminate farmland?

[1635]

The nature of those sites. . . . While some of the contaminants have leached -- or, in the case of the one that has already been cleaned up, were leaching directly into the Fraser River -- the nature of how that happens isn't affected by floods. It isn't aggravated by floods, I should say. In other words, that action is continuing as a result of the relationship between the product material, the contaminated substance and the nature of how water moves through that and into the river. In some cases, it's in fact drawn down below the river; in some cases, it leaches into the river. Those are the sites that we've identified, on an urgent basis, as in need of remedial action to clean up. Those are being cleaned up.

The more significant issue, from our perspective, is those sites that actually store special wastes, that actually have containers that store special kinds of waste. We have a regulation that requires them to be floodproof. Those sites are being reviewed to make sure that they are floodproof and, if they aren't floodproof, that they have a plan in place that removes the material off site in the eventuality of a flood. So in some cases, they're floodproof locations, and in other cases, they have a plan to move the material off site in the eventuality of a flood.

M. Coell: That's actually comforting news. I suspect that in the future, the government won't be providing licences to hazardous or toxic waste in floodplains. Would that be correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the member is correct.

M. Coell: Well, I would like to say that I am pleased we were able to take, as it turns out, almost a couple of hours on flooding. I think it's an issue that warrants some discussion --

[ Page 12289 ]

Yesterday we spent some time talking about the changes in Crown Lands with BCAL. I would just like to say that I've had an opportunity to read the information that your staff has given me; I appreciate that. I don't think there's any need to take that discussion any further. I'm satisfied that I should probably be addressing some of the questions to the Minister of Finance. Also, I have a better understanding of the relationship between your ministry and BCAL at this point.

But I do have a number of "Crown land" issues that I'd like to get an update on. I think, too, looking at policy changes that may have taken place in the ministry, the first one that I had -- and I mentioned this to your staff as well -- was in the Comox Valley. There are a number of Crown lands that are being looked at as a trade for land on Denman Island. Actually, I had a chance last year to look at the land on Denman Island as well. I'd be interested to have an update on where those negotiations are with the Crown lands trade.

[1640]

We have been engaged in some fairly serious and lengthy negotiations on the exchange of this property. There are still some items in dispute. We had hoped we were near resolution; we're not quite there yet. The next stage is that we will be having an on-site meeting with the Denman property owners, the regional district and plateau residents, and I'm certain that the MLA involved will want to attend that meeting as well.

M. Coell: Thank you very much for that update. I'm sure the Chair will be more than willing to attend that meeting.

The next item that I would like to touch on is the Roberts Bank lands. These are the lands that were purchased by, I believe, the government in the early seventies. We're now moving to resolve some of the issues, I guess, around disposal of those lands. I would be interested also in having the minister update me on the process that the government has gone through. I think this was obviously a policy change of the government. If the minister wanted to comment on the reasons for that policy change, I would be interested in that as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: The policy change was led by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, so he had the lead on that policy matter. It's now being delivered on through BCAL. The decisions that were taken as a result of the policy direction are now being implemented by BCAL.

M. Coell: I appreciate that. Is the Minister of Environment happy with that policy change? Is it something that fits in with the overall policy of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks?

Hon. C. McGregor: When the member opposite asks questions about how is it that we have a relationship with BCAL to make sure that environmental concerns are addressed, this is a good example of how we're working with BCAL on the interests that this ministry is concerned with. These lands are very important, as they are directly on the Pacific flyway for migratory birds, so we have interests from that perspective and we have interests from a wildlife management area perspective. Those are two issues that we are working with BCAL and Environment Canada on having addressed as a part of the overall package.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that. Will there be an ongoing monitoring of the effects of changes to the use of these lands on adjacent lands?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, and it's the kind of work that our regional offices do on a fairly regular basis, related to habitat and wildlife monitoring. In particular, if it becomes a wildlife management area, that is a tool through which there is ongoing monitoring of activities and the wildlife in that area.

M. Coell: I would be very supportive of that. I also support the change in policy to resolve some of the issues that go back a long time with regard to ownership and use of the lands. I think that's a positive move.

[1645]

Hon. C. McGregor: The number one priority, from my perspective and the ministry's perspective, is: whatever decisions are made, can we maintain the ecological integrity of the bog? That is our number one concern. That is the question that we will be asking at every stage of any proposed development. To assist in that regard, I've made it very clear that there will be an environmental assessment of any proposal that is put in place near Burns Bog on this property.

I think it's important for everyone to understand that this is a privately held piece of property, and it is subject to the zoning restrictions that Delta currently has in place. They, in fact, are very willing to work with us on any sort of environmental assessment, should a proposal come forward. I understand that there will be a proposal coming forward from the developer some time soon. It will be our role to make sure that any proposal is reviewed completely and fully so that the ecological integrity of the bog can be maintained.

M. Coell: Will the project come under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it will.

M. Coell: I know there are a number of questions that I'll be asking the Minister of Small Business and Tourism and also the Minister of Finance on this. What I'm looking for out of our conversations is an assurance that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks will be concentrating on the environmental aspects of the project, not on whether it's a good project for British Columbia or not. That's what I want to come away with -- an assurance that our job here is the integrity of the whole bog. I think I'm getting that sense from the minister.

The project, as it will come forward, may change from what I suspect was announced. I don't suspect that it'll be

[ Page 12290 ]

[1650]

M. Coell: I would be pleased to have that. The municipality of Delta, I gather, has done a number of studies for developments that have happened around Burns Bog. Also, I think it was Richard Hebda, in the early seventies, who did his thesis on the hydrology of Burns Bog.

The process by which the proposal will be evaluated by this ministry. . . . I would be interested in hearing about that. Once the proposal comes forward, I suspect the group will be making their proposal to Delta council. I'm not sure what kind of response they are going to get, as the Delta council has turned it down without having a formal proposal given to it. They would have to go through the process of rezoning and development permits. What role will the ministry be playing when that's tabled at Delta council?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I noted earlier when we talked about this, this review is technically not under this ministry. It's the environmental assessment office that does the environmental assessment. We've been given to understand that the municipality of Delta would like us to engage in that review prior to them making a decision on development applications. I understand that's how they would like the process to roll out.

M. Coell: If that can be accomplished, I think the conservation society, as well as Delta, would be comfortable with that. Does the minister have the ability to recommend to the assessment office to carry that assessment out?

Hon. C. McGregor: I certainly have the authority, and I want to reiterate that I've made it clear from the very beginning, when the announcement was first made and there was a decision taken on this question, that it would be subject to a full environmental assessment.

M. Coell: As the minister said, there was a request for that to take place prior to the proposal coming forward. Is there a time frame around when that would be recommended and the process started?

Hon. C. McGregor: We don't have an exact timetable, but we have been dealing with the municipality of Delta. It will be largely dependent upon when the developer decides to put forward a proposal. Once we have a proposal, then we can develop the kind of time lines that will follow from that. Until such time as you have something to trigger the review, it's hard to anticipate exactly how long that review will take or when it would begin.

M. Coell: I understand that; that's clear. I thought the minister had said that they were able to start that review now -- even before the development application was put forward. That would be different. You would be doing the hydrology, inventory of animals and all those things, in any event. I guess I need clarification. Are we waiting for the developer to come forward with a proposal, or are we going to initiate an environmental review prior to that with the municipality involved?

[1655]

C. Clark: Environmental reviews take a long time, in many cases. We've seen in the past that the government sometimes likes to short-circuit it and have a fast-track review process. I wonder if there's any consideration on the minister's part to fast-tracking this environmental review process, if indeed a proposal does come forward.

Hon. C. McGregor: Let me assure you that I am under no instructions -- nor will I instruct -- that any review be fast-tracked. Whatever time is necessary for us to review a proposal -- in whatever form it takes -- we'll take that time to do it.

C. Clark: I just want to be absolutely clear about this. Is the minister giving us today her ironclad guarantee that if a proposal comes forward to develop part or all of Burns Bog, she will ensure that it is not fast-tracked -- that it will go through the full environmental review process that anyone else in the private sector would have to go through -- and that we won't end up with one of these half-baked, SkyTrain-style, fast-track reviews that seem, in some cases, intended to ignore and subvert the real intentions of the process? Will the minister give us her ironclad guarantee that in this case, that won't happen?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I said in my previous answer, I will take as much time, and I will ensure that as much time is taken, as is necessary, to conduct a complete and full environmental review. I have no fast track in mind -- none.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to hear that.

I have one final question. This is a presumptive question, and the minister may not want to answer it. If this project fails, is there any discussion with the purchaser -- potential purchaser or the owner -- of acquiring all of this bog? Or is that beyond the thinking of the government, at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: I think it's important to stress, to begin with, that the agreement we have with the developer at this time preserves the greatest part of the bog. In fact, the area that is set aside as a part of this agreement means that there is a guarantee of no development in the vast majority of the bog through the life of the agreement with the developer. That's a

[ Page 12291 ]

[1700]

I think the greatest threat, in fact, is to sandhill cranes. This is one of the most endangered populations on the lower mainland. This is very important habitat. Cranberry farming, peat farming -- both of those threaten sandhill cranes because of the nature of the biology of the crane. It is unable to move its location at will. If we say: "Okay, sorry, we want to put a cranberry farm here. We'll just move the cranes over here. . . ." It just doesn't work like that.

These are all real threats to the bog. Preserving the vast majority of the bog, through the terms of this agreement, has been a very important part of what we've done through this arrangement with the developer. I'm not sure that I've actually answered the member's question, but I hope I've convinced him that we are working very hard to achieve and to maintain the ecological integrity of the bog, because we do understand how important it is to maintain it and to have it for all time. It is significant and unique -- from a global perspective as well as a local perspective.

M. Coell: The minister has just convinced me that she should start her study now. The longer you wait, the more potential problems there are, so I would encourage that. From my perspective, all of the bog that is protected -- it's too late to protect it all, as the minister said; some of it has been used for a variety of purposes -- would be a goal. I think it's a goal that's shared by many as well. I'll leave that at this point. I intend to take it up with the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Finance during their estimates.

The next item I'd like to touch on is the commercial recreation policy. There have been a number of changes to government policy over the past two years with regard to fees. I would like to spend some time looking at the reasons for those changes and at the charges given to operators in provincial parks and on Crown lands. Those are the areas that I would like to spend some time talking about.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not sure what question the member actually asked. When we announced the new Crown land commercial recreation policy, we indicated that there would be no pricing structure change, and there wasn't. I'm not sure that I'm answering the member's question, but if he's asking about park fees, I have the ADM of Parks here, and we can canvass that topic as well.

M. Coell: Actually, I would like to deal with both, the first being the commercial recreation tenures and fees. Are the tenures being dealt with by BCAL, or are the tenures for these licences still dealt with by your ministry?

Hon. C. McGregor: It is BCAL that handles the tenures under the commercial recreation policy. The policy was set by our ministry, and they administer it. They also have, by the way, the responsibility for pricing, although at the time I made the announcement about the commercial recreation policy, I made the commitment to no change in pricing -- so they're living with my decision.

[1705]

Hon. C. McGregor: I can assure the member that there is a significant process that is gone through, internal to the government, before any decisions are made to increase fees. But if I wasn't comfortable with it, it wouldn't happen.

M. Coell: I don't know whether it's a change in policy of the government as a whole or change in policy. . .to look at increased fees in parks -- and the rationale for that. There was a rationale 20 or 30 years ago that parks were an opportunity for people to have a holiday that didn't cost them a lot. If you had a big family, you could have a good holiday that didn't cost you a lot. There seems to be increases in fees in parks and for fishing licences -- those sorts of things. That to me is a direct change in government philosophy and policy, and I wonder if there's going to be an attempt, now, by government to capture the total cost of camping and the use of parks. I'm trying to think how people can project what is coming down the pike with regard to fees in parks and how they can view what the government's doing in that regard.

Hon. C. McGregor: Whenever a ministry within government talks about fees, they do so against the backdrop of considering a number of factors. In the case of B.C. parks, for instance, our fees have not increased since 1992. In fact, the member may not be aware, but I was actually lobbied by the campground owners association to increase fees for the last several years, because they don't believe that we're being fair to the private sector in terms of the fees we charge. In fact, they insist that they are too low and have insisted for some time that they are too low.

When you look at the kind of comparisons of what it costs for a B.C. parks camping experience versus other comparable jurisdictions, we are still very reasonably priced. Even with increases of $2 and $3 to our fee structure we are still, I believe, virtually the lowest-priced jurisdiction in North America on the park camping scene, when you compare comparable sites. Of course, the members will know that some of our sites have very limited services, so they have a very low fee range, but when there are a lot more services, they have a higher fee range. Our park fees compare favourably. For instance, where ours are $17 to $18.50 a night, in Parks Canada's Pacific Rim Park, it's $33; in Alberta, it's $26; in Ontario, it's $35; in Washington State, it's $24; and in Oregon, it's $32. So clearly we're still at the very low end, in terms of the overall cost of fees for B.C. parks.

On a philosophical basis, I certainly support -- and I think the member opposite implied it in his remarks -- that

[ Page 12292 ]

M. Coell: I'd be interested in knowing a little bit about how the policy for pricing was produced. Did we just look at all the others and pick a number, or was there a policy that actually changed to say: "Let's increase these rates"? I look at it and think what a great deal it was two years ago, and now we're being compared to Washington State or Alberta or Ontario. We used to have quite a different policy mind-set for parks. I just wonder how that changed and what the process was for the change.

[1710]

The Parks Legacy panel was the process through which we could not only look at the ecological integrity of our park system but also talk about ongoing day-to-day management of campgrounds and fees and funding for B.C. parks. The legacy panel made a variety of recommendations in order to really increase the resources to parks within this ministry in terms of a budget. One of the things they recommended was that we increase fees in B.C.'s parks. So that was one of the tools that we used -- one of the ways in which we examined fees prior to making a decision. We looked at other jurisdictions. We looked at still trying to maintain an affordable experience for families. We used all of those factors in determining what the new fee structure would be.

M. Coell: I want to talk about the Parks Legacy project a little later.

One of the areas where I seem to get a lot of phone calls and complaints about is the reservation system used by Parks. I don't know whether there is anything in the budget this year to upgrade that or to change the method by which reservations are taken.

Hon. C. McGregor: We're constantly trying to improve the reservation system. While I know that there are times when people call and complain, I've got to share with the members opposite that we actually get a very high satisfaction rating from the public, because they can reserve in their favourite B.C. parks. It is used more by B.C. residents, in fact, than it is by out-of-province residents. We do continue to maintain a number of sites that are available on a drop-in basis.

We've monitored the reservation system on a regular basis and made improvements over time. We've put in place certain performance standard measures that we've asked the operators to move to. We've expanded the capacity so that we could in fact do things like make sure that 80 percent of the calls are answered within a 90-second period. In the last weekly report we reached that for 84 percent of the calls. As one example, we are clearly meeting that performance target.

We're also going on-line. That will take some pressure off the phone-in system, and we hope to have that in place fairly soon as another tool through which the public can access the reservation service.

[1715]

I suppose this is difficult from a policy perspective, but on the other hand, it might be a useful way to improve the relationship between the Parks branch and the private sector operations if some way could be developed to alert people to the private sector possibility should campgrounds like Shuswap Lake Provincial Park be unavailable for an extended period of time.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, you learn something new every day in this job. It turns out that we're running a pilot, where we are actually trying to offer private sites as an alternative when Shuswap Lake Provincial Park is full. We are actually trying to work with the system at this time to offer private alternatives and to see how it works on a pilot basis. That's a good piece of information to have.

The other piece of information that I thought was quite interesting is that out of the 40,000 reservations, only 122 were actually placed in private sector campgrounds. I don't know why that is. It would be interesting to find out, but Shuswap -- which is, as you say, almost always full -- is a good place for us to try a pilot to see how that could work, in concert with the private sector.

J. Wilson: I have a question for the minister. I understood her to say she has established a sort of review panel to establish the acceptable uses of these parks. I take it that would include protected areas as well. Is that the case?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sorry, hon. member. If you could just speak a little louder when you repeat your question.

J. Wilson: The minister indicated that she has established a panel to recommend acceptable uses for these parks, such as the fee structure that came in and other uses that would be permitted in these areas. Is this correct?

[ Page 12293 ]

I'm not sure of the nature of the member's question, but one is a designation. Protected areas are generally designated under the Environment and Land Use Act versus provincial parks, which are designated under the Park Act.

J. Wilson: Then the board that has been established to designate the uses under the Park Act -- does that apply to protected areas as well? Do they have control over the uses that will go on in the protected areas?

[1720]

J. Wilson: Then there is no body established to recommend the uses that will occur within parks and within protected areas?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those decisions have come out of the local LRMP; or, in some cases, CORE tables made recommendations about existing uses. For instance, in the case of the Kamloops LRMP, there was existing cattle grazing in a number of the protected areas, and those animal units continue in those protected areas.

J. Wilson: The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was a similar land use process but was probably more advanced than some of the LRMPs. It was a larger model, and the protected areas that were established were given certain permitted uses. The problem that seems to have arisen is that the board that has been established to look after the protected areas and recommend the acceptable uses in them has some conflict with the uses that were established by the land use plan. It's been brought to my attention that in some cases, they are not the same. What I need to find out from the minister is whether or not the uses that were established under the land use plan will be honoured when the protected areas or parks get their designated uses from the governing body that's been established.

Hon. C. McGregor: I assure the member that all of our parks planning and decision-making is consistent with land use plans. That is the guidance we use when we make decisions around parks management.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that bit of information, and I feel a lot more comfortable now.

I'd like to go back to this campsite. . . . I'd like to deal with areas like forest recreation sites. Could the minister tell me whether or not there will be a fee levied for the use of those?

Hon. C. McGregor: I understand that the member may be confused about responsibility for forest recreation sites. The responsibility for forest recreation sites is with the Ministry of Forests, not with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask a question about aerial spraying, if I could, particularly as it relates to grain crops. I suppose it may have some broader implications. An issue arose last year in the Peace, with an outbreak of infestation in canola crops, a huge crop in the Peace. A very small group of local crop sprayers were licensed to spray. It came to the attention. . . . Well, first of all, the farm community found itself scrambling to try and identify companies in the province that could spray these canola crops, and went outside of the province to try and identify spraying companies as well. The essence was that a company called Bonnyville Air Services from Alberta -- and, I suspect, probably from Bonnyville, Alberta, although I don't know -- came in and really saved the day for a huge amount of the canola crop, which is one of the major crops in the Peace. The unfortunate end of the story was that early this year the ministry laid charges against Bonnyville Air for their lack of licensing. It has since come to my attention and to the attention of the local farm community that the prairie provinces -- Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba -- have reciprocal agreements for spray licensing, in which British Columbia is not a participant.

[1725]

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I must say that I'm not immediately familiar with the issue the member raises, but I'd certainly make a commitment to look into whether or not we could have a reciprocal agreement here in British Columbia with other western provinces. It would seem to me that there ought to be a place for us to participate in that. It may be a question of us having higher standards in British Columbia. I don't know. But I think the member raises a very good point, and I'd be prepared to give him my commitment that we look into a similar reciprocal agreement as other provinces.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I think it is important to examine this whole idea of reciprocity or reciprocal agreements. There is crop spraying, but I think there are probably a lot of other aerial spraying that's done in B.C. as well. I suppose one of the reasons that the minister may not be immediately aware of it is that the farm community's immediate reaction was to write to the Minister of Agriculture and express their dismay over the fact that the people they saw as coming in and saving the day wound up being charged.

[ Page 12294 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: A conservation officer does the investigation and makes a recommendation, but it's Crown counsel who makes the decision whether charges are laid.

J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to wrap my mind around the amount of discretion that's involved. Again, I speak from a degree of painful experience with conservation officers and with decisions to lay charges. It's not an area which I take any pride in having knowledge. But the fact of the matter, it seems to me, is that there is a role -- or should be room -- for discretion. It seems to me that a conservation officer living and working in a farm community who would have, I would assume, quite an intimate knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the charges. . . . I find it difficult to accept or believe that the conservation officer would in fact recommend charges, and I'm wondering if they are obliged. There is no question that the company sprayed. There is no question -- and they don't dispute the fact -- that they don't have a B.C. aerial spraying licence. Does that mean, then, that they must be charged? Is that the essence of our regulations?

[1730]

In fact, it is the judge who will decide the nature of the penalties. For all we know, the judge may decide that there should be no penalties -- no fines or what have you. It's not really discretion, hon. member, because I don't. . . . You know, when rules are broken, I don't think it's the responsibility of a conservation officer to determine whether or not the rules can be broken for one set of individuals or one group rather than another. The fact that it's reviewed by Crown counsel should give you and the public comfort to know that no charges are laid unless it's met that test.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's cold comfort at times, I can tell you that. I guess I need to know two things. First of all, it seems to me that this company probably is, to a degree at least, prejudiced by the delay. Again, I can tell you that I'm familiar with the penalties that go with delay. It seems to me unacceptable that an event would occur in July and that charges wouldn't be laid until February of the next year. I think it's fair to suggest that this case may well not be heard until the fall of this year and that the farm community would, as a result of those delays in the system, almost assuredly be denied the opportunity or the access to this same supplier should another emergency arise.

I wonder if the minister can tell me what can be done to sort of tighten up those time frames. If you're going to charge somebody, then let's get it done. Secondly, if in fact. . . . Can the minister give some assurance that there's not a statutory restriction to licensing this firm, should they apply for a licence while these charges are pending?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm not able to answer the member's question about why there were delays in the court system. I would recommend that you discuss that matter with the Attorney General. But I would say that in the case of this individual or company that wished to apply for a B.C. licence, there's no restriction on them being able to apply for a licence while charges are pending.

J. Weisgerber: Just to finalize that, I guess my concern is not with the court system, because I don't think it's the court system that lays the charges. My concern is with the time delay between the occurrence of the event and the laying of a charge. The delay in getting to court is a whole other issue, and I'm sure it's one that is of equal concern.

[1735]

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not immediately familiar with what work is actively under consideration at this time. So if I could get back to the member on that question. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Yes, that would be good.

Finally, I'd like to get an update. An issue arose this year in Ontario where a Métis charged with hunting out of season had the charges dismissed by an Ontario court, on the basis that the charges infringed on the individual's constitutional rights as a Métis to hunt in a traditional manner. The Ontario government appealed that decision. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us, in the interim, what position is taken by the wildlife ministry with respect to Métis hunting in this province.

Hon. C. McGregor: We are aware of the court ruling. We recognize that it is viewed to be a grey area. We're still considering what policy we should have here in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I wonder where that leaves anyone. The case in Ontario seemed to be a fascinating case. The person charged, a Mr. Steven Powley, is one-sixty-fourth aboriginal. His son is one-twenty-eighth aboriginal. Yet he claimed a

[ Page 12295 ]

[1740]

J. Weisgerber: The difficulty, it seems to me, is that there is no -- at least, I'm not aware of any -- identification that Métis carry. I don't know how one identifies oneself as a Métis.

I don't know whether the decision, then, to lay charges would be a decision made by a conservation officer. Would a conservation officer, on the basis of an assessment of the individual, decide whether or not to lay charges? Would a conservation officer decide whether or not to recommend charges? Is that an area where in fact the conservation officer, who isn't in a position to make a judgment call with respect to aerial spraying, is expected, on the basis of ethnicity, to make a decision on whether or not to charge someone with a hunting infraction?

Hon. C. McGregor: Our conservation officers can only deal with their understanding of how the rules and laws apply on these questions. If a conservation officer stops a hunter and they are not able to identify themselves as a status Indian, then the conservation officer would fine them in violation of the law and charge them. That is my understanding of how they would handle this question.

J. Wilson: About three years ago I took up the issue of trying to get a piece of BCR property in Kersley and deed it over to the community. It went through a few stages of negotiations. Last year the minister assured me quite firmly that it would be in place and that they would have it by Christmastime. And I'm here, again, hat in hand.

Hon. C. McGregor: I do apologize to the member, because he's right. That's exactly what I did say, and at that time we were firmly convinced that that was the case. B.C. Rail has indicated that it is willing to do the property transfer. However, they have now tied it to another property transfer in the Squamish area. Until we can get that matter resolved, they're not prepared to move forward on the final transfer. I'm kind of unwilling to give the member another date, because I don't want to find myself in a position where I haven't been able to live up to that commitment. But let me assure you that we're working very hard with B.C. Rail on the Squamish issue as well, and that will resolve the Kersley question too.

With that, hon. Chair, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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