1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1999

Volume 15, Number 16

[ Page 13041 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to remind members of our House that this week is Environment Week in British Columbia. In that regard, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the winners of the 1999 Minister of Environment awards, who are here in the visitors' gallery this afternoon.

In the individual citizen category, I'd like to introduce: Barbara Hall of Kitimat, with Greg Scott; Dalton Langham of Powell River, with his wife Elaine; Eliza Olson from Delta, with her husband Walter Davyduke; and Donald Pettit from Dawson Creek, accompanied by Barbara Swail.

Awards recipients in the youth category are represented by two teachers responsible for the program, Brad Talbot and Doug Grunert from Kelowna. The winner under the government category is the regional district of Central Kootenay, represented by Elvin Masuch and Reinhard Trautmann. In the community/non-profit category, we have Lisa Fleming and Marina Stjepovic from the Langley Environmental Partners Society, and Bev Day from the Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society of Delta, accompanied by her husband Ralph Smith.

[1410]

In the environmental education category, we have John Clarke from Vancouver, representing the Wilderness Education Program, and award recipient Freda Pagani and her husband Jim Carruthers and their daughter Helen. Finally, in the communications or media category, I'd like to introduce George Mortimore from Victoria and his wife Margaret. Would the House please make all these award winners welcome.

M. Coell: I'd just like to add, on behalf of the official opposition, congratulations to the recipients of the minister's awards. We're all very proud of the work they do and hope that they continue to do that work to protect and enhance our environment.

Hon. I. Waddell: Here in the galleries this afternoon are 28 grade 5 students from Corpus Christi School, led by their teacher, Miss Francis, and other adults who are with them. The school is in my riding in South Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to extend personal congratulations to Don Pettit. He is an environmentalist from Dawson Creek who is very active, very much involved in the community and lives in an innovative, environmentally friendly house. He is joined here today by his partner Barbara Swail. I particularly like Don and wouldn't ever think of him as particularly "petit," but I hope the House would make him welcome.

R. Kasper: I'd also like to welcome George and Peggy Mortimore here. I've known both of them for close to 25 years. George, with his writings and musings over the years, has been well read throughout the community. Congratulations to George and Peggy.

G. Robertson: With us this afternoon are two North Islanders, Craig Murray and his son Clifton. I've known them both for many years, particularly Clifton. He's good friends with my daughter Kimberley. Craig is here this afternoon as a recipient of the minister's environmental award for tourism and business. Craig and his wife Deborah and his family are proud owners of Nimmo Bay Resort, which is on the cutting edge of ecotourism -- on a global scale, I would say -- and caters to clients from all over the world. They've done an outstanding job, and I'm very proud of them. I ask that the members please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: In the precincts today are 54 students from the riding of Surrey-White Rock. They are students at Chantrel Creek Elementary School, a school renowned for its athletic, academic and cultural expertise and knowledge. They're here with their teacher, Joe Frank, and some parents. I wish the House would please make them most welcome.

E. Conroy: An old acquaintance of mine is here to accept an environmental award, and I'd like to congratulate Eliza Olson. Notwithstanding that, her husband -- a good old tugboat partner of mine for many years -- is also here with her. Would the House please make Wally Davyduke welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHILD,
YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCATE REPORT

[1415]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . .with the ministry. She saw about 2,000 people last year; those are 2,000 people. . . . Our ministry deals with between 60,000 and 80,000 individuals in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: The 2,000 people that she sees, of course, are ones that have problems, and I'm not underestimating that

[ Page 13042 ]

That is what I think she should be focusing on: what we do deliver, how we deliver those services. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . .the excellent services that are being delivered by our staff and by our community partners out there.

The Speaker: I recognize for a first supplementary the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: Joyce Preston is the voice of children in this province. As recently as last month, she wrote to this minister, saying: "Please do not reorganize yet again. All the time and money that should be spent on resources for children are instead going to expensive and time-consuming administrative reviews of management." Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us why she continues to ignore the advice of the children's advocate by wasting money on bureaucratic disasters?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: The advice that we got. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . .was that we maintained a system that was bureaucratically heavy. We restructured, and we reduced. . .

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . .our number of regions from 20 so that we could in fact take those dollars and reinvest them into our areas. We estimate that we've saved about $2 million by restructuring. That is $2 million that we can reinvest into services for children and families. I think that's good news. I think that's something that we should be doing, and I'm certainly not going to take advice that is not in the best interests of children and families in this province.

C. Clark: The last time we asked this minister to take Joyce Preston's advice, she said that she'd start listening to the child advocate if she'd just call her once in a while. Well, you know, we've had the 1995 report. We've had the 1996 report, the '97 report and the 1998 report. We have had four reports now, and this minister still isn't listening. When will this minister put aside the excuses and stop hiding behind every excuse in the book that she can cook up? When will she start listening to the people that have the real credibility on this issue -- the child, youth and family advocate?

Hon. L. Boone: We have listened to Joyce Preston. In fact, last year she said that we should be increasing the number of foster families. We have 750 new foster families this year. Last year she talked about training, and this year we will be implementing some integrated training for social workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: We have acted on a number of the recommendations from the past year. We will be acting on recommendations from this year, and we will continue to act on recommendations that we get from any individual out there that brings forth good ideas and ways for this ministry to improve.

However, we will not act on those recommendations that consistently demand that we simply spend more and more money, because we simply do not have more and more money to invest in programs on an ongoing basis. We will continue to improve the delivery of our services. We will continue to work with our partners out there. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister, finish, please.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .to make sure that the decisions we make are in the best interests of the children and families out there. We will listen very closely to those people. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .when they try to speak to us and when they actually take the option of speaking to me.

[1420]

C. Clark: If the minister would start listening, she'd hear what the child advocate has to say. That's that it's time to stop studying, it's time to stop reorganizing, it's time to stop adding bureaucrats, and it's time to act to start protecting children in British Columbia. The child advocate points to 14 reports and over 1,000 recommendations -- and still this ministry is in chaos. When will this minister recognize that it is time to stop wasting money on endless administration and endless reorganization, get her priorities straight and start protecting children?

Hon. L. Boone: If the hon. member over there actually listened to the advocate, she would have heard both the advocate and the child commissioner stating that our child

[ Page 13043 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: She points to the fact that the risk assessment tool is working very well and that a number of different things that have been brought in by this ministry in the past year are in fact working extremely well. So yes, she is critical of some parts, but she does recognize that there are some areas in which we are doing well. As I pointed out, the child advocate's office is one. . .

The Speaker: Finish your point.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .that deals with people who have a problem. They don't deal with the many people who are well served and who are in fact. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .receiving excellent services from the ministry.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister would turn to page 30 of the report, she would see what the child advocate says, and that is that this government has its priorities all wrong. I think that not just this minister has her priorities wrong; I think the whole government has its priorities wrong. What does it say about a government when you've got a Premier who's got enough money to spend. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

C. Clark: . . .for flitting around in a charter helicopter to deliver business subsidies to profitable companies, for photo ops with empty-hulled fast ferries before they're built, but every time we come to this House and tell the minister that she doesn't make children a priority, she stands up and says that the cupboard is bare? What does that say about this government's priorities?

Hon. L. Boone: It's amazing, coming from that member over there -- demanding more and more money, when in fact every year we have put more money into this ministry. That member and that party over there. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The minister has the floor, members.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .are demanding tax cuts to corporations. That member and that party are demanding that we balance the budget, and they criticize us every time we make our choices known -- that we are investing in children, we are investing in families, we are investing in health care and education. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .and the things that are important to us. That party over there says: cut taxes to the rich; cut taxes to the corporations. . . .

The Speaker: Minister, I have to interrupt you.

I recognize the member for Peace River South.

DRUG USE IN PROVINCIAL JAILS COMPARED TO FEDERAL PRISONS

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member recalls, there was a review done by the former chief of police from Vancouver, Bob Stewart, with respect to our corrections facilities. He made several recommendations, which included having protocols with the RCMP, as well as perhaps dogs and devices that detect the entry of drugs into our corrections facilities in British Columbia. All of those recommendations have been implemented.

[1425]

J. Weisgerber: Drugs on the streets are an enormous problem in this province. They are putting our children at risk. Easy access to drugs in our jails, I believe, continues to be a problem. Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay has ordered a sweeping review of the situation in federal prisons. Given the recommendations in 1997 by former police chief Bob Stewart, which I've read carefully, what confidence does the Attorney General have that anything has changed here in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General is not in the habit of. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . .entering into speculation on these issues. We had a problem. We ordered a review. Those recommendations came in. We implemented those recommendations. My hon. colleague the Minister for Children and Families yesterday announced funding for detox facilities outside of the prisons to deal with issues that arise.

[ Page 13044 ]

In terms of the prisons, I say to the hon. member that our situation is much, much better than the federal corrections because of the review that we did and because of the actions that we've taken over the last year or so.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: One would assume that our federal prisons are at least as secure, or more secure, than our provincial jails. And still we know that 46 percent of the inmates in federal institutions use drugs on a daily basis. With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, I didn't see anything in his report that attempted to quantify the use of drugs in our provincial jails, nor do I hear anything from the Attorney General to suggest that he has any sense that the use in provincial jails is any less than it is in those federal institutions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would stack Bob Stewart's recommendations any day against KPMG recommendations on whether or not drugs exist in a particular correctional facility. He's a former police chief from the city of Vancouver and has a tremendous, impeccable record in serving the people of British Columbia. I think it's important for us to recognize that in correctional facilities in British Columbia, you don't have the kind of criminals -- serious, violent and long-term offenders -- that are found in the federal facilities. And people in the provincial facilities stay for a very short time, and one assumes that they are from a different background, by and large. Therefore the problems that do exist are being taken care of. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . .and it is my view -- and it may be uneducated at this time, but it is my view -- that those problems don't exist in this province to the extent that they exist in the federal facilities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHILD,
YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCATE REPORT

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. I'll recognize the minister when members -- all members -- come to order.

Hon. L. Boone: Only a Liberal who advocates tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for corporations and a $3 billion cut in budgets would stand there and say that we are not providing enough in this province for children and families.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. All members, come to order.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

[1435]

The Huyders are an example of what is happening to people throughout British Columbia, where the government of B.C. actually stands in the way of their efforts to create jobs, to build businesses, to use their entrepreneurial skills to advance the economy of this province and, of course, to advance themselves.

To recap briefly, the Huyders began the development of a viewing garden on 15 acres of their property two years ago.

[ Page 13045 ]

They had a legal hurdle in order to get approval from the ALR and the TNRD to develop a viewing garden on their site, and they succeeded. They had approval to develop the garden, construct an administration building and washroom facilities and develop a parking lot. Next, they wanted to prepare a concession and gift shop within the administration building, but they were informed that the portion of the site where the buildings are to be located would have to be rezoned to accommodate that. Again, the ALR approved the rezoning of the half-acre to commercial.

The TNRD -- that's the regional district -- said that the rezoning could be done and kept within the existing land title. Public health authorities agreed -- in fact, they were very pleased with the plan for septic facilities and so on -- that the parking lot, septic system, etc., wouldn't have to be located entirely on the one-half acre that would be rezoned commercial. Then the Ministry of Highways got into the picture.

I read the somewhat absurd letter -- or part of it -- into the record before lunch. The civil servant says:

"Notwithstanding that the ministry's formal approval pursuant to section 54(2) of the Highway Act, is not required MOTH does have concerns regarding this development."

"The C-4 zone should be created as a fee simple lot registerable in the Kamloops land title office and a site plan will have to be submitted showing parking based on MOTH requirements for the proposed development. The site plan should also include existing and proposed utilities, internal vehicle circulation, drainage features of the proposed road improvements, storm water retention/drainage on site and show approved septic location."

"(1) If deemed necessary, Mountainview Road to be established 20 metres wide or three metres beyond any cuts or fills, whichever is greater.

"(2) Proposed road to be cleared, constructed and paved to ministry standard, including a 15-metre radius cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of the district Highways manager, with drainage complete to outfall.

"(3) Provision of properly engineered drawing, showing the vertical and horizontal alignments, to be submitted to and approved by the district official prior to the commencement of any works. All drainage works should be included on drawings and indicate direction of flow and outfall.

"(4) Creation of a viable fee simple lot registerable in the Kamloops land title office.

"(5) Approval of an acceptable site plan, including parking, GFA of-permitted uses, storm water drainage and septic system prior to bylaw approval."

[1440]

"When we met with Highways to discuss this, they suggested that we approach the ALR to have more land released for rezoning. But if we expand the commercial lot to satisfy Highways, we would then have no road access to the gardens themselves or our home. It is my understanding that we really don't need Highways approval for rezoning, because of the distance we are from a well-travelled road.

"The TNRD was not happy with Highways, because apparently their requirements vary, depending on the application. The rules aren't always the same for everyone. Many. . .business people suggested we just go ahead and put the concession in after the building is up. However, we want to serve fine desserts, baked on site, and we want public health's stamp of approval. The whole project is big and expensive, and we cannot take the risk of being shut down. To generate enough revenue to make Humersong Gardens a thriving business and to satisfy our customers, we need a concession and gift shop and, of course, to put together the financing, we must be zoned correctly.

"We are not trying to slip something past the system here. We have designed everything to do with this project -- the buildings, septic, parking, washrooms -- all to accommodate many customers. Our design far exceeds the requirements of public health, Highways and the TNRD. We want our facilities to accommodate our customers for many years to come. We have received tremendous community support for this project. It has the potential to generate additional revenue throughout the community."

"We would open with a staff of 17, and that number will increase each year as we add to the existing garden and begin development on the remaining ten acres. . . ." She sums up: "It has become obvious to us that there are exceptions to the rules and regulations for new development, and we need to know what they are. We have many questions and concerns, the first being: why can Highways stop the rezoning if we really don't need their approval? Secondly, why do they insist on a separate land title if the TNRD says it can be done both ways?"

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the member opposite for reading those letters into the record. As I said to him in the morning, we'll have staff look at this whole issue. Obviously the hon. member is sticking up for his constituents, and so he should. That's why constituents elect us to represent them in Victoria, and I think I'd have to commend the hon. member for that.

But at the same time, in terms of all of the smaller details that the hon. member is looking for, I've asked staff to look for that information. They were trying at lunchtime to find that, all of it, and were unable to do that in time. So they'll still continue to do that.

In terms of the comment that the hon. member made about B.C. exporting jobs to other areas, that's nonsense, hon.

[ Page 13046 ]

[1445]

One final issue out of the Clearwater area. There's an intersection known as the hub intersection, which is the point where the high school is separated from the businesses where high school students go to spend their money at lunchtime and after school. Students dart across the roadway, and it's a risky situation. In my previous life, as a road improvement project, ICBC and the ministry actually did some work on the intersection to try and make it safer, but it continues to be a concern.

The parent advisory council has asked me to try and do something about it. They want at least oversized school signage at both ends of the highway school zone to forewarn traffic, which does come in off an arterial highway and is just slowing down for town speed limits at that point. That would be a preliminary solution. A longer-term solution would be a pedestrian-controlled walk signal or a pedestrian overpass, which of course would be a rather pricey solution.

The district Highways manager has attempted to help. This has been in the ministry's plans and efforts for years now. I know that there's generally a consideration of traffic warrants and so on before some of these facilities will be installed. But counter to that process runs common sense, which dictates that when we recognize a dangerous situation, especially involving children and young people, we'd all rather we dealt with it before somebody got hurt than after. These things do have a way of getting fixed after there's been a fatality or a tragic accident. I wonder again if the minister would commit to having staff try to expedite a solution to this problem.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes.

M. Coell: Good afternoon to the minister and staff. I have one issue that I would like to deal with. My riding encompasses the southern Gulf Islands. There is a subdivision on Mayne Island that I wish to ask the minister some questions on. Wood Dale Drive on Mayne Island is a subdivision of approximately 100 lots. It was subdivided or the approval of the subdivision was given, in 1969 and 1970 for two subdivision plans. They are 23397 and 22879, for the minister's staff. It's my understanding that in those days, the ministry probably didn't do any geotechnical studies or environmental assessments of subdivisions on the Gulf Islands. I wonder if the minister can confirm that for me.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes.

M. Coell: The reason I'm bringing this subject forward is that I met with approximately 35 residents of Wood Dale Drive on the weekend. They have received, through the mail, a copy of a study that the ministry completed on their properties. They've also had all of their assessments downgraded by the assessment authorities. The rock slope stabilization study of Wood Dale Drive basically makes the properties unsaleable and unbuildable. Approximately half of the lots have cottages and houses on them; the other ones don't. They're now not able to receive building permits without further geotechnical studies. Even at that, I think the study shows that many of the lots would be unbuildable even with those studies. I'm just wondering what prompted the ministry to do this study at this time.

Hon. H. Lali: We went in and did some geotechnical studies in response to some of the concerns by individuals there who were not getting building permits.

[1450]

Hon. H. Lali: The onus on the ministry is to employ the standards of the day.

M. Coell: I would think the standards of the day in 1969 and 1970. . . . As the minister has said, the province did not do a geotechnical study or an assessment at that time. I suspect that by the standards of today, the layout of the road system would be quite different, because studies like this would have been completed. With the study the way it is. . . . It's global in nature; it looks at the entire subdivision. It doesn't look at individual lots and the effect of potential rock slope slippage on individual lots. Does the ministry intend to go back now and redo this study with regard to individual lots?

Hon. H. Lali: No.

M. Coell: As I said, I think there are some other issues. I believe Whistler had a situation where the ministry approved a subdivision that was not able to be built on. I believe there was one in the Kootenays at some time. The minister may want to comment on those. Is there a liability question with regard to a subdivision approval by the ministry when people go to build on them and the government -- either at the Highways level or the regional district level -- does not approve building permits?

Hon. H. Lali: Each situation is different and is handled on its own merits.

M. Coell: This particular situation puts a large number of people at a financial loss, not through their own making but through the purchase of these properties with the intent to build on them. Then they find out that with this study and with the devaluation of their assessments, they're not able to build or to sell. There aren't any banks or mortgage companies willing to loan money on a piece of property that has the potential of rock slippage. I know that this issue is going to be of further interest to the ministry, and I would be more than willing to try to set up a meeting with either the minister or the minister's staff to deal with this issue on a global basis with the residents. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to undertake that.

[ Page 13047 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that, and I will endeavour to have the residents contact his office directly. It is an issue that I think probably needs some further dealings with ministry staff and probably the regional district staff here to sort it out before this hardship becomes unbearable for this number of people. I thank the minister for his offer.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to participate in the Transportation and Highways estimates today. First of all, I would just like to say that Langley has been quite fortunate over the last couple of years in the transportation projects that have been undertaken there -- or are going to be, shortly. That's the Highway 1 and 200th Street interchange -- we are eagerly awaiting the award of the proponent to begin the construction phase there -- and also the resurfacing projects that will be taking place this summer. We also have the Highway 10 at Langley bypass safety projects that have been proposed. That's one of the ones that I would like to talk about today.

I discussed this briefly with the Minister of Labour during the ICBC estimates and said that there's been some significant concern in the riding about the proposal to install a median from 200th Street to the Glover Road area. This particular strip is quite problematic because of the commercial development that lines both sides of the bypass.

[1455]

Hon. H. Lali: There are some good ideas and suggestions put forward by the hon. member. Actually, that whole issue of the Highway 10 at Langley bypass is a fairly complex issue, and I commit to have staff work with the hon. member. I'll work with the hon. member. Actually, I've worked with the hon. member on the 200th Street-Trans-Canada Highway overpass there. A lot of good things have happened in the last year or so that the hon. member has been working with me, and I'll certainly commit to work with the hon. member to make sure that we can come to a resolution on this issue as well.

L. Stephens: I would be very pleased to do that. I think there is a genuine concern and a genuine goodwill on the part of the city and on the part of the businesses that are affected to try to find an adequate solution for all parties and everyone concerned.

Another issue that I'd like to raise is one I have raised before. Again, it's for the city, and it consists of congestion again. I know the minister is familiar with Langley, just the sort of physical shape of it and the fact that we have rail lines. One rail line runs smack through the middle of the city, and we have three major roads where that particular rail line intersects. Over the past number of years, going back about ten years now, there has always been a consideration that there could be -- or should be -- a rail overpass. As time has gone on, the various plans that were proposed and put forward at the time. . . . The windows of opportunity have closed on those particular proposals, so what we have now is a situation at 200th Street and the Fraser Highway -- or to be more specific, Logan Avenue -- where the people making a right turn to go onto 200th Street are actually sitting on the railroad tracks. This has caused a lot of problems. The federal Department of Transport is very unhappy, the city is very unhappy, and motorists are extremely unhappy.

There has been a suggestion that we need to have a rail overpass somewhere between 200th Street and 206th, for instance, or 204th. With the kinds of road alignments that the township has undertaken in the last little while to develop the Willoughby area and the Willowbrook area, it appears that perhaps 204th Street would be the most advantageous for all concerned. If we could get a rail overpass right at that 204th and bypass area, as opposed to 202nd, which is the one that was proposed at first. . . . That's a lot of congestion there, for a lot of reasons that we all understand.

[1500]

I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not he would be amenable to at least ordering some studies to see whether or not that particular proposal would be worthwhile.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member raises a very good issue. Again, it fits into that whole theme of competing priorities and competing demands all across the province, in every region of the province.

Certainly this is a very, very expensive solution to the issue at hand. It's something that would require cost-sharing among a number of different levels of government and agencies, not the least of which are the federal government and the provincial government, as well as the GVTA, the railroad companies themselves and also the municipality itself. I'm certainly willing to work with all of the other entities to make sure that we come to some sort of a resolution sooner rather than later.

L. Stephens: I will accept that. It's not much, but I will accept that. Probably what I'd do is ask the minister if he in fact is pushing the federal government. I agree with the minister when he talks about how important and how expensive these kinds of projects are -- and they absolutely are. The infrastructure program that the federal government is making noises about now -- to bring forward another agreement for further infrastructure programs -- could be one project that

[ Page 13048 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, I'm glad that the hon. member has asked that question. Since day one of becoming minister, one of my roles has been to push the federal government and to work with the other provincial transport ministers to lobby the federal government to start investing in transportation infrastructure in this country. It is so vital that we do so. Across the border into the United States, the U.S. Senate has passed a bill authorizing $213 billion worth of improvements to their national highway system over the next six to seven years.

It's obviously something that we've been pushing for here. B.C. had the pen to write a paper on behalf of all the other provinces, calling on the federal government to cost-share 50-50 with the provinces a ten-year rebuilding program of our transportation infrastructure, whereby the feds would kick in $800 million and the provinces would bring their 50-cent dollars of $800 million. So it would be $1.6 billion a year over ten years, or $16 billion. That's the minimum investment that is needed, according to some national studies that were done, in order to stay competitive with the Unites States. Certainly we've been pushing the federal government. Now, what shape or form any funding from the feds may take, we don't know. But they have made the commitment that they'd be willing to work on a bilateral basis. Rather than have one policy for everybody across the nation, they would be willing to work with individual provinces.

[1505]

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little bit about the Fraser Valley regional summit that was held in Langley in February. It was put on by the chambers of commerce in the Valley, and it included chambers and representatives from Chilliwack down to Surrey, and also Maple Ridge and Mission on the other side of the river. It was very well attended. Some of the common themes that came forward from that particular summit were around transportation and the infrastructure sessions that came from that.

I just want to read into the record the competitive disadvantages that the group as a whole came up with in regard to the road system. It says:

"There is limited access to the Trans-Canada Highway throughout the valley, and furthermore, there is limited access to the GVRD via transit -- rapid transit, in particular. The eastern portions of the valley need to bring rail access to Vancouver. We must remember that some 70 percent of goods and nearly all of our tourism are transported via road. Transportation represents approximately 20 percent of the cost of production. The cost of congestion to transportation in the lower mainland represents 20 percent of trucking costs. That means that congestion in the lower mainland adds approximately 4 percent to the cost of production for 70 percent of our goods. It is extremely detrimental to productivity, even in the valley, because the majority of our goods pass through, or near to, the GVRD."

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what the condition is with the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road.

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I was not aware of the Fraser Valley regional summit. Actually, it's the first time I've heard of it. I'm just talking to staff here. I don't think anybody was invited to be a part of that. In any case, it sounds like a lot of positive information and recommendations will come out of this regional summit. Was it held earlier this year? Yes. If there's a report that has been done and finalized, I'd be more than happy to receive a copy of it from the hon. member and to take a serious look at some of the recommendations that have come forward.

The hon. member mentioned some of the issues, and obviously a lot of those would fall under the GVTA. The GVTA is responsible for a lot of the transportation issues in the lower mainland, and they're working very closely with the provincial government so that we don't end up having the GVTA and the provincial government going in opposite directions. They're to work parallel with each other on these types of issues, so I'm looking forward to a copy of the report that the hon. member has talked about.

[1510]

L. Stephens: The information I have says that this particular piece of road will be completed by 2006. Is that still the time line that the ministry has in mind? Is that not something that can be done earlier than that?

Hon. H. Lali: There's been no decision taken at this point. The completion date that the hon. member cited was something that we approximated for the year 2006. It has to go through the environmental review process, and we're also looking to see what kind of a contribution the federal government may or may not want to make to this particular project. It isn't one project that has been singled out; rather, we're still working with the federal government to see and identify what kind of funding would be coming forward from them so that we can take a look at some of the priorities throughout the province. This is one project that I know federal minister David Collenette is also interested in.

L. Stephens: I know the federal government is interested in this. I remember that about two or three years ago the present Minister of Finance in fact did a tour and was well aware of the significance of the South Fraser perimeter road. I

[ Page 13049 ]

Hon. H. Lali: We have not got to the point of actually sitting down to talk about the nitty-gritty issues and the specifics of all of that. We're waiting for the federal government to actually make a firm commitment and also to give an indication as to what kind of dollars they're looking for in terms of investing in the national transportation investment strategy, and how much of it will come to British Columbia. Once we have that, then we can sit down and actually talk specifics about what project to move forward with. At this point, we'd only be speculating, because we really don't know what kind of participation we're going to get from the feds.

L. Stephens: We will be monitoring that situation to see how it moves along and to try to move it along as quickly as possible. Perhaps if the minister would provide me with the address of the federal minister responsible, we could get a letter-writing campaign of some kind going to try to move this forward.

The other huge issue for those of us in Langley and the White Rock and South Surrey area is the border crossing. I know the minister is aware that the U.S. is in the process of upgrading their system down there in Washington State and Seattle -- the Guide Meridian upgrade. The U.S. is going to be spending something like $30 billion in that part of the U.S., which in fact will dump a whole lot of people right at the border there. I wonder if the minister has some plans in place or is considering what we're going to do on this side of the border when that project is completed, or underway.

[1515]

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could explain what the province's role is in that planning. The U.S. is well underway. Perhaps the minister could talk about the province's role and how the province is encouraging the federal government to become involved, and what each other's responsibilities are.

Hon. H. Lali: The ministry is continuing to work with Transport Canada on ways to not only improve access to the border but also improve truck movements once they are at the border. This is something that we are working with Transport Canada to do -- and obviously with officials across the border, as well, to see what their plans are. Obviously you'd want to be able to coordinate on both sides of the border, rather than Canada doing one thing and the Americans doing something completely the opposite. So there's some good cooperation that is taking place between B.C. and Transport Canada.

L. Stephens: I hear what the minister is saying. I guess I would just like a little bit more detail than that. There's a lot of concern in the trucking industry and among the people who go back and forth, particularly in my area. I think we just need to have a little bit more assurance than that that there's more than just talk going on. The U.S. has committed to their Guide Meridian upgrade. They've allocated $30 billion. They have a plan in place. The big fear for us on this side of the border and in my community is: what happens when we don't have anything put in place when this Guide Meridian upgrade is completed? It's a huge, huge problem for us, and we need more than just: "Well, we're talking to the federal people about it." So if the minister could tell us in a little bit more detail about when they're meeting with the federal people next or what has been agreed to or just something so that people can see that in fact there is something actually happening, as opposed to just conversation.

Hon. H. Lali: We've actually also supported a Transportation Equity Act-21 -- otherwise known as TEA-21 -- application that would provide funding for using technology at the border crossings. Also, I'd be more than happy, actually, to set up a briefing for the hon. member with staff who will be able to fill her in on all the details as to what kind of work is being done on this.

But there are a couple of other avenues. There's the council of transport ministers of Canada -- ministers from all provinces and the federal Transport minister. We get together on a quarterly basis to talk in depth on issues such as this -- a national transportation investment strategy, including the border crossings. There's a committee of the deputy ministers of transportation across the nation, as well, who are working together to develop these kinds of strategies. If the hon. member wishes, I'd be more than happy to set up a briefing between her and my staff.

L. Stephens: I would like to take advantage of that, and I think probably my colleagues on this side of the House whose constituencies are affected by it would as well. So we will try and coordinate that and go through it. That would be very helpful.

Part of this whole area that has been talked about before is 16th Avenue as a major transportation corridor. Again, that was a proposal that was put in place a number of years ago, and I think it was part of the Socred government's Freedom to Move plan. Could the minister talk a little bit about that and whether or not that is still something that is being considered? If so, how far along is that?

[1520]

L. Stephens: Which brings me to probably the biggest issue, and that's the integrated planning of the ministry, the GVTA, the Fraser Valley regional district and the GVRD. We're all in the same geographical area, and there needs to be some integrated planning around transportation. That means that everybody should be sitting down talking about what their needs are. So I would like the minister to tell me that's

[ Page 13050 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Integrated planning is happening. I support it, and it will continue to happen. Now that we have the GVTA, it will actually move further ahead, and I think we will get more progress with the GVTA there now.

L. Stephens: Well, perhaps included in that briefing we can talk about integrated planning, as well, and what's required for the lower Fraser Valley and the lower mainland.

I was going to ask about the river crossing between the north side of the Fraser River and Langley, but my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove is here, and I'm sure that that's what he wants to talk about. So thank you, minister. Those are all the questions I have.

D. Symons: Just a brief follow-up on the question and the comment made by my colleague. That is the business of the U.S. spending a large sum of money in the northwest sector of the United States on highway and transportation infrastructure. It's up in the billions of dollars. The ISTEA program is going to have fantastic implications for the lower mainland here, because if we don't do something to at least. . . . We can't match it in dollars; we don't have that much. But if we don't do something to at least improve our transportation infrastructure, particularly for commerce in this area, we're going to find that shipping and planes and things of that type that use that as a gateway to the North American continent are going to move from the Vancouver gateway to the Seattle and Portland gateways. One way or another, we're going to have to do something to make darn sure that our transportation infrastructure out of Vancouver leading to other parts in eastern Canada and to the United States is at least as user-friendly as what's south of the border. If not, we are going to lose a lot of business, and we can't afford that.

I'm just wondering what you're doing in planning for that. I don't like to use the word "matching," because I see that dollar-wise we can't do it. But what are you doing to plan to mitigate any effects that that large U.S. expenditure of money may have on us here?

Hon. H. Lali: As I have stated on a couple of earlier occasions, we are working doggedly with the other provinces and the federal Transport minister to make sure that we have a national transportation investment strategy in place in order to stay competitive with our trading partners like the United States, who are actually taking a significant chunk of our interprovincial truck traffic, which crosses the border into the States and takes the interstate east or west between the Great Lakes and western Canada.

[1525]

R. Coleman: I would like to spend a few minutes with the minister on an item from the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows that's been in the media. It relates to a crossing that MLAs on my side of the river weren't invited to -- relative to a press conference that had to do with some planning money. I'd like to have the minister's understanding of the ministry's involvement in this crossing, and maybe an explanation of what the thought process is.

Hon. H. Lali: In response to the question by the hon. member, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows -- who is sitting in the chair right now -- has actually made an announcement of $125,000, I believe, about a couple of weeks ago, to do some studies so we can have some options for remedies in terms of another crossing of the Fraser River in that particular spot. So we are working with other players, such as the GVTA and others, to try to see if we can come forward with a plan and some options.

R. Coleman: Perhaps the minister could tell me the terms of reference for this study and the area that's under study -- the boundaries of the study -- on the south side of the river and on the north side of the river.

Hon. H. Lali: This study looks at the feasibility of these routes as well as the Albion crossing. It's being studied as a potential low-level, lower-cost option, because of its existing supporting road network to the Fraser River and its location east of the major port marine traffic. Other low-level clearance options will also be explored.

R. Coleman: I'm wondering if you could be just be a bit more specific on the area, the distance -- whether it's between 176th and 232nd on the north and south side of the river, or what the parameters of that study and area are -- so that we could have an understanding on our side of the river of what that study area is.

Hon. H. Lali: We're actually looking at a fairly wide section of land there, from Highway 15 across to the Albion ferry area.

R. Coleman: One of the calls that came into my office -- and my colleague from Langley made reference to some other calls that we've had -- tells us that there are actually five different options for crossing areas along that corridor. Is that true?

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually four, not five.

R. Coleman: What would those four options be?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to give a little note of caution, because I don't want to end up alarming anybody who may live in the particular area. These are approximate general areas with these names attached to them, rather than an actual road or a stretch of neighbourhood which may exist. They are what are generally known as the Albion crossing, Cottonwood connector area, 200th Street area and the Barnston Island crossing. These are all just big circles on the map, as

[ Page 13051 ]

[1530]

The one crossing out of the four that the minister mentioned -- I understand that you're dealing with roads and where they're going to connect -- is at the Albion crossing, which is Fort Langley. Just for the minister's information, Fort Langley is the birthplace of British Columbia. It has a historic fort in it; it has a very strong heritage culture. Just so the minister understands, recently someone wanted to build some industrial buildings on industrial land in that community. The public hearings went on for five days and are not completed as yet.

So you can imagine, when this announcement was made about a possible crossing at Albion, what happened to the telephones in my particular constituency office. I want to make it clear to the minister that this community has made it clear to me that to take a bridge through downtown Fort Langley, the historical portion of that community on Glover Road, is just not something that this community is prepared to support.

As a result of that, I think the minister should be aware of that and put that direction over to the people who are doing the studies -- that somehow this has to bypass the downtown historic part of this community. Because if you want a firestorm in the future -- if you want to light one -- you can have one by simply trying to put it through the downtown core of that historic community. On the main road of that community, a number of heritage buildings are affected already because of the Albion ferry. But you can imagine, if you built a bridge, what the capacity would change to. I think it should be noted to the minister that it's a huge concern in that community.

I was very surprised that we were not made part of the announcement or brought up to speed on this particular issue, when it affects a community that can be so volatile relative to its protection of heritage. I'd like a guarantee from the minister that in the future, if we're going to make announcements on this crossing or we're going to be dealing with this study, that the MLAs in the area -- both myself for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the member for Langley -- are well informed on what's happening.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to state to the member that anytime we're embarking upon doing something in terms of building a project, it all starts with an idea -- there's an idea in somebody's mind. I'm sure there are a lot of people in that area who have had the idea of another crossing for a long time. Since I've become minister, the one individual who's actually carried the ball on this one is the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, who's sitting in the chair right now. He's been lobbying fairly hard for this for a number of years and continued to do so when I became minister. I just want to point out that it starts with an idea.

Obviously, after the idea, we made sure that there would be some moneys available, and that's the $125,000 for studies. I take the member's caution quite seriously. That's why I started my comments a few minutes ago on a cautionary note -- not to alarm anybody that. . . . The four options that we're looking at are general vicinities rather than any specific line that has already been drawn on a map.

It starts with an idea, and then the idea is put out to the general public. There will be consultation, and the ministry is listening. The municipalities -- such as the historic Langley area -- and people who live in the vicinity are quite welcome to air their views. That's what we want to hear, and we'd actually be very interested in hearing the viewpoints of MLAs on both sides of the river -- what their views are. Obviously the MLAs will be fighting very hard to represent the views of their respective constituents. That's what this whole issue of consultation is all about.

I also want to caution that we have not even begun the process yet. All we've done is. . . . Actually, it was an idea in somebody's mind. We've announced the funding for the study, but we haven't even started the process of consultation. Obviously, when it gets off the ground, the MLAs will be an integral part of the consultation.

R. Coleman: I think as soon as you have headlines -- "Maple Ridge Pushes For Bridge to Langley," "MLA and Mayor Back Latest Bridge Plan," "Highways Ministry to Study Low Level Option" -- in the local papers in Maple Ridge and Mission that come across the river to Langley, you've started a process. Simply put, the public are part of that process, and they read newspapers.

[1535]

I just think it's important that the people in my community understand that this process will be transparent and that they will be a part of it. I warn and caution you that if it isn't transparent, you'll probably not be able to put the bridge where you want to put it. If you try and put it in the wrong place. . . . I can honestly tell you that people in that community will not stand for certain portions of a crossing that affect some of the historical perspectives of that community. I caution you on that.

I have another series of questions I want to ask the minister about. I'm not going to ask about the 200th Street interchange in this year's estimates. I have been briefed, and I have seen the package that's been prepared. I understand it's out for. . . . I guess we're calling it an IPO or whatever. There is a competition relative to a private-public partnership on 200th Street that we're hoping to see take place.

On a recent tour of the Fraser Valley, I was asked by the mayor and council of Mission to canvass with the minister the status of the Mission bypass. There was an extensive study done by Dillon Consulting in March of 1996. I've read the study. I don't know why, but I did. It's quite extensive; it's a large study. I wonder if the minister could -- for the benefit of the people of Mission -- tell me: what is the status of this particular study? What is the status of the planning that goes on from here for the Mission bypass? What options for the

[ Page 13052 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows as to his comments on a particular crossing. Likewise, I cannot speak for the media as well. We have absolutely no control over the media and what they may say or what they may print regarding this $125,000 announcement. That's something I guess the hon. member will have to talk to the media about, as to why they printed such headlines.

Again, I want to assure the hon. member that we haven't begun the process yet. All that we've done is that the hon. member from Maple Ridge has made an announcement of some moneys -- $125,000 -- and we will now, subsequently, begin the process of consultation. During the previous question, I committed to the hon. member across the way that MLAs and communities and individuals living in those communities will be consulted. The hon. member will have his chance to give his viewpoints on that. I think the member should take heart from my statement and also from the fact that he and I worked together to make sure that the 200th Street, Langley interchange would become a reality. I think he knows the history of that quite well; I don't need to inform him of that. So if I told that hon. member that there will be consultation, then he needs to just take heart from that particular statement.

I've just been given a note: there's a little correction to my other notes here. The budget available this year is $150,000 -- not $50,000, as it says in my notes. It's $150,000.

On the issue of the Mission bypass, I know it's one issue that the hon. member for Mission-Kent has been quite upfront on. He's been lobbying successive Ministers of Transportation and Highways to make sure that the issue would move forward. I want to give credit where it's due, as I've obviously done in the past, with credit due to both the member for Langley and the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on the issue of the 200th Street interchange. This is one issue where the member for Mission-Kent has been lobbying fairly significantly.

[1540]

R. Coleman: Just for the benefit of the people of Mission, could the minister then tell me what time frame the ministry sees for this particular project in its evolution over the next five to ten years for that community? It's just an answer that they've been asking for.

I do take heart -- heartily, I guess -- from the fact that you don't believe everything you read in the newspaper, hon. Chair. But the fact of the matter is that there was a press conference, and the members from the south side of the river weren't invited, and we're the ones that had to answer the questions in the riding. I know that the newspapers. . . . I'm not going to blame that on the press, because I don't think the press conference on the crossing -- the announcement of the study money -- was called by the press. And I was of the understanding that it was $150,000.

But it's more. . . . Now that we're on the Mission side, I'd like to know. . . . And I do take heart, hon. minister, relative to the success. . . . We've had some success with 200th Street and, obviously, with the initiative of my community on 208th Street, which has taken some of the pressure off 200th for a better design. Frankly, it's a good thing that my council can work with the ministry to try and successfully solve some of these problems. I mean, I think it's an example that some other communities might want to follow.

At the same time, I just wonder if we could get that time frame on the Mission project.

Hon. H. Lali: Quite frankly, we don't know at this stage. Once the study is completed, I think we'll have a better idea as to the time frame for any kind of engineering and construction that may take place on the Mission bypass.

R. Coleman: Maybe the minister could just, then, explain to me what is to be accomplished by the study that you're proposing now, versus what the one from March 31, 1996, accomplished -- what more needs to be accomplished by an additional study. This is actually quite an extensive document that covers everything from the background to alternative context, to environmental evaluation, to land use analysis, to mapping, to colour overheads. It's quite an extensive study. I'm just wondering what the new study is supposed to accomplish that the old study did not.

Hon. H. Lali: This study, in comparison to the 1996 study, goes into further detail and definition on this whole issue, especially in regard to the access component of the bypass.

R. Coleman: When you refer to the access component, are you talking of access onto the bypass itself or the changes of access off the old Highway 7?

Hon. H. Lali: Both.

R. Coleman: Could the minister enlighten me as to what the cost was for the 1996 study and what the budget is for the 1999 study?

[1545]

R. Coleman: Actually, that would be helpful. If we could arrange that briefing, maybe we could arrange it so that the members of Mission council are also available for the briefing,

[ Page 13053 ]

I have no further questions. I'm going to pass it on now to the member for Okanagan-Boundary, who has some issues he needs to canvass.

B. Barisoff: I just want to touch on a few constituency issues. One is that the residents of Beaverdell are quite concerned about Highway 33 and a traffic light in that area. It's the traffic coming up from the entire Boundary country on their way to Kelowna. But apparently there's an unsafe area there. They've been in contact with the ministry. I'm just wondering what the status of that might be.

Hon. H. Lali: That is an issue we are not familiar with. Certainly we'd be happy to look into some details. We just don't have any information right now.

B. Barisoff: Another issue that I bring up every year. . . . First of all, I'd like to commend the ministry for doing the intersection between Tue-El-Nuit Road and Highway 97. But the wooden bridge, the McAlpine Bridge, that crosses the Okanagan River on Highway 97 -- I've brought it up on a number of occasions for a number of years. It's a concern that I have about what's going to happen there one day. I'm just wondering whether, in the short term or the long term, the minister has got any plans for that bridge.

Hon. H. Lali: I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. I know that it's fairly important for him, and he's been lobbying for that. Unfortunately, it's not on the list for next year. It is moving up on the priority list subsequent to that, but it's not something that's going to be in this year's budget.

B. Barisoff: It's not as much a concern about lobbying for it. When I listen to the minister talking about safety, I think it's more of a safety issue than a lobbying issue. I don't know how many wooden bridges. . . . In fact, I think the minister mentioned in the House a month ago about not having any wooden bridges left on major highways in British Columbia. This happens to be one of them.

The other issue that I have, of course, is McIntyre Bluff, a corner that has been of great concern. Last year I brought up that issue -- whether he'd contacted ICBC to see if there was a way of going together to fix that dangerous corner.

Hon. H. Lali: I apologize to the hon. member. We'll have to get back to him on that particular issue.

B. Barisoff: It's the Vaseau Lake corner. I think I inadvertently said McIntyre Bluff, but it's the Vaseau Lake corner. It's been an issue that I've brought up on a number of occasions, probably every year since I've been elected.

The other real concern that I have, of course, is Highway 3, which goes through the minister's riding and through Keremeos and Cawston -- the southern Trans-Canada Highway. I'm just wondering whether the minister is looking at considering any upgrades on the entire section of Highway 3.

[1550]

There are a number of projects that are being funded and will be funded, actually, next year and years after, in terms of protecting the integrity of our roads and bridges and also resurfacing, which includes repaving and seal-coating. Also, there are three bridges in the Kootenays that are being replaced in this year's budget. So there is quite a significant amount of investment that is taking place on Highway 3, and we'll continue to do so in the future.

B. Barisoff: I think that if it took the minister three days to drive from Hope to the Alberta border on Highway 3, it's probably an indication that there needs to be some work done on that highway.

B. Barisoff: I doubt if he was riding a bike.

Carrying on, I'd just like to ask the minister. . . . He knows a little bit of the history of why day labour was brought into the province, what criteria there were for it and what ultimate effect was supposed to take place by having day labour with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. H. Lali: Day labour has been with the ministry from whenever we got into the business of actually building roads, and it's just one of the ways to get the projects done. It also benefits local communities.

B. Barisoff: The minister indicates that it was one of the ways of getting projects done. I'm just wondering whether the minister would clarify that, on a particular day-labour list, it would mostly stem from hiring local contractors in a particular area, based on seniority or whatever it might be that keeps local people and local areas working. It's been something that the assistant deputy minister probably instituted way back when, maybe, and he'd understand how it has worked and whether it has been a successful application of hiring people from the local area for a number of years.

Hon. H. Lali: Like the member opposite, I come from a small rural community, and I understand the importance of day labour and local hire for local communities. This is actually just one of the tools that we use to achieve local hire on local projects in rural communities, and we continue to use it. As a matter of fact, this year I believe we're actually increasing the use of local hire, especially in the Kootenays, where there was a large outcry over several years by residents of the Kootenays and local elected officials, who wanted to see more local people working on local projects financed by the B.C. government in the Kootenays. That was one of the stated goals and objectives, actually in the form of a recommendation, that came out of the Kootenay summit in Castlegar in

[ Page 13054 ]

[1555]

Hon. H. Lali: Let me give my assurance to the hon. member that the whole issue and concept of day labour is alive and well, and I support that.

B. Barisoff: Just in closing, then, I would hope that for all the small contractors in British Columbia, the minister would make sure that as many of these projects throughout B.C. can go to the. . . . I don't want to call it the old model; I want to call it the model of day labour that has been so successful. A good point made by our critic here, that the traditional method of day labour that has been so successful in the province of British Columbia and given a lot of small contractors and small business people the ability to make a living in the province of British Columbia. . .that that whole traditional concept will stay in place and that more projects will be put out on a day-labour basis, the way it used to be, so that a lot of these people can reap the benefits of staying in business in British Columbia.

G. Hogg: There has long been a recognition that there are some economic benefits to be generated both through transportation and through tourism in the Cascadia corridor. Former Premier Harcourt in 1992 approached the greater Vancouver regional district, asking them to look at and deal with the notion of Cascadia. In doing that, he had meetings with then Governor Booth Gardner of Washington State, talking about how there could be economic benefits generated by the whole Cascadia corridor.

The member for Richmond Centre previously made reference to a number of the activities which have taken place in the state of Washington and, indeed, in the state of Oregon. ISTEA and other pieces of legislation from in the federal government in Washington have given them a number of options in terms of developing corridors as they lead to the Canada-U.S. border. There has been a lot of work done in that area, and there has not, to all appearances and in my opinion, been as much work done on the Canadian side to complement the work that is being done. One of the specific examples is that Los Angeles is now talking about developing and expanding their container port facilities, and we have advantages in Vancouver of being some four hours by water closer to the Orient and to the trade corridors that are available to us there.

Washington and Oregon want to participate in the corridor. We have the Cascadia Institute in Vancouver and the Discovery Institute in the United States that are both working to build this. My fear is that we're going to see the corridors developed on the American side and come to a crashing halt as they hit the Canadian border, and we might not be able to take advantage of what might be offered to us there. My question to the minister is whether or not there has been any planning or any meetings that have taken place. Are there any dollars which may have been allocated to look at the evolution and development of this corridor on the Canadian side?

[1600]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

G. Hogg: Is there any further planning that's taking place? Are there going to be any announcements with respect to some cooperative sharing and planning that will enhance the evolution and development of the Cascadia corridor? I understand that Mr. Harcourt is going to be chairing part of it, and that the Governor of the state of Washington is putting together a working committee with some political representatives on it. I'm wondering whether or not the province of British Columbia is prepared to support that type of initiative and be involved in that type of cooperation so that we can ensure that every advantage is possible for us in British Columbia to take advantage of the economic possibilities that will be there, through both trade and tourism.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member mentions the north-south corridors as part of this Cascadia issue. I'm very supportive. Actually, a component of the national transportation investment strategy is to deal with those corridors that are north and south through the B.C.-U.S. border -- the border crossings and also some of the road links leading up to the border crossings, which obviously lead to our east-west links, such as the Trans-Canada Highway and other east-west highways that exist.

As I mentioned earlier, my parliamentary secretary actually keeps me updated on the progress on these kinds of issues. He's obviously working hard making sure that we have these kinds of north-south links, which won't just stop at the American border with Americans spending billions of dollars, as authorized by the U.S. Senate, and then finding that when they come up to the U.S.-Canada border, on B.C.'s side things aren't quite up to the same kind of standard. So we're working with the other provinces and also the federal government to access some funding on a cost-shared basis between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that our national transportation investment strategy will also incorporate this kind of vision.

A. Sanders: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Sanders: In the gallery are 25 students from St. James School in Vernon. They're accompanied by their teacher Maggie Carty, Kelly Bibby, Denis Brunelle and Dave Poley. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I take the minister's comment to be a resounding endorsement of the notion of Cascadia -- and wanting to

[ Page 13055 ]

[1605]

Could the minister apprise me of the planning, of what in fact is in place, and of what is planned for this interchange at this point?

Hon. H. Lali: There are two parts to the hon. member's statement and question. On the issue of Cascadia, I am actually giving my resounding support for protecting the trade corridors, both east-west and north-south. There's a lot of good work that is done by Cascadia on these types of transportation issues, and certainly on those aspects of it I would give my resounding support. Obviously, in terms of protecting our trade corridors, we want to remain competitive with our trading partners across the border in the States.

The 152nd Street interchange -- there's a lot of work that is being done on this particular issue. Unfortunately, I don't have my appropriate staff here to give me the details of that. It's an issue that perhaps should have been canvassed under the BCTFA, and the staff from the TFA are not here with me right now. But I'm willing to work with the hon. member and to have staff work with the hon. member to give him the appropriate information that he needs.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the offer to have staff work with me and/or with Surrey and White Rock and the chamber of commerce to effect that. I know that the mayor has sent a letter to the ministry seeking a meeting, and that was sent some two months ago. He has not, as yet, received a response and is quite anxious about that because of the number of businesses within the community who are anxious to work with and participate in this.

I guess my next question to the minister would be, then: can he ensure that there will be some type of formal response, which will go back to the mayor of White Rock in response to his correspondence? I'd be prepared to take advantage of the offer you've made to have you and/or your staff meet, perhaps over here. . . . I'm sure a delegation of the mayor and members of the chamber of commerce and of the Surrey council would be happy to come over and meet with you to talk about the options and the things that they want to look at or the possibility of there being some private involvement in the development of the northern ramp.

I appreciate that there are some benefits to be generated for the businesses in the area. Perhaps there's some potential for a further public-private partnership in terms of the evolution and development of that and speeding up the phasing, which. . . . I understand the off-ramp is now at a phase which is down the road at some undetermined point in time. It is important to that community that they take advantage of that off-ramp and what it has to offer as quickly as possible. So if I'm getting the minister's assurance that he will have the mayor's letter responded to and, further, that he will arrange for a meeting so that we can fully discuss the options which might be available to that community and to the ministry to effect a northern off-ramp, then I would be satisfied.

Hon. H. Lali: Certainly I'll have my staff dig up the correspondence requesting the meeting and have that correspondence responded to as soon as we possibly can. Also, I'll authorize my staff to set up a meeting with the hon. member's mayor and council so that we can discuss the kinds of issues that the constituents of Surrey-White Rock need to have dealt with.

G. Hogg: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I will be in touch with the mayor and council to arrange for that meeting to come forward in the next couple of weeks. They're most anxious to hold that. So thank you.

[1610]

As the minister knows, there has been a fair amount of discussion, albeit through newspapers, with respect to highways in the Okanagan and other parts of the region which the minister represents. I think it would be a lot more constructive if we could get people together to sit down and talk around a table. I'm just wondering if the minister would agree if I worked with his staff to pull together a meeting of the mayors of Peachland, Summerland and Penticton and the regional district. We could get everybody around a table and have a very open, two-way discussion so that everybody understands each other's agenda, and we can attempt to move forward in a very constructive way.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm glad that the hon. member raised that. As a matter of fact, my staff is already actively working to set up a meeting with the mayors of the three major cities in the Okanagan to discuss these very important issues. Also, a copy of the correspondence, I believe, has been sent to Mr. Paul Mitchell -- I keep confusing him with Paul Martin -- who is representing the Coquihalla Connector Coalition.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that answer. I was also thinking of South Okanagan. It's a relatively small community when you look at the province. It appears, hon. Chair, that the minister wants to work in a very positive and constructive way, and I would ask that he please keep me and the member

[ Page 13056 ]

Hon. H. Lali: I've had the opportunity on three occasions to meet with some of the mayors and councils, especially in South Okanagan. I've had a chance to meet with the Keremeos mayor and council on a couple of occasions and also on my tour on Highway 3 from Hope to the Alberta border. Certainly I'm willing to continue to meet with mayors and councils in the Okanagan in the future. I make that commitment.

R. Thorpe: I suppose that perhaps the minister didn't hear one little caveat: that I also requested that he include me, as the member for Okanagan-Penticton, and the member for Okanagan-Boundary in those meetings. I would just like to have the minister comment. Would he like us to be part of building the solution for the future, or would he prefer to have us excluded?

Hon. H. Lali: Pardon me if I gave the impression to the hon. member that I was going to exclude him and his colleague. Obviously, when these meetings are set up, we'll let the hon. members know so they can participate as well.

R. Thorpe: In the spirit of cooperation and building solutions. . . . I realize that the staff that were here yesterday from the TFA aren't here, but I have to ask this question. I hope that the minister will take it in the very serious context that is intended. As a result of debates yesterday on HCL, I have had some calls from constituents. They're not from big contractors; they're from workers, and they're from workers' families. In the context of some of the minister's comments yesterday, I would ask: what is the minister's response to some of those workers and families who have had a long history of working in the business and in the area? I'm talking about South Okanagan. What are those individuals and their families to do now, since they're not getting called out to work because they are not part of HCL?

[1615]

R. Thorpe: Yesterday I recall the minister, without staff support, giving the answer that one of the reasons that he was pushing the HCL model was to stop discrimination and some of the other things that he cited in his discussion. Some of these people and their families, who have had a long history, are now feeling that they're being discriminated against because they do not have a union card. Can the minister give those individuals and those families any reassurances that his government is not discriminating against them?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, the appropriate place to have had this discussion was under the BCTFA, and we did have a fairly thorough and lengthy discussion on this yesterday. We have moved on since then to the ministry estimates.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I thought yesterday I detected, late in the afternoon, a spirit of cooperation from the minister, and I'm a little. . . . Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the minister's approach and the minister's attitude here this afternoon, because working families and working individuals in British Columbia do not work according to a bureaucratic system that takes place in this chamber and this province. They try to get up and go out to work and understand what's going on, and I would very much appreciate it if the minister would not give a bureaucratic answer and would show some understanding to those individuals and those families that now feel they have been cut adrift by this government that reportedly says it cares so much about people.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member obviously fails to understand the whole issue of HCL. It is quite evident from the kind of comments that he is making here today that he and his party fail to understand what HCL is all about and how it operates. For the member's benefit, I will repeat the comments that I made yesterday.

Any operator -- any contractor in British Columbia or even outside of British Columbia -- is free and clear to bid on HCL projects, whether the HCL project is on Vancouver Island or it's on Cache Creek to Height of the Rockies or even in the lower mainland. The hon. member should know that. I also want to let the hon. member know that on the Vancouver Island Highway, 60 percent of the contracts actually went to non-union firms. In terms of the Cache Creek-Height of the Rockies HCL project, any individual is allowed to go and register their application with HCL in terms of trying to access employment on these particular projects. And the hon. member's assertion that somehow this government is abandoning small business is just not supported by the facts.

[1620]

Again, on the Kerr Road and Craigellachie worksites, which were identified yesterday, there are small operators and small businesses who have been accessing some of these contracts -- such as Toucan Pro Traffic Control out of Salmon Arm, T-Jo Wood Grinding out of Chilliwack, etc. So obviously the record provides otherwise from what the hon. member across the way is trying to emphasize here.

R. Thorpe: All I'm trying to do is deliver the messages that I received from some of my people that live in my constituency and also from nearby constituencies.

So what the minister is saying, hon. Chair, is that he totally supports this model, that this government totally supports this model, that it's good for small business, that it's not

[ Page 13057 ]

Hon. H. Lali: It's surprising that the members opposite insist in going over some of the issues that were thoroughly canvassed for nearly two hours yesterday in terms of HCL. Again, this is an issue. . . . I've given the member a couple of answers already, even though it's an issue that was dealt with under TFA; the member is quite well aware of that. He was here during the TFA estimates. We canvassed these issues under the TFA estimates. Obviously we've moved on from TFA and on to the ministry estimates. Obviously my TFA staff is not here today with me; I have my ministry staff with me. I think the hon. member knows the rules. I think we should move forward, on to the ministry estimates.

R. Thorpe: I'm surprised that the minister had to consult to the left and to the right on whether he could come into the region and have a meeting. Could the minister please answer the question? Will he come into the area and meet with the people that he says will not be adversely affected, who believe they will? Will you please come and meet with the people -- yes or no?

The Chair: The member continues.

R. Thorpe: I'd just like the record to show that the minister refused to answer the question. Therefore the constituents who asked me to ask those questions must recognize that the minister is not prepared to come into our part of British Columbia and tell them what a wonderful deal HCL is for them and their families.

D. Symons: A few questions here. Each year the B.C. Chamber of Commerce puts together a document on policies that the chamber would like to see implemented in the province. They go ministry by ministry, and there is a section for Transportation and Highways. I do not intend to read all of the various recommendations they have; it's a good number of pages.

[1625]

Hon. H. Lali: Each one of the HOV lanes is different from the other. We can't actually take a blanket approach as suggested by the chamber. Also, trying to have two different sets of rules during a 24-hour period is unworkable and confusing to the travelling public. If you look at the heavy truck traffic, it starts at 6 a.m. in the morning and goes until 7 p.m. in the evening.

D. Symons: I somewhat agree with the minister, in that different situations can occur in different areas. It's also very nice for drivers, though, to know that things are rather consistent, so that they don't have to say to themselves: "On this road I do such-and-such during certain hours, and on the other road I can't do this." Anyway, we'll have to debate that later on.

Another question that the Chamber of Commerce had dealt with is Highway 37. It's an upgrade, and it's one that's been on their list for a few years. Basically, the chamber is recommending that the government accelerate the upgrading of Highway 37 to current standards, giving the highest priority to the widening of the highway and replacement of the existing temporary Bailey bridges with modern structures. I'm wondering what the. . . . You're spending a fair amount of money in the north, and I appreciate that. But I didn't hear any mention specifically of Highway 37; maybe it went by me.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll read the list of expenditures over the past five years on Highway 37. In 1994 it was $3.5 million; in 1995, $4.7 million; in 1996, $3.2 million; in 1997, $1.8 million; in 1998, $6.27 million.

D. Symons: The numbers sound big until you realize that Highway 37 is 500 kilometres long. I suppose there's a lot of highway there to be worked on.

I wonder if we might take, now, just a short trip to Vancouver Island, for my next series of questions deal with local issues here. The first one deals with the traffic on the Pat Bay Highway to the airport. As they go north from here, just from where we are, you head north up the Pat Bay Highway, and you want to turn off on McTavish. There is a provision for cars to pull in there for making a left-hand turn to head onto McTavish to the airport.

The problem is that the traffic that is going that way now ends up frequently being. . . . More people want to make that left-hand turn than there is space for in the left-hand-turn lane there. There's a pullout for them to make a left-hand turn; that gets full. Basically, what's happening now is that those people are backing up onto the main highway itself. That creates a traffic hazard, particularly when the light's green, and people are whizzing along and don't notice that there's the tail-end of a car sticking out that can't quite get into the traffic bay. Are there any plans to extend that traffic bay for the left-hand turn at McTavish, on the Pat Bay Highway?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for raising that issue. We'll take a look at it. There is rapid growth taking place, so obviously there's a result in traffic because of that. We'll have a close look at the issue that the hon. member raised.

[1630]

[ Page 13058 ]

Hon. H. Lali: There are many challenges no matter what we try, but that doesn't mean we give up. Obviously the ministry reviews all of the coroner's recommendations. We'll continue to seek responsible solutions. The ministry works cooperatively with the RCMP and other agencies to determine the appropriate improvements which can be made.

I was wondering if we can have a five-minute recess.

The Chair: If the members agree, we'll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

D. Symons: Just picking up on the Malahat again and the answer the minister gave, I think we all recognize that we can't have every highway done in such a way that there will be no accidents on them. There are people who are going to drink and drive, as much as we know that that's totally wrong and irresponsible. People fall asleep at the wheel, and other things happen on the highways. You can't predict them. You can't possibly build a highway system that would prevent those accidents. But that portion of the Malahat does seem to have problems more frequently than those places I mentioned a moment ago.

I have a letter on my desk, which I suspect the minister has as well, from the Cowichan Valley regional district. I won't read the whereases, but it ends up with: "Now therefore be it resolved that the Cowichan Valley Regional District strongly urge the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Transportation and Highways critic" -- so you see, I'm drawn into this as well -- "to complete the Malahat Highway widening project." They're basically begging that that project be completed. I believe it's part of the Island Highway project. I'm just wondering, again, from the timetable on the Island Highway project and the timetable that might now be adjusted slightly: when will that Malahat Highway program and the widening of it be finished?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't know if the hon. member is aware that it is not currently part of the Vancouver Island Highway project.

D. Symons: Well then, as not part of the Island Highway project, I wonder if the minister might give the people of the Cowichan Valley and me some idea of where that widening of the Malahat and fixing-up of some of the safety problems along it is in your agenda.

Hon. H. Lali: There are huge environmental considerations on this particular project. It will actually take a long time for us to come back with any kind of a recommendation on that, as a result.

D. Symons: I have a question from my own riding -- or close by, at least. It's not in Richmond; it's in South Delta, actually. It's the ramp that leads off River Road as you're turning on to Highway 99 to go through the George Massey Tunnel, and it merges with Highway 99 at that point. There have been a number of truck rollovers there in the last few years. Fortunately, we have not had a car beside a truck when the truck decides to roll over. They're probably going too fast onto that turn as you come off River Road and are swinging onto Highway 99. There was an accident a year ago, I believe, and at that time, there were some comments that something was going to be done about that particular approach onto Highway 99 and through the tunnel. A truck turned over just last week. The problem is still there. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give us some idea about what's being done about that particularly dangerous section.

While I'm at it, I'll mention that also on Highway 99 in Richmond, where you turn off the Westminster Highway. . . . Primarily it's the trucks that seem to be making a left turn off Westminster Highway. They've been going west and they're turning left to turn onto the on-ramp for Highway 99 to head south. That's another place where trucks seem to roll over. All too often I do see a truck on its side, and I've felt very lucky, in a sense, that there has not been a car on the other side, because there's a place for cars to be there at the time one of these rather large trucks rolls over.

Hon. H. Lali: There's actually been only one accident since the additions were made a year and a half ago. However, as part of the Highway 99 and Highway 17 HOV project, the announcement that I made. . . . Actually, I think it was late last year, and the hon. member was present. As part of that, the geometry of this ramp will be reconfigured to allow for improved safety. The Highway 99 and Highway 17 HOV project will be completed in the fall of 1999.

[1645]

Hon. H. Lali: This is an issue that I'm aware of. I met with the Abbotsford council earlier this year. This is an issue that both the TFA and the municipality are actively working to try to find a solution to.

D. Symons: Good. Back to Richmond -- or near Richmond, anyway. The minister made some comments last year -- last September, actually -- about some problems. Well, the problem was there, and you were going to remedy it. That was the problem with the signalling to and through the Massey Tunnel. There was a comment last year: "Later this year, or early next year, the ministry will spend $300,000 to upgrade the Massey Tunnel lane control system. The new system will be similar to those currently in place on the Lions Gate Bridge and the Pitt River Bridge."

[ Page 13059 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The money is actually there for improvements this year. It's $287,000 -- roughly $300,000 -- for design and upgrade of the Highway 99 lane control system at the George Massey Tunnel.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, because I was somewhat concerned that maybe some improvements had taken place and I hadn't noticed them. I don't know if they would have been that much of an improvement if they hadn't been noticed. You're indicating that it's still coming -- good.

Another question -- and this is a rather interesting one. It just arrived in the mail for me today, actually. It's a follow-up of a letter that a lady sent me just before Christmas, which expressed some concern about the signage along Highway 1, as you're heading west and as you get near the Langley turnoff there. I forget the street number for the moment, but it leads onto the Langley bypass in that area. I drive it quite frequently.

Apparently there's a sign there that says, "To B.C. Ferries," or something to that effect. This woman followed the sign. Unfortunately, she wanted to go to Horseshoe Bay. She just saw this sign -- she's not from this area -- "To B.C. Ferries," so she went to B.C. Ferries at Tsawwasssen and discovered that the ferry she wanted wasn't there. She was trying to head out to Langdale on the Sunshine Coast and got confused by the signs and was somewhat disturbed by that fact.

So I'm wondering if there might be a little way of identifying the fact that there are two B.C. Ferries terminals from that point on for people who are new to B.C. or new to this area and who do not know that we have Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay as B.C. Ferries terminals. Could that signage thing be improved a little bit? Just a question.

Hon. H. Lali: Them hon. member actually raises a very good point. Quite frankly, it is something that I hadn't heard before, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. We will have a look at the issue that the hon. member raises. Also, I know that the member is aware of this, but for the benefit of the House, there is a comprehensive signage review that is taking place in terms of the signage policy all across the province. Certainly issues such as this could be forwarded on to that particular committee as well.

[1650]

Just a question here too. There's a newspaper article from last November, in the Prince George Citizen, that says: " 'Construction of the two new lanes on the John Hart Bridge will start in the spring,' provincial Highways minister announced Monday." I now have a Prince George paper of April 17 of this year that says: "The bridge construction will start this fall." I'm wondering if the minister might tell me -- we're a few months after that -- whether this fall is still on the schedule or whether that project is going to continue to have a moving horizon.

Hon. H. Lali: We are actually starting work on the John Hart Bridge. The project is going to tender right now, and once the tenders all come in, we'll have the award of the contract set for the fall so that the shovels can go into the ground.

D. Symons: If we can move up-country to the Kootenays and to the Moyie bluffs. . . . I read that apparently there is design work going to be done on that particular area. There also is a danger and accident record in that area. The concern I have is something I had also with the Three Valley Gap one. As the minister said a few minutes ago, I've travelled the highways, and I've been along the Highway 3 corridor a couple of times and took as long as the minister did, too, because I stopped in each community, spoke to mayors and chambers of commerce or anybody that wanted to talk about road issues in their area.

I also made a habit of dropping in at the district or regional highway offices, introducing myself and saying hi and asking them to see whether what they could tell me basically coincided with what the mayors and the chambers of commerce were telling me about the needs in the area. In almost every case, I found they were all in total agreement. The problem is, really, the highways. One would say, "We have to wait for approval and where this project is in the priorities of the ministry," and so forth. But they generally knew the problems.

But in both those cases, whether it was the Three Valley Gap one -- in the Revelstoke office or in the office in Cranbrook. . . . They had the plans -- I saw them, in both places -- for the Moyie bluffs, solutions for the problems there. Yet we're talking about doing the design work now. I'm just curious, when you can see that at least it's not the full plans for it, but it certainly is a conceptual design plan they have. It seems that we always read about doing design work. It seems that design work for many of these projects was done years ago. Just a little bit of a dusting off would bring them out, and you could move on with the project rather than saying again: "We're looking at designing."

Hon. H. Lali: The issue of the Moyie bluffs has actually been thoroughly raised by the MLA for Kootenay, who also happens to sit on the BCTFA board. She has raised this issue quite loudly over the last number of years that she's been elected.

I'm pleased to say that we made an announcement for half a million dollars for the realignment of three sharp corners through Moyie bluffs, on Highways 3 and 95 between Yahk and Cranbrook -- these are "Jones corner," "Truckers corner" and "Tunnel creek" -- in order to improve safety and traffic flow.

D. Symons: I think the last question I have in this series of moving around the province deals with Highway 31 and some concerns that the rehabilitation of that particular highway is one that has also been long overdue. The people in that area are somewhat concerned about that particular project, and I'm wondering if the minister might just give us some flavour for where it is on his priority list.

[ Page 13060 ]

[1655]

D. Symons: I'll pass that on at another time, then, rather than discuss all of that now. I'm trying to move ahead a little faster, if we can.

On another topic, I attended a Richmond city council meeting back in January. One of the discussions there was about the problem that when there's snow on the road, the graders go along and take out the little cat's eyes that are set in the middle of the road, and these have to be replaced. So the suggestion was that these cat's eyes be sunk in the road, and the works yard was suggesting that this could be done.

Then two things came up on it. One is that they aren't all that expensive to replace if they are taken out by a blade in snowplowing. The second one is that if you dig the trench, which is the replacement -- you put in a little trench so that these things are recessed and so the plow will go over them -- (1) the trench fills in with earth at times; and (2) it's a hazard to motorcyclists. The trench is wide enough; the motorcycle wheel gets in there, and basically it could be death to a motorcyclist if they should get into one of these.

I mentioned this to the council, and they were glad to have heard that aspect. A motorcyclist friend of mine told me about that particular situation, but I didn't know that it's also being done by the Highways ministry somewhere on the Vancouver Island project as well, apparently, because that issue was raised by somebody up Island, concerned about the way reflectors are sunken; they're just slits in the centre of the road. So just as a heads-up, I wonder -- if it is being done -- whether you'll take into consideration that it's very dangerous for motorcyclists particularly.

Also, just while I'm on that topic, my travels last summer took me through the western provinces, and I found in Alberta and, I believe, in Saskatchewan also that they had done stripping along the sides of the road. So if you tended to fall asleep a little bit, there would be like a rumble strip. If you got off the road very far into the shoulder, you would know you'd done it. If you were dozing at the wheel, it would wake you up very quickly.

I saw some places in B.C. where stripping is being done parallel to the road, I think, rather than vertical to it. Again, that would be a real problem. I think it was on. . . . Which highway did I see where there seemed to be some cuts or grooves -- I'll call it the stripping grooves in the road? They seemed to be running just off the travelled portion onto the shoulder, but they seemed to be running more or less parallel to the road. Of course, that's difficult for bicycles, and bicyclists are supposed to be using the shoulder of the roads. If there is something like that, I think it was done in such a way as to notify drivers: "You've moved off the travelled portion -- wake up."

If you do it at right angles to the road, it would be bumpy for cyclists, but it wouldn't be dangerous. If you do it at another angle, it could be dangerous for them.

Hon. H. Lali: There wasn't really a question in there, but those are some very interesting issues that the hon. member raises. Certainly we will have staff take a look at them. In terms of the rumble-stripping, I've seen that myself. They exist on the major highways in southern Ontario and also in New York State. I had the pleasure about two and a half years ago to actually travel from Toronto to New York City with my family, and I saw that -- it was very interesting -- on the side of the road, just on the shoulder part. That succession of rumble-stripping was there to jar awake, within a few seconds after hitting those rumble strips, any individual who might have fallen asleep at the wheel.

D. Symons: I was quite impressed, because I hadn't seen that before. Actually, I did see something similar to it in B.C. on the way back, on the trip. It's something to keep working at, I guess. Lives are worth it.

A problem with the tender. . . . When I mention the particular project, I'm sure the minister will be aware of it. The Nile Creek Road building tender took place a while back. There are some concerns here that we aren't always taking the low bid. I'm wondering if the minister might give us an idea. . . . When you have a tender and it specifies something in it, and the person putting in the tender follows all the instructions on it but then finds out that he's disqualified later on because there's a sentence in the bid that says: "The successful bidder may be requested to provide. . . ." And since he hadn't provided it with the bid, he's disqualified. I'm wondering if you might explain why. If you said "shall," I can see that the man would not have an argument. But certainly if you put the terms in there: "The successful bidder may be requested to provide an item 3, a satisfactory record of past performance. . . ." You can see that fine. But if you say "he shall," then he's got to do it. If you say "may," it seems that at some future time, if you've gone through the past hurdle, you might have to go through the second hurdle. This was not the case, apparently, where this person did not get the low bid on the Nile Creek Road building tender, because of his failure to put in what it says may be requested.

[1700]

D. Symons: I'd appreciate that, but I believe the minister probably has as much or more information on this than I do. I'm just looking to see how many of them have been addressed to the ministry here. . . . My apologies to the minister, because it apparently involves a forestry road, and that's why you won't know what the heck I'm talking about. Well, you all knew you didn't know what I was talking about. But it's directed to the forestry minister, not to you. But it was a road issue, and it's obviously one of the forestry roads. So my apologies for the confusion there.

The other one definitely is a Highways road issue. It involves a gentleman who worked for the Ministry of Highways on the Island Highway project. Back in '96 the minister at the time was informing employees, "There may be more layoffs if we can't come up with a way of saving money for the ministry," so this man took those words to heart. He went out looking for things that weren't being done by contractors

[ Page 13061 ]

Well, for all this man's pains in pointing out what wasn't getting done by the contractors -- what was in the contract to do -- eventually he got fired. Apparently the only reason he was fired was because he kept pointing out that people were not doing what the contract called for them to do, saying that at some future date, no doubt, we're going to have problems because the situation of the trees being planted to retain soil wouldn't be there, or the riprap around the culverts wasn't there, so we'd have soil washing away, or indeed the ditching didn't line up with the culverts, which would create problems as well.

I'm curious because the person somewhat. . . . It was his job. He did a good job of it, apparently -- so good that they no longer wanted him. When I look at the photographs here, and all the rest, we can certainly see that things that were supposed to be done on a highway -- and particularly a new highway -- were left undone. Obviously you've got copies of these, or have had them. Somebody in your office has, and I would like to see, if this is the only reason that this person is no longer an employee of the Highways ministry, that he be reinstated and you actually get him out in other places, looking to make sure that you're getting value for your dollar when you have a contract.

I wonder if the minister might respond.

[J. Cashore in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: I think the hon. member across the way is quite aware that this is actually an ongoing human resources issue. There's much more to this particular case, and there is extensive documentation on this particular case. The collective agreement also requires that I not talk about this particular issue. His union is representing the individual on this, and there's also an appeal that is before us -- as well as a human rights analysis. So obviously it would be totally inappropriate for me to make a comment on this particular issue.

[1705]

I wonder if I might, as I close on the Highways portion here, just ask for a few more documents. Now, I opened the whole discussion yesterday, asking for a series of documents, and I remember that I went through them carefully, so you know what I'm asking for. Can I also ask for an update of the bridge seismic retrofitting program? I have one from a few years ago, and it would be nice to see how the change has taken place in the length of the graphs. The one I've got has two graphs superimposed on each other. One axis of the graph is what has been done to date, and the other one is what the total project will be on a dollar basis. So if I could have that. . . . And this is the one for the 12 lifeline structures -- phase 1 and phase 2 -- of various bridges around the province. So if I could have an update. . . . If you're not sure what I'm referring to, I will supply you with a copy of one, but I suspect that you probably know what I'm referring to.

The second one I would like, if I may, is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways corporate performance measures. I assume that these corporate performance measures are done on an annual basis, so if I may have the most recent copy of the corporate performance measures, I'd appreciate that as well. It's one way that the opposition can see -- which the government is also doing -- how well you're carrying out the duties that your office requires of you.

The third thing I'd like to ask for, while I'm asking for things at the end of it, which is very handy. . . . For both the TFA and for Highways, the minister is very fortunate to have staff there, and they have these large briefing books. Since you're now finished with the briefing books for this year -- because you've gone through the process here -- I would love to have a copy of each of those. I won't get a chance to use them against you this year, but at least it would be very nice. So if you could note those down in my wish list, I'd appreciate it.

I would like to take just a few minutes now to look at the Motor Carrier Commission, and I suspect that may involve a change of staff as well.

Interjection.

D. Symons: No? Okay. It involves a little shuffling on my part.

I think the first thing I'd like to look at in the Motor Carrier Commission, then, is the issue of the taxi industry in the province. This has been an issue, I think. . . . There were some changes to the Employment Standards Act a few years ago that impacted quite heavily on the taxi industry. The taxi industry came and basically encouraged the minister and the Labour Relations Board to hold off on those particular changes to the Labour Code. So I think what has developed out of that is that we've now gone into a set of public hearings to study the state of the taxi industry. I assume that comes under the Motor Carrier Commission. Does it? I believe that Mr. Lanyon has made recommendations. Where is that study at, and what are we going to do?

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the three reports the hon. member asked for, the bridge seismic retrofit program. . . . Not only will staff take the copy to the hon. member, but we'll also discuss it with him. He'll get a copy of the MOTH corporate performance measures as well. So obviously it's yes for the first two.

In terms of the taxi review, it is not being carried out by the Motor Carrier Commission; it is separate from that. It is actually being carried out by a consultant hired by my ministry.

D. Symons: When I look at the bottom, it says, "For information on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, visit our Internet site," so it's obviously. . . . And Geoff Knight is here, so that would be nice.

[ Page 13062 ]

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the taxi review report being done by Mr. Stan Lanyon, work is actually ongoing and it has not been completed yet. I expect it will be completed very, very shortly. Obviously I can't talk about any of the details in that, because I don't know.

[1710]

Hon. H. Lali: This is precisely the kind of work that the review has been looking into. Like the hon. member opposite, I am eagerly waiting for this report to come back so that we can see what kind of comments are made by the panel and also what kind of recommendations may or may not come out of that.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if this would come under the motor vehicle branch or the Motor Carrier Commission. The one question is to do with armoured cars. Apparently they're saying that the NDP has draft legislation requiring all armoured cars to be staffed by three-man crews rather than by the current two-man crews. Now, is that an Attorney General question or a Motor Carrier. . . ? It's an Attorney General question, then? Oh, it's Municipal Affairs, is it? Which man are you pointing to?

Interjection.

D. Symons: It's an ICBC question -- okay. I'm surprised that ICBC would be requiring how many people must be in an armoured car. Since it's the wrong minister, then, I will let you off the hook on that particular question.

I suppose that, in Mr. Lanyon's study, you're also studying the issue of fare, or tariff, increases. I guess you'd call it the taxi fares on -- I want to call it the ticker -- the clock. Is that part of the review?

Hon. H. Lali: The issue of the taxi tariff is an issue that is within the purview of the Motor Carrier Commission. However, in his review, Mr. Lanyon will be looking at the economics of the taxi industry as a whole, rather than looking at something as specific as the tariff increase.

D. Symons: Over the last few years we've seen quite a change in motor vehicle regulation in the province of British Columbia, in that we've moved the motor vehicle branch, which looked after licensing of vehicles as well as individuals, for driving, into the purview of ICBC. I hear now that almost a final step in the aggrandizement of ICBC -- in bringing more and more under its umbrella -- is possibly the thought of also bringing the Motor Carrier Commission into ICBC. I wonder if you might tell us whether that is about to occur.

Hon. H. Lali: This is news to me. I've never heard that. I think the hon. minister responsible for ICBC is giving us a big X -- that he doesn't want that, either. I have no idea where this came from.

D. Symons: I get an answer from two ministers, do I, that this rumour out there is unfounded and certainly will not be occurring? Is that what the ministers are saying? They're both nodding in agreement, so I thank them for that response.

[1715]

Hon. H. Lali: In a nutshell, the role of the MCC is the regulation of taxis and buses.

D. Symons: I'm wondering where in here, in some way, the real issue of safety is going to come in to it as well, because I think we have to look at the National Safety Code. Is that going to also be part of it? I think the main thing that must be considered with highways and commercial vehicles on the highways is the issue of safety on the highways. So where does that fit in?

Hon. H. Lali: Both the work and the discussions are ongoing. The federal government actually hasn't completed the work on the National Safety Code and determined where it's going.

D. Symons: One thing that I notice about the motor carrier regulations in the province of British Columbia is that the time that a driver can be behind the wheel and the breaks that he needs between one shift and the next shift are considerably more lenient, I suppose, than what they are for our American cousins across the line. I really do think we have to review that and get that built into a National Safety Code as well, so that all the provinces. . . . And we don't have what I think has been happening in Canada, to a great extent -- a whipsaw thing, where you look for the province that will relax regulations, and then the other provinces sort of fall in line after a while. So whatever province has the least in the way of regulations and hours drivers can drive -- 12, 15, 16 hours and then have an eight-hour break and be back on the rig again. . . . You know that these sorts of things tend to move to whatever the lowest denominator is, and maybe that's not in the best interests of safety.

So first, can we in this province set a standard that is going to be good for safety? And second, can we try and

[ Page 13063 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The hours of operation are a very, very contentious issue with the trucking industry, and we continue to work with the trucking industry and also with the other provinces on harmonization.

D. Symons: A last question, on the superintendent of motor vehicles. I wonder if the minister might give me just a little flavour for the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles. I notice that the, sort of, expenses -- looking in the blue book for that -- have gone down considerably over a period of time. And the recoveries have gone down by a factor of tenfold, actually -- from roughly $5 million down to a little under $400,000. So I'm curious about what recoveries the superintendent of motor vehicles used to have last year compared to this year -- what he's lost. Obviously there are a lot of recoveries there; $5 million down to $500,000 is quite a change. What were those recoveries that the superintendent of motor vehicles used to get and doesn't get, and where are they going now?

[1720]

D. Symons: Again, could the minister tell me what those recoveries were last year and who receives them now? Does ICBC receive them? Do they go into general revenue? Where do they go and where do they come from? What were they? Were they fines?

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have the staff anymore; ICBC has the staff. The recoveries would have come from ICBC to us -- and they are not now.

D. Symons: The recoveries, then, are the staffing of the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles? You had a very large staff if there's a $5 million change for what I think is a fairly small operation. I wonder if you might clarify that, because I'm still not quite certain. ICBC was giving you, you're saying. . . . The recoveries were coming from ICBC? That's what you seem to be implying there. Where were you recovering $5 million last year that you're not recovering this year?

Hon. H. Lali: During the final stages of the transfer of the motor vehicle branch from the ministry to ICBC, some of the staff of ICBC were left behind with us and, as a result, the recoveries that are coming to us -- now that staff are with ICBC -- are going there.

D. Symons: Well, if I'm following the minister's explanation, you basically had, then, staffing costs of $5 million a year ago that you don't have now because those members are no longer with you. If that's what you're saying, I might ask: what was the staffing of the superintendent of motor vehicles last year, and what is it now?

Hon. H. Lali: Could the hon. member please repeat that? We were in a little bit of a discussion when he made the comment.

D. Symons: I was trying to find the $5 million. There seemed to be some indications having to do with staffing changes. So I'm asking what the number of people that worked in the motor vehicles branch was a year ago, when we had that $5 million that you were talking about -- recoveries that I'm asking about. What's the staffing of that particular branch now?

Hon. H. Lali: We had 250 staff for a period of approximately four months last year, who were with OSMV, and the figure now is approximately 50.

D. Symons: Well, that superintendent's got a really busy office there. I didn't realize that they had that many. I think one of the jobs of the superintendent -- I don't know if it's the major job, though -- is to take appeals if somebody has had their licence suspended for a period of time. I know that some people have come to my office wanting help. They've had their licence taken away from them for drinking and driving, usually. I'm not too sympathetic to the people that come to me, but I have to tell them where they can go and appeal, hoping maybe that they don't get the appeal. Nevertheless, is that the main function? Even 50 seems like a lot of people to work with that.

Now, there are other issues. They work with safety as well, I believe, with safety, and they worked in conjunction with ICBC or the motor vehicle branch before. Certainly it still seems like a large number of people. You said you had them for four months. So the $5 million roughly, then, would represent the recoveries you got from ICBC for operating that office? Or for some other place where operating that office for the 50 people that were there for four months. . . ? Is that correct?

[1725]

D. Symons: That finishes what I want in those two areas. I think there's one question that the member for Matsqui wishes to ask, so I'll turn it over to him, and then we're pretty well closed.

M. de Jong: Just a couple of quick questions. I had recently, during the course of a personal trip I took, the pleasure of running across the minister in India. I know that he had a series of meetings there, and I know that he would want an opportunity to report on the progress that has followed from those meetings. But before I do that, I should be sure that this is the appropriate place for me to ask those questions. I'm not sure whether these were meetings or this was a trip that fell under the rubric of his ministerial responsibilities or whether the funding for this trip came from the ministry. So I should verify that before I head down this path.

[ Page 13064 ]

M. de Jong: Good. Well, that's helpful.

So did the funding for the trip come somewhere out of the ministry? If it did, which STOB should I look to in the blue book as the source for that funding? Ultimately, the question, of course, will be: how many public dollars were spent with respect to that journey?

Hon. H. Lali: My portion of the costs for the trip was less than $5,000; I think it was $4,900 and some change. That came out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Har Singh, my assistant deputy minister. . . . His costs were roughly $3,100, and they came out of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister can explain just very quickly how that works, how it is that travel costs for the Minister of Transportation on a trip, which I understand revolved around meetings involving the sale or potential sale or encouragement of sale of B.C. Highways technology, would come out of Employment and Investment. I'm not quite clear on that.

Hon. H. Lali: All of the international trade issues are the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I was leading a preparatory trade mission to India in advance of a bigger trade mission later on this year. My assistant deputy minister came along in terms of the expertise he provided on the engineering side of things, and obviously his costs were picked up by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

[1730]

Hon. H. Lali: I can't speak on behalf of the other ministries, but obviously that was a recommendation from my staff as to how the costs would be divided on this.

M. de Jong: Okay. And the trade mission, as the minister has described it, lasted for how long?

Hon. H. Lali: I left on April 4 and returned on April 18, and obviously there were three days lost as a result of the travel back and forth. I believe it was ten days on the ground in India, of which seven days were devoted to the issue of trade, and then three days were personal.

M. de Jong: I think we should verify. . . . The minister has referred to himself and the assistant deputy minister. Were there any other individuals on this trade mission?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes -- Mr. Amarjeet Rattan from the B.C. Trade and Investment Office out of Vancouver. He is an expert in trade with South Asia and has accompanied various other ministers and even myself once, on a previous occasion, to develop trade links with various states and also the central government of India. His costs were picked up by the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

M. de Jong: I only ask what those costs were because the minister appeared to have the costs associated with his travel and stay at his disposal.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member would have to access that information from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, because I am unaware as to how much the individual's costs were. Obviously I, along with my staff, prepared my own figures that were sent in, and also I'm aware of my assistant deputy minister's figures, because the final figure was given to me. But in terms of Amarjeet Rattan's costs, I am not aware of how much they were. They would have to be accessed from the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say that they would be roughly comparable to the minister's own? Or were there other extraordinary costs associated with his travel?

Hon. H. Lali: Sorry again. I can't help the hon. member on that one. I'd only be guessing as to what the cost would be.

M. de Jong: He could actually guess with some reasonable degree of accuracy, hon. Chair. If the gentleman travelled with the minister, presumably they both flew, they both stayed in hotels, and they both ate food. So I guess what I'm trying to establish is: were there any extraordinary costs assigned to that individual? If not, presumably the minister can confirm that the cost would be roughly equivalent to his own.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, I would be guessing. That's why I'm reluctant to give the hon. member a figure to quote, because it would be guesswork. I guess that it would be comparable to mine as opposed to my assistant deputy minister's, because Mr. Rattan had an extra few days. He had gone to Ahmdabad and Bombay as part of a follow-up on some of the contracts that had been signed in previous months and previous years -- to do follow-up work on that. So obviously I think the costs. . . . Again, I'm guessing that they would be comparable to mine.

[1735]

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, no. I gave an official invite to the member for Matsqui to join the delegation, because I knew part of his trip was going to coincide with my trip in Chandigarh. I talked to the hon. member and gave him a copy of my schedule in advance as to who I was going to meet with and what days and, in some instances, what times, because the times were not really finalized until later. So I'd given the invite to the hon. member, if he wanted to participate and make it an all-party trade mission, because I think all parties in this House are interested in developing trade links between British Columbia and the Punjab.

While we're talking about this, I just want to read into the record who I met with while I was in India and some of the

[ Page 13065 ]

I also had a chance to meet with officials from Punjab State ministries, and also from Haryana, which is another state there, as well as the northern Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. I also had a chance to meet with the Premier of the Punjab, as well as the Premier of Haryana. Also, when I was in Anandpur, I had the chance to meet with the Vice-President of India and also a number of ministers -- almost half a dozen ministers in the state of Haryana, as well as three or four ministers that I officially met with in the state of Punjab. But, unofficially, there were anywhere up to half a dozen other ministers I had a chance to meet with.

We discussed issues related to highways and transportation infrastructure, also public transit and vehicle licensing and agro-industries. We also had a chance, along with my staff, to meet with the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation and its counterpart in Haryana, as well as officials from the forestry department of Jammu and Kashmir, who actually flew down from that state to meet with me in Chandigarh. They're interested in accessing some of our silviculture technology that is available here in British Columbia.

Punjabi and Haryana state officials expressed a strong desire for either leasing or purchasing some of the technology that is available in British Columbia in the fields of seal-coating technology -- crack-sealing, hot-in-place technology -- as well as a new technology that was developed by a staff person of Highways. It's called B.C. Stabilizer, and they were very, very interested in that.

Out of the discussions. . . . We had asked for the Punjab government, especially Mr. Badal, the chief minister of Punjab. . . . He committed to lead a delegation of officials from the Punjab, including both the private and the public sector, to come to British Columbia and bring with them all of the specifications on three or four projects that would be suitable for some of our technology that is available here. They committed to do that sometime in August.

I also met with some officials in Jalandhar from Sutlej Motors. They're interested in locating and building a bus-building factory in Canada, specifically in British Columbia. They also committed to come out here sometime in the summer as part of the delegation to commence some talks not only with the government but also with private entrepreneurs here.

I also had a chance to meet with the non-resident Indians association or sabha that's set up, with its head office in Jalandhar, dealing with all sorts of issues that are pertinent to non-resident Indians, including issues of land ownership, immigration, citizenship and other property issues that they may have and also taxation and pension issues.

[1740]

M. de Jong: Yes, the minister is correct. After visiting the Raiwind power project, I felt an overwhelming desire to visit a more spiritually uplifting site and did travel to that location -- Anandpur Sahib.

That sounds very impressive. I guess the question that begs asking, if we do some math and consider the public dollars that were spent -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12,000 to $15,000 based on the information available to us today -- is: did we sell anything? It was a trade mission. The minister had some meetings. I suppose that's good; it's better if something came of it. This is not something that this minister has invented, but I think taxpayers increasingly expect their elected officials to be a little more forthright about what these trips are about. If this was about representing the Premier at a significant ceremony in the Punjab, then so be it. Let's be upfront about that. But let's not try to paint this as something that it wasn't. I hear a lot of "maybes" and "in the future" and "in the fullness of time" and "we might have this" and "we might have that." That's strangely reminiscent of the kind of promises we hear from the Premier when he's talking about job creation. So what, beyond these vague promises of future action, does the minister bring back to British Columbia with him from this trip?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to correct the comments of the member opposite. Right from day one I have been upfront about my trip to India, and I have always said that it was twofold. The number one reason that I cited was obviously the official invitation from the government of the Punjab to participate in the official ceremony at Anandpur Sahib. At that time, when I put out the press release that I was going, I also stated very publicly that I couldn't go to India and not actually do anything on the issue of trade. And that's why in my opening comments I told the hon. member that I also led a preparatory trade mission, which was to set the groundwork for a major mission to follow sometime later this year, and also to convince the officials from the various states that I met with in Punjab to bring a delegation to British Columbia. They're very much interested in the transportation technologies that are available in terms of roadbuilding specifically, and bridge-building -- to be able to bring not only the public officials within the ministry who would come with the chief minister but also some private entrepreneurs who would build their roads and bridges.

They would come to British Columbia sometime in August, at the height of our roadbuilding season. We would put them in contact with public officials in my ministry, obviously, but more importantly they would be able to see firsthand how our equipment works throughout the province, with the various weather conditions that exist in the north and the south and also on the Island. They would be able to see that and also to have their private people -- private entrepreneurs -- meet with our entrepreneurs. Perhaps they can begin the discussions to either sign some deals or actually make some deals at that particular time.

[1745]

[ Page 13066 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

They haven't determined yet whether they are interested in leasing some of this equipment during those months that. . . . Especially the hot-in-place equipment in British Columbia is idle during the winter months. That's their prime building season on the other side of the world. Obviously they haven't decided whether they're interested in leasing or purchasing outright some of the machinery. The preparatory work was done in that way. A soil sample was also brought back -- I think about 30 to 40 kilos of soil sample. There are one or two companies in British Columbia who utilize B.C. Stabilizer. They wanted to be able to test that to see if they could utilize that technology in India. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways would derive a royalty from any contracts that are signed under the B.C. Stabilizer. . . .

We asked Punjab officials to bring back some details and specifics on up to four projects, approximately anywhere from five to ten kilometres in length, and bring those engineering specs, other specs and the cost figures to Canada, compare them with what is available here in British Columbia and let some of our experts in the field analyze those figures. Then we'll give them some costs and see if the technology is appropriate and cost-effective for them. They can decide if it's worthwhile for them to purchase or to lease our equipment while it sits idle during the winter months here.

M. de Jong: Having now had the pleasure of travelling on the Grand Trunk Road, I'm tempted to ask whether the minister had discussions around the application of B.C.'s photo radar technology.

What I do want to ask is this, in all seriousness. . . . It's great to have these discussions. It's great to speculate about what we might do and interests -- and this is a preparatory trade mission. Presumably, if it's a preparatory, the big one is still coming. That means more ministers, more officials, more public money, and the problem. . . . And this happens at the federal level; this happens at the provincial level; it even sometimes happens at the local level. These trips take place, officials come back with glowing reports of what might be. But you can never measure the success, because no one has the courage to stand up now and say: "We're doing this, and our objective by the end of the year is to have secured these contracts. This is why we're going. If we're selling a road-sealer technology, by the end of the year, our objective is to have secured a contract in the state of Punjab worth X number of dollars, so that we can put that technology to work and derive some benefit."

What are those objectives? How do we measure the expenditure of what apparently will be in excess of $100,000? -- if we extrapolate from what the minister is saying. How do we measure whether that was money well spent? We've had the preparatory trip. There's going to be the big daddy of trade missions coming up later in the year. It's not good enough to ,just say we're exploring. People want to know. People want to be able to look at this minister and say: "Well, you've reached your objectives," "You fell short," or "You didn't accomplish anything at all." What are the objectives? What do we want to sell? How much of it do we want to sell? What do we want to attract in return? Let's be specific. Let's be really specific.

Hon. H. Lali: The objective is simply to increase trade links between British Columbia and other jurisdictions. Obviously India is one place we're targeting. In 1991, when the NDP took office, the hon. member is quite well aware that 75 percent of our trade in British Columbia was with the United States. Through the efforts of the former Premier, Mike Harcourt, who led a series of trade delegations to Asia -- namely, Japan, Asia-Pacific countries and China -- our trade links were diversified with other international countries, so that -- I'm quoting an old figure, which is about two or three years old -- we had less than 50 percent of our trade with the United States because we were able to increase our trade with European countries and also with Asia-Pacific.

[1750]

Obviously, for entrepreneurs to try to open doors on their own, it becomes difficult. That's why it is necessary to have officials who can meet with public officials in a host country to start opening the doors and having the private sector. . . . Eventually it's the private sector that develops the trade, but trade missions are important, to try to open the doors so we can have dialogue occur between entrepreneurs in India and entrepreneurs here in British Columbia. Obviously that is the objective. Sometimes it takes more than just one trip or one dialogue to be able to do that. I think the hon. member's quite well aware.

I want to give the hon. member an example. I actually organized a trade mission over a year ago and spent over six months planning that and working with the B.C. Trade and Investment Office and some of the ministers to put it together. I was supposed to lead it, and -- fortunately or unfortunately, I don't know -- I ended up in cabinet and was unable to go. At that time. . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: For members like you, it was unfortunate. [Laughter.] Well, that's why I prefaced my remarks -- whether it was fortunate or unfortunate.

In any case, nobody believed me at the time that there would be a market in India for our forestry products, value-added products and wood products from British Columbia. But I was convinced that there would be. So that trade mission was put together. The crux of the trade mission, actually, was the forestry side of things. There were a number of entrepreneurs from the forest industry in British Columbia who were able to meet with officials, both public and private, in India. As a result of that, there are some stronger links

[ Page 13067 ]

MacMillan Bloedel and the B.C. Wood Specialties Group are very interested in that. It was an idea; it was an idea in my mind. Not a lot of people believed me -- in opposition, in government and in India -- but it was something that I had an idea about, and it's something that there's a lot of follow-up on.

A future trade mission would also involve sectors other than just the transportation sector. I talked about that specifically, because that's the sector that I'm most familiar with. There's interest in India in agrifood as well as hydroelectricity and forestry products, environmental technologies and transportation infrastructure technologies. I want the hon. member across the way to be aware of that -- that that eventually will happen.

Hon. Chair, noting the time. . . .

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I think the member for Richmond Centre wants to close.

D. Symons: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for their answers. At times the questions from this side were rather fulsome, and we found, at times, the minister's answers to be even more fulsome. So anyway, I do appreciate the time you've taken, and I appreciate the answers given. I will even appreciate the documents which I've asked for that you're going to gather together and send along to me. Thank you very much.

[1755]

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the opposition critic and all of the other members who brought forward ideas and all of that. We were able to finish our estimates in a timely fashion.

Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 61, as well as, in Section A, Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Finance estimates.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

The amendments to direct-sales legislation are consistent with the recommendations contained in the agreement on internal trade reached among all ten provinces, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the federal government. The agreement on internal trade provides a federal-provincial-territorial forum for national cooperation to improve the marketplace for Canadian consumers through harmonization of laws, regulations and practices and through actions to raise public awareness. In agreeing to harmonize direct-seller legislation, the provinces and territories also agreed that no jurisdiction would be required to reduce its existing level of consumer protection. Consequently, the harmonized provisions of this bill reflect the highest levels of consumer protection in the country.

The proposed amendments follow extensive consultations with business and consumer groups nationally. In British Columbia both industry and consumer groups received a number of opportunities to review the progress of the working group and respond with their comments. National groups such as the Consumers Association of Canada, the Direct Sellers Association, the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business also contributed their time and expertise.

The overall response from both business and consumer groups was favourable. This legislation represents a win-win solution for both consumers and business. Proposed harmonized amendments to the Consumer Protection Act will increase protection for British Columbia consumers who buy a product or services from a direct seller, while making it easier for legitimate direct sellers to operate in any province or territory. Once each of the provinces and territories passes its legislation, the rules regarding cancellation rights and contracts will be the same everywhere in Canada. Consumers will benefit from increased protection, and companies will be able to operate in more than one jurisdiction and reduce their costs in areas such as developing and printing forms, as well as staff training.

The amendments will give British Columbia consumers ten days, up from the previous standard of seven days, to cancel a direct-sales transaction. The Consumer Protection Act also presently provides a seven-day cancellation period for other consumer contracts -- specifically contracts for future services and personal property time-shares. In order to maintain a consistent level of protection and to avoid potential conflicts and confusion, all cancellation periods will be increased to ten days. Consumers will also have one year to cancel direct-sales agreements where the vendor or direct seller did not have a valid licence, the seller was not in compliance with the legislation regarding conditions of licensing or contract disclosure, or the direct seller has not supplied the goods or services within 30 days.

[1840]

[ Page 13068 ]

The working group has also proposed harmonized provisions with regard to direct-sales contracts to provide full disclosure and a simplified plain language statement of cancellation, so that consumers may fully understand the nature of the transaction and their rights. The details with regard to disclosure and prescribed statement of cancellation will be contained in an amendment to the regulation that accompanies the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the amendments contained in this bill will clarify the responsibilities of direct sellers and the rights of consumers and will make compliance and enforcement easier.

Bill 61 will also respond to an issue raised by the auditor general by providing for the repeal of an obsolete 1977 provision intended to regulate the use of income tax refund discounts. This is the practice of advancing consumer funds based on the assignment of their income tax refunds. Subsequently, in 1978, the federal government's Tax Rebate Discounting Act was introduced to create comparable protections for consumers. This federal act provides for the registration of income tax discounters. Since income tax rebates are processed by Revenue Canada, the federal government is better able to investigate and enforce this aspect of consumer protection. Therefore the need for parallel provincial legislation has been eliminated, and the repeal of these provisions will not reduce consumer protection.

I'm also proposing several minor amendments to allow the registrar of direct sellers the administrative authority to modify licence application forms, thereby eliminating the present formal requirement for an order-in-council for any change. A further minor amendment will provide the authority for regulations to allow the issuance of duplicate records, such as copies of licences, and the fees for issuing such duplicates.

In summary, this legislation will help ensure that consumers in British Columbia can enjoy a level of consumer protection as high as any jurisdiction in Canada in any direct sale transaction. Bill 61 will also benefit businesses by reducing costs and ensuring that they're able to do business in British Columbia as easily as in any other jurisdiction in Canada. That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: What we have before us is a bill that will make some changes to the law that regulates what the statute calls direct sales. The bill constitutes an answer to the question of what role the law should have in regulating the transactions which occur, often on doorsteps in the communities of British Columbia, between the sellers of products like vacuum cleaners or services like home repairs, and the people who purchase those goods and services. We have had, in British Columbia, a bill, a statute -- the Consumer Protection Act -- which provides and establishes a set of rules to regulate those transactions, and also a licensing scheme for those who want to operate as sellers in this area of the marketplace.

[1845]

Clearly that is going to be the case where you have a business that does business -- direct-sales business -- across Canada, because each province deals with the issues of regulating consumer protection in its own way. If each province creates its own rules, and if all of those rules are different, then any organization wanting to enter this market is going to have to have the resources and the wherewithal to find a way of complying with perhaps as many as ten, 11 or 12 or 13 different sets of rules.

Any successful attempt to harmonize the rules that apply across the jurisdictions of Canada with respect to an issue like this is, I think, bound to provide some relief to businesses that feel the burden of regulation. Instead of having to prepare ten or 11 or 12 different forms of contract with different provisions for cooling-off periods, different rights of rescission and so on, hopefully, over time, as this initiative takes hold, these businesses will in fact be able to use one form, one set of rules, for all of their business transactions across Canada. That seems to me to be a step along the road to reducing the burden of government on business, without in any way impairing the consumer protection objectives that are underlying this exercise in public policy.

In fact, in this case, it appears that those who are engaged in the technical work of achieving harmonization and uniformity have chosen to harmonize at the highest standards existing within Canada. That's good for consumers. It doesn't mean a very significant change in consumer protection here in British Columbia -- we'll examine some of the details of the changes in committee stage debate, when that comes -- but it will mean some enhanced protection for consumers along the lines that the Attorney General has indicated.

This is a bill which, viewed from the perspective of principle, seems to me to move us down a road of reducing the unnecessary burden of government on business and yet also manages to achieve an enhanced level of protection for consumers in an area where there is, in my view, a need for rules, a need for consumer protection. This is a bill which commends itself to the opposition, and I am pleased to support it.

[1850]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

[ Page 13069 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading of Bill 62.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

The first amendment is to the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, and that amendment is necessary in order to address technical issues related to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority's tariff and power levy by-laws. If not addressed, these technical issues could provide the basis for a challenge to the validity of those by-laws for the period April 1, 1999, to April 28, 1999.

The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority has since re-enacted the by-laws to address these issues for the period from April 28, 1999, forward. To ensure that the interests of minors or incapable adults in an estate are afforded reasonable protection, section 112 of the Estate Administration Act is amended. The three minor amendments to section 112 will (a) ensure the public trustee's comments are considered before grants of administration are made; (b) require executors and administrators to provide the public trustee with copies of their legal authority; and (c) clarify language regarding material to be provided to the public trustee.

Section 15 of the Family Relations Act allows the court to order a person, including a probation officer, to investigate and report on a family matter -- that is, to prepare a custody and access report. However, in 1997 the duties of probation officers were changed, and probation officers no longer received training on how to prepare custody and access reports. This amendment will delete the reference to probation officers as persons whom the court can order to prepare custody and access reports.

The Financial Administration Act is amended to allow government agencies -- in particular, Crown corporations -- to practise commodity hedging in order to reduce the risk of losses due to commodity price fluctuations. The Crown corporations have requested government to make changes to the Financial Administration Act in order that they be allowed to use commodity derivatives. This amendment will allow Crown corporations to lock into a set price for a particular commodity, thereby protecting them from any major increases in the market price. It allows for more accurate budgeting and ensures that an increase in price won't affect the overall business plan of the corporation.

These changes will ensure that that practice is used effectively and responsibly. Corporations will be required to put forward a detailed business plan for Treasury Board approval, and there will be caps limiting the amount a corporation can purchase or sell using commodity derivatives. These amendments provide a good example of how the province is listening to business. Not only do these proposed changes allow corporations to be flexible and competitive in the international marketplace, but they also give corporations the tools required to save money, which could then be passed on to consumers.

This bill will enable the University of British Columbia and the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district to reach an agreement on the provision of sewerage services to the UBC site. It recognizes that the University of B.C. is an independent institution and is responsible for its own sewerage costs. It also protects UBC by ensuring that tenants who use sewer services in university lands pay their fair share of the costs.

This bill proposes a series of amendments to the Human Resource Facility Act, the legislation which the Ministry for Children and Families uses to provide capital grants to non-profit societies and municipalities to assist in the development of facilities. The proposed amendments to the Human Resource Facility Act would provide a legal basis for entering into human resource facility agreements with eligible persons; expand eligibility to enable the minister to provide assistance under this act to a broader range of service providers -- now to include private agencies and individuals such as foster parents; expand the types of assistance to include non-grant capital-related funding such as that included in service contracts; clarify the purposes for which funding can be provided, including acquiring, developing and operating facilities; and provide security for the Crown's investment in non-grant capital-related funding.

[1855]

This bill will enable the capital regional district to provide safe and clean drinking water to greater Victoria residents for years to come, while identifying new parkland and providing an alternate route for the Galloping Goose Trail.

This legislation will provide clear authority to the CRD to conclude an agreement with Kapoor Lumber Co. Ltd. This agreement will allow the regional district to gain control of the Council Creek and Sooke Lake drainages in the heart of the watershed, for a total of 1,300 hectares of sensitive water supply lands.

This will introduce amendments to section 67 of the Offence Act that will streamline the adjournment process for minor matters heard by justices of the peace by (a) providing authority to a JP to adjourn a trial matter and notify the parties, (b) allowing notice of a new trial date to be sent by mail for ticket matters, and (c) removing the requirement that remands be for a maximum of eight days in the absence of consent.

Bill 62 also includes minor amendments to the Public Sector Employers Act which are intended to address an oversight in that act by including Public Sector Employers Council member employers associations in the application of the statute. It is the role of the employers associations to coordinate and implement Public Sector Employers Council policies amongst the public sector employers in their sector. These include bargaining mandates, severance standards, exempt compensation standards and other human resource and labour relations policies. The amendment will ensure the consistent application of these policies to both employers associations and their member employers.

This bill also introduces amendments to the Social Service Tax Act to provide authority for Revenue Canada and its agents to collect social service tax on behalf of the province on

[ Page 13070 ]

[1900]

Occasionally, however, this government has dropped a bomb or two into the middle of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I don't know that there is a bomb or two here, but when I look at the entire collection of provisions assembled in Bill 62, I find some things that I think are worthy of support and some things about which I have no opinion, really, one way or the other. I suppose they are the kind of things that have to happen from time to time. I also find some provisions which I am unable to support and in fact expect to oppose.

There is another interesting insight into just how unusual a legislative session we are embarked on, not just from the fact that this is Bill 62 and we're still in the same legislative session that we were a year ago, but also from the fact that -- and I'm sure you'll be interested to learn this -- we are engaged in debate on a bill which first of all proposes to amend the Budget Measures Implementation Act, which you'll recall we actually enacted only a week or so ago. We are then going to be asked to amend the Estate Administration Act. And, Madam Speaker, you'll be interested to know that when Bill 62 is passed, as I suspect it probably will be, we will then debate Bill 66, and we'll be asked again to amend the Estate Administration Act. Two unrelated issues, but the same statute. Interestingly enough -- that is, for people who find these things interesting -- we will be amending the Interpretation Act here, and then when we get to Bill 66, we'll be asked to amend the Interpretation Act again. One has the sense that there are many pigeonholes in the desk of whoever it is who's responsible for trying to move legislation through the processes that it has to be moved through before it gets to this House, and that the right hand and the left hand are not firmly connected to the same body.

However, that observation does not provide me with any reason to avoid dealing with the contents of Bill 62 on its merits. It is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. For the most part, that means that the issues that it raises are going to be dealt with in somewhat greater length at committee stage of debate. However, I wanted to say that there are some provisions of this agreement that do seem to me to be good steps forward. The amendments to the Offence Act, which the Attorney General described a few moments ago, are useful amendments. Perhaps they are the harbinger of amendments which could, in the fullness of time, be made to other legislation, including the Criminal Code, to encourage some procedural flexibility in the Provincial Court of British Columbia as well as in JP courts. This would hopefully preclude the number of unnecessary court appearances that clog up the lower courts of British Columbia. While the amendments to the Offence Act necessarily don't go very far, they seem to me to be a useful step in the right direction of trying to use the law to open up a process in lower courts to perhaps eventually reduce backlogs and speed up the business of getting to trial.

[1905]

I also want to say that I think the changes to the Estate Administration Act, the ones that are in Bill 62, will help ensure that the role which we expect the public trustee to discharge in respect of the administration of estates on behalf of minors -- well, where minors and vulnerable adults are involved -- is in fact a role that is actually given meaning and content, and not a role that is minimized because court processes or court registry processes don't always give the public trustee the right opportunity to provide his or her views on the administration of a particular estate.

Those are some of the things about Bill 62 that I think are good things. There are some other things that I should maybe pause just for a moment to point out. The changes to the Social Service Tax Act have been described by the Attorney General. I think he has described them correctly. I rather suspect that when these changes take full effect, he and I and a few other members of the Legislative Assembly may start to be on the receiving end of correspondence from constituents who have perhaps had transactions in the past that have not been subject to tax but who will now find that they're paying tax -- because these amendments will enhance the way in which tax is collected.

There are transactions that should be subject to tax, but where, for administrative reasons, there are not the necessary mechanisms in place to ensure that the tax is collected. So the revenue -- which I understand the Attorney General estimates at around $5 million a year -- is really revenue that belongs to government, if the Social Service Tax Act is to be administered in a way which is fair to all consumers. But some of it's being lost now. It will be interesting to see whether there is some reaction to these changes when they eventually take effect. Nonetheless, assuming that these arrangements are put into effect in a way which is fair, efficient and balanced, they seem to me, on balance, to be a good step forward.

There are two parts of this bill that fill me with considerable unease. The first is the changes that this bill proposes to make to a relatively modest little statute called the Human Resource Facility Act. In fact, I'm told that the amendments which Bill 62 proposes to make to the Human Resource Facility Act are considerably longer than the act is now in its original form.

The challenge for us has been to, first of all, grab hold of what the government's real objective here is in terms of

[ Page 13071 ]

[1910]

Without dealing with the issues raised by the amendment in any greater detail than that, the challenge that we're facing here on our side of the House is that from one perspective, it looks as though the government is using a sledgehammer to cure the bad habits of a fly. We're not satisfied that the language used is sufficiently clear, sufficiently confined to achieve what we would identify as being the legitimate public policy objectives here. So there's a problem with sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Bill 62 because of what they propose to do to the Human Resource Facility Act.

But if that were it, I'm not sure if we would vote against this bill. There is more to Bill 62, and the more to Bill 62 is sections 5 and 12. The essence of sections 5 and 12 is that we are being asked to give the government and some Crown corporations the power to begin playing in perhaps the highest-risk market that exists on the surface of the earth. That is the market of commodity derivatives.

As you'll know, hon. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty when I am asked to give this government permission to spend a dollar of public money. But this bill asks us to give permission to the government to begin to engage in the activity of entering into commodity derivatives. That is, to take the dollar which the taxpayer gives to government -- which I have a hard time permitting -- and allow the government to start playing with it in a way that has, frankly, brought some of the world's most senior and longest-standing financial institutions to the point of bankruptcy. These are institutions like Barings bank that have, inside the institution, people who have made their life's work understanding how to play in the business of futures contracts and auctions and exchange agreements and derivative transactions. And even they haven't been able to do it right. I have real concern about giving this government, which, to quote an old saw, is currently being run by a group of people who would have trouble operating a lemonade stand. . . . I have real trouble giving that group the ability to trade in commodity derivatives.

[1915]

As I read section 79.3, which is part of the package of amendments proposed here, Crown corporations would be able to enter into commodity derivatives, which creates the spectre of B.C. Ferries, a corporation not known anywhere for its wise decision-making, having the power to enter into bulk-fuel derivative contracts. I think the risk in that is too high for my money.

When we move from section 5 to section 12, we see that B.C. Hydro is going to have the ability to enter into what I guess, for want of a better term, are called electricity derivatives. I'm told that electricity markets are, of all the volatile commodity markets that exist, perhaps the most volatile. I seriously wonder whether British Columbians are ready for the associated risks and potential losses that come with electricity derivatives.

Clearly there are lots of questions that will need to be discussed here. These are questions that are going to be pursued in committee stage debate. I think the opposition and the public need to know what kind of oversight mechanisms will be put in place; what kinds of risk management tools will be utilized; what types of volumes of transactions we are looking at; what the cap is, if any, on the exposure of the government of British Columbia; and what the government foresees as the amount of savings that can be gained here vis-à-vis the offsetting risk.

There are times and places when I could say: "Gee, if we get answers to those questions, if the answers are satisfactory, then we'll go along with the government on this one." This is not one of those times or places. I need not go into any more detail about my concern with respect to this government's ability to manage itself in a way which is fiscally prudent. This bill gives the government an opportunity to go off on a frolic of its own and expose the taxpayers of British Columbia to a level of risk which, I think, is not only unnecessary; it is unwise. So when I look at the provisions of this bill that deal with the derivative transactions that we're talking about in light of the bill as a whole, I find that I am unable to support the bill. I think that the commodity derivative parts of this bill are, if not a bomb, a poison pill that infects the bill to such an extent that although there are some good things in it, make this a bill which should be opposed.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize, for closing remarks, the Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has said some good things about some parts of the bill and some other things that I disagree with, with respect to other parts of the bill. I don't think it would be useful for me to go over those issues. I think they will be ironed out in the committee stage of this bill. We all have different experiences. I thought I was a business person before I came here, and I thought I knew how to run my law practice with several employees. We'll deal with those issues when those matters are dealt with in section-by-section debate.

[ Page 13072 ]

[1920]

Bill 62, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 66.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

These amendments include changes to the Court of Appeal Act to enable greater efficiency and more effective use of resources by the court. One such amendment will add a new section to ensure that matters before the court can be dealt with in a timely manner when a justice retires, resigns or otherwise leaves office. Another amendment to the Court of Appeal Act will enable one justice to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with a stay of proceedings order, rather than requiring the decision to be made by a panel of three justices.

Bill 66 also makes a number of streamlining amendments to the Estate Administration Act. Most notably, a new section is added to the act to provide authority for executors and administrators, including the public trustee, to sell specific bequests when the beneficiary cannot be found or refuses to accept the bequest. This will assist in settling estates in this circumstance more efficiently and with less cost.

Another amendment in this bill adds a new section to the Evidence Act to broaden the class of police officers who are commissioners for taking affidavits as part of the powers and duties of their office. Currently only constables over the rank of corporal may take affidavits. This amendment will assist in making affidavit-taking by police administratively more efficient and should particularly assist small police departments where high-rank constables may not always be readily available.

This bill makes two amendments to the Interpretation Act that will assist in making the text of acts and regulations easier to read. The first amendment will enable explanatory notes to be added to the text of acts and regulations to explain cross-references. The second amendment will allow references to the title of a ministry or minister to be updated by regulation if that title changes.

Bill 66 also amends the Motion Picture Act to provide the means for making it easier for motion picture distributors to demonstrate that a motion picture and its copies have been approved by the director of film classification. Rather than having to physically attach evidence of that approval to the motion picture in the form of bands, the amendment will enable a less costly and more adaptable method of demonstrating approval to be developed in consultation with motion picture distributors.

Lastly, the streamlining amendments in this bill also eliminate two statutes that are no longer necessary. The Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act is repealed because it duplicates provisions in the federal Competition Act. The Refugee Settlement Act is repealed because refugee services are now provided under a 1998 agreement between Canada and British Columbia.

In addition to the streamlining amendments that I have described, the bill also amends a number of acts to eliminate anomalous references to various types of registered mail, given that Canada Post has this year created a single registered mail service.

Finally, Bill 66 also amends a number of statutes to correct minor errors made in putting together the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1996.

Hon. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on this matter.

[1925]

I think section 2, which will give a single judge of the Court of Appeal the express power to dismiss the appeal of an appellant who fails to comply with certain procedural orders, probably, as much as anything, clarifies an uncertainty with respect to the jurisdiction of single judges at that court. Given that the orders in question are orders that would be made by a single judge, it's also a good thing that that judge, or a judge, will now have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with such orders.

The changes being made to the Interpretation Act are probably of interest only to those who are particularly interested in how statutes are drafted. We'll pursue them during committee stage debate to see how they work and how the provisions of the Municipal Act, which I think are connected to the same general issue, also work.

I would say that the Motion Picture Act amendment may be the one section in this bill that does in fact carry with it the promise of shortening an inch or two worth of red tape, by providing what looks to be a much more efficient mechanism for certifying the approval of a motion picture.

I always am happy to stand and applaud the government when it repeals a statute that is no longer of any use, and from the explanations I've been given in respect of the Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act and the Refugee Settlement Act, this would appear to be an occasion on which I should do that. I think that we'll need to just explore the details of those two aspects of this bill for a minute or two in committee stage debate.

The balance of this bill seems to me to be, as the Attorney General has said, really a matter of correcting some drafting errors -- some errors made in the 1996 revision process. Taken as a whole, I think the bill commends itself as being worthy of support, and we will give it our support.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General for closing remarks.

[ Page 13073 ]

Motion approved.

[1930]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 69.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

This act contains amendments to a number of statutes administered both by the Ministry of Education and by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. The majority of these amendments have been developed as part of the Business Task Force streamlining initiative. One of the activities of that task force in the area of legislation has been housekeeping changes required to maintain the body of provincial legislation in good order. Most of the amendments contained in the Education Statutes Amendment Act fall into this category. They correct minor errors; they update legislation; they repeal unused provisions. Other amendments contained in the act incorporate minor changes that will streamline the processes for public post-secondary institutions and for school boards.

It also contains some substantive amendments that are not part of the streamlining initiative. In total, this bill, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, amends eight statutes. I'll just go through the changes in order.

First, the Architects (Landscape) Act. The amendment to this act revises the objects of the British Columbia Society of Landscape Architects, as requested by the board of directors of the society. The society believes that their objects should reflect their commitment to public health, safety and welfare as it pertains to the practice of landscape architecture. The new objects contained in these amendments will more accurately represent what the society is seeking to achieve.

The second statute is the College and Institute Act. The amendments to this act repeal the requirement for the board of a college, university college or institute to establish a program advisory committee consisting of faculty, administrators and students. Back in 1994, amendments to the College and Institute Act required each college, university college and institute to establish an educational council, which replaced the program advisory committee. Hence the requirement for the program advisory committee is not necessary.

The amendments to the College and Institute Act also repeal provisions relating to collective bargaining. These provisions were enacted back in 1977, but they were never actually proclaimed and brought into force. Those provisions were included to provide college faculty with the option of pursuing a professional route for labour relations rather than a trade union route. The provisions were never brought into force since college faculties chose to unionize.

The third act is the Independent School Act. The amendment allows the inspector of independent schools to issue teaching certificates if applicants meet guidelines developed by the independent school teacher certification committee, without having to first consult the committee. The office of the inspector of independent schools receives over 200 applications for independent school teaching certificates a year. All of these requests, under the current wording of the act, must be reviewed by the independent school teacher certification committee. The process of reviewing each request by a committee is time-consuming and cumbersome, and this amendment allows the process to be streamlined. It permits the inspector to issue independent school teaching certificates where an applicant has met guidelines developed by the committee, or to refer the occasional applicant to the committee when a review of the applicant's qualifications requires more detailed consideration. This certification is then ratified by the certification committee at the first meeting following the issuing of certificates.

The Institute of Technology Act amendments truly may be characterized as housekeeping. The first amendment replaces the word "property" with the words "land or buildings" in the provision that allows BCIT to acquire or dispose of property with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Back in 1994, amendments to the Institute of Technology Act changed the word "land" to "property," with the result that currently the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has to approve of the acquisition and disposal of personal property -- for example, computers and library books.

With these amendments, the change to "land or buildings" will restore the original intent of the section and be consistent with the wording of the College and Institute Act. The amendments to the Institute of Technology Act will also update the provision relating to program advisory committees to reflect the fact that the program advisory committee in respect of technology programs and the program advisory committee in respect of vocational programs have been replaced by advisory committees for each program area, with substantial representation from relevant industry.

[1935]

The fifth piece of legislation is the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. The amendments to that act will exempt Canadian public post-secondary institutions from the requirement to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission in order to provide training in B.C. The whole purpose of registering with the commission was to provide consumer protection to students. B.C. students are not put at risk by the exemption of Canadian public post-secondary institutions. B.C. public post-secondary institutions are already excluded from registering with the commission. This amendment will ensure consistent treatment of all public universities and brings B.C. in line with other provinces that do not require out-of-province universities to register as private post-secondary education institutions.

Sixth is the Royal Roads University Act. The amendment to the Royal Roads University Act adds section 49 to the list of

[ Page 13074 ]

The amendments to the Royal Roads University Act also delete the reference to "the regulations" in section 18(1), since the Royal Roads University Act does not provide authority to enact regulations.

Seventh, the Technical University of British Columbia Act. The amendment to the Technical University of British Columbia Act deletes the reference "or the regulations" in section 18(1) of the act, since the Technical University of British Columbia Act, like the Royal Roads University Act, does not provide authority to enact regulations.

Finally, the School Act. These are a little more extensive. Through the amendments to the School Act contained in this act, school boards will be able to conduct their meetings through means such as videoconferencing, telephone and other electronic technology. This will significantly reduce the cost to school boards of conducting meetings, especially in those districts where representative communities are many miles apart. It will also enable school trustees to attend meetings where they would otherwise not be able to due to adverse conditions or other emergencies. Currently, as a point of interest, the Francophone Education Authority has similar powers.

There is also a provision respecting the Francophone Education Authority. On July 1 the FEA's jurisdiction expands to the whole of the province; therefore there will no longer be a need for delegate members. This ensures local involvement in decision-making by the authority. So the Education Statutes Amendment Act removes the references to delegate members from the School Act. The delegate member provision only pertains to francophone governance. In other public school districts, this function is performed at the school level by parent advisory councils. Parent advisory councils will now perform an advisory function for francophone schools in the same manner as in other schools in British Columbia.

Removal of the provision for delegate members, however, necessitates amendments to the School Act for the election provisions for directors of the Francophone Education Authority. Unlike school board trustees, directors of the Francophone Education Authority are elected by a mail-in ballot. The timing of these elections was based on the date of the annual delegate members' meeting. The term of office of directors was also based on the date of the annual delegate members' meeting. Since there is no longer going to be an annual delegate members' meeting, new provisions are going to be made, and these provisions mirror, in general terms, the provisions for school board trustees.

[1940]

There are presently just two schools in British Columbia on year-round single-track schedules: one up in Williams Lake, Glendale Elementary; and Kanaka Creek Elementary in Maple Ridge. There are no multi-track year-round schools in B.C. right now. "Single-track" means school scheduling in which all students follow the same schedule throughout the year, with all the students being either in-session or on vacation. In a multi-track year-round school, students can be divided into three or four or five cohorts, with one cohort on vacation while the others are in session. Every three weeks, just for example, the vacationing cohort returns to school and one of the other in-session cohorts takes a break.

I want to make it clear that these amendments are enabling only. They do not impose year-round schooling on school boards. Before a school board can implement year-round schooling, it must adopt a local school calendar for one or more schools in its district. In order to adopt the local calendar, the board must seek and obtain the approval of parents of the students enrolled in the school, as well as the approval, through their union, of the employees assigned to that school.

Finally, the amendments in the Education Statutes Amendment Act will help to protect the safety of children where there has been a report of child abuse or neglect to the Ministry for Children and Families, by explicitly removing the report or information relating to that report from a child's school record as defined in the School Act. Parents and students will continue to have access to their student record through the School Act. If parents wish to access additional information, including that pertaining to a report of abuse, they may seek to do so through a freedom-of-information request. The school board will now have the option not to release information relating to a report to the Ministry for Children and Families where it may threaten someone's health or safety or interfere with a criminal investigation.

In summary, the Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, contains a number of amendments to eight statutes administered by two ministers, relating to the kindergarten-to-grade-12 and post-secondary education systems as well as to landscape architects. Some of the amendments are substantive in nature. The majority are part of the Business Task Force streamlining initiative and contribute to maintaining provincial legislation in good order and streamlining processes for public institutions and school boards.

J. Weisbeck: It would be my responsibility to deal with the acts that are under the jurisdiction of post-secondary education, as well as the Architects (Landscape) Act: the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Private Post-Secondary Education Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the Technical University of B.C. Act.

My comments are very brief. I must thank the minister for doing a great job of explaining these amendments. It certainly has answered a number of our questions. The consultations that I've had with the people involved with these various institutions didn't seem to indicate a lot of concerns, but I will reserve my right in committee stage to ask a few questions on the areas where we do have some concerns. With that, my colleague will take the rest. . . .

G. Hogg: I've taken the time to go through the. . .

[ Page 13075 ]

G. Hogg: Thank you very much. Now I have another hon. minister coming to support and assist me in all of these fine things. Richmond-Steveston is that fellow from?

Interjections.

G. Hogg: The hockey game was 4-2 for Dallas and my team scored three points in the pool that I hold, which should hold me in first place in the pool. Not relevant. Sorry, hon. Speaker.

[1945]

With respect to the School Act, the issues which allow us to move into the electronic age are wonderful. There will be cost savings associated with that and reductions in the bureaucracy associated with that. The Francophone Education Authority amendment I see as being simply something that addresses the principle of bringing it in line with the direction which has been proposed and espoused for some time. The notion of giving greater authority to the school districts to allow for year-round schooling, as has been tested on a single track in two schools at this point in time, I think is a very positive one. It allows for the type of flexibility that should exist. It allows schools to make better use of their buildings and for districts to make better use of them and all of the resources that go with them.

At this point in time, I see the sections dealing with the School Act and with the Independent School Act as being sections which do provide greater simplicity, which do delegate greater autonomy to the school districts to move us into the electronic age and allow us to respond more effectively to that. I think there are cost savings generated within that. So the principles that are espoused within this are principles which I can support and will look forward to dealing with in greater detail at the committee stage.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's my pleasant duty to close a short and very collegial debate by moving second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 65.

LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

First, the bill provides authority for the Workers Compensation Board to increase the amount paid to cover the funeral expenses when a worker is killed on the job. The current expenses specified in the act have not kept up with the increasing costs for a funeral, and the difference must now be paid by the family of the deceased. When this type of tragedy occurs, it is only right that the workers compensation system should provide sufficient funds to the worker's family to cover the costs of a respectful funeral. Indeed, the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation recommended that the reimbursement for funeral expenses be increased to reflect the costs of a funeral today. This amendment, of course, simply provides the authority to make this increase happen.

[1950]

For over two years the board has been working on a new system that reflects the modern economy -- a system which will group like employers, which will provide more flexibility to accommodate industry change and which will be fairer and more equitable in calculating assessment rates. Further, changes to the act give the Workers Compensation Board broad discretion to deal with existing accounts, as it considers advisable, to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. I would note that the board has been consulting with business and with workers throughout the process. The framework established by this amendment will allow the Workers Compensation Board to work with business and workers to implement the new system early in 2000.

Third, this bill clarifies that the Workers Compensation Board will retain authority to adopt other provincial standards and legislation for the purpose of establishing workplace

[ Page 13076 ]

The amendment, I'm happy to note, is consistent with current practice. It will thus protect workers, since the Workers Compensation Board can continue enforcing workplace safety regulations that are based on other provincial standards, such as the B.C. Fire Code or the B.C. Building Code. By providing authority to adopt existing standards, the amendment also reduces red tape for business, since it avoids having to create additional codes and rules for businesses.

Those are the three minor amendments, Madam Speaker. I want to turn now to the changes to the Employment Standards Act -- what I refer to as the second broad section of the bill. These changes give the director of employment standards, first, the ability to recover unpaid wages from a talent agency in the same way in which he would be able to recover wages from a direct employer. A number of complaints have been received by the employment standards branch and the Better Business Bureau regarding talent agents that are not paying actors. This change will provide clear authority for the director to address these complaints. This will, in turn, provide greater protection for performers working in B.C. Staff from the Ministry of Labour have been working very closely with talent agents, and with other industry groups, and there has been a general agreement from the entertainment industry that the director should be able to recover unpaid wages from talent agencies as well.

Finally, several streamlining initiatives are being made under three other provincial statutes. This is the third section, as I refer to it. First, the Hairdressers Act is amended, primarily to clarify that hairdressers, as well as barbers, may cut hair as a primary function of their profession. I see there's one member, at least, across the way, who is shaking his locks at me to show that this matters to him. As we all know, hairdressers have long been in the business of cutting hair. This comes as no surprise to any of us. This amendment, however, corrects an oversight in the legislation -- in fact, the legislation didn't allow them to do that. Therefore we correct that oversight in the legislation. The change is also consistent with recent court decisions on this issue. At the same time, the name of the act is being updated from the Hairdressers Act to the Cosmetologists Act, and references to hairdressers are changed to cosmetologists throughout the act. This reflects the fact that, in addition to hairdressing, the profession also performs other services, such as facials, relaxation massages and manicures. Further, cosmetologists perform pedicures, and the act is being amended to reflect this as well.

[1955]

This bill also makes two other minor streamlining amendments in the provincial labour statutes. First, the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act is amended to remove the requirement for contractors and subcontractors to provide statutory declarations to the tendering agency on a fair-wage project. This removes an unnecessary requirement, since the information in the statutory declaration can be accessed through other required records provided for in the legislation. Second, the obsolete Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act, which was passed in 1975, is repealed. This centre was never created, and there is no intent to do so at this time.

Having said those things, I would move second reading.

K. Krueger: On behalf of the official opposition, in my capacity as Labour critic it falls to me to respond to the minister's second reading statement with regard to Bill 65, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. I have to admit that this act, on the face of it and even on further checking, seems pretty innocuous to me. If there's a devil in this act, he must be in the details, and I haven't found him there either, although the regulations certainly will provide further detail. We'll trust that the government doesn't let the devil intrude there either.

One of the questions that comes to mind as one peruses the act is: does this act actually take red tape away, as it obviously sets out to do in some areas, or does it add red tape? There's the potential for that in some areas, and of course we want the government to be mindful that we'll be watching for that -- that that's a problem to the economy of B.C. We see red tape as one of the three big guns that have hurt our economy, and we don't want to see more red tape. So as I say, we'll be watchful for that.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Cosmetology -- I'm not sure what John De Cicco, my barber, will think of being called a cosmetologist. I think he might slap me upside the head if I try it, but we'll probably not mention the term to John. How can you argue with an act that starts out by saying: "This Act does not prevent a person qualified as a cosmetologist under the Cosmetologists Act from engaging in the occupation of cosmetology"? Well, I hope it doesn't. If it did, we'd be looking for some amendments.

But I confess I'm at a bit of a disadvantage right off the bat with this act, and I freely concede that, in that the minister has this brilliant head of white hair -- thick and lush and full -- and he's dealing with a prematurely balding critic on this side of the House. So I feel I have to make the humbling confession right off that I'm a bit at his mercy when it comes to the art of cosmetology. I obviously lost out some years ago.

[2000]

[ Page 13077 ]

That's the same concern, frankly, with the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, where we're hoping that unnecessary red tape won't appear. We're hoping that this act isn't about the creation of more red tape through regulations. We're hoping that the government is fulfilling its commitment to subject any of its proposed new regulations and legislation to the business lens, as the Finance minister has termed it. We'll be looking for that assurance as we work through the committee stage of this debate.

But as I say, we don't see a whole lot that's controversial in it. In the Cosmetologists Act changes. . . . Looking at the definition of cosmetologist, I see that it includes people who trim toenail cuticles and clean, trim, shape and polish toenails of a person for enhancement only. Well, whatever they're being paid, it's not enough, in my opinion, and more power to them, because I don't particularly care for toes; never have. But looking on to subsection (d), apparently cosmetologists are also blessed with the ability to "enhance the attractiveness of the scalp, face, neck, arms, chest and feet of a person." I could certainly use some assistance in that regard, and more power to these cosmetologists. Where do I find these folks? As I progress through my middle forties, I find myself suffering from the onset of dresser disorder: the tendency for the chest to want to fall into the drawers. If cosmetologists can help us in that regard, then more power to them.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Attorney General critic suggests that we're close to wrapping up these cosmetology remarks, and I think he's right.

I was concerned about some of the provisions under the new section 9. I'll ask the minister for some explanation in committee with regard to a person being obliged not to become, or even be, engaged in the study of cosmetology unless he or she has applied to the board and obtained registration as a student. It sounds a little bit Big Brotherish to me, but subsection (2) goes on to clarify the criteria, and that sounds okay. We'll want a little bit of explanation there, and of course the levying of a fee will be an issue to those people who have to pay the fee. We hope that again, the regulations have people's means to pay in mind.

Many of these other regulations sound a lot like customer service to us. It's perfectly reasonable to ensure that customers are aware if students, rather than fully qualified people, are working on their hair and so on, because there's that aspect of being a guinea pig. If you're a willing guinea pig, that's great, but a person really ought to know.

I wonder about the provisions which prohibit anyone from being both a cosmetologist/hairdresser and a teacher of cosmetology and hairdressing. It seems to me that that might create problems for small business -- especially small business in the smaller communities around the province -- where a person might be prohibited from operating a cosmetology studio while also practising the craft. I hope, again, that the business lens has been applied there and that problems aren't going to be created for small business, particularly for small communities in the Interior where it might not be always feasible to have separate buildings for those functions.

[2005]

Considering those aspects and with that overarching concern that we avoid creating more red tape in this province if at all possible, there aren't a whole lot of concerns with the changes concerning cosmetologists and the Employment Standards Act. It would be somewhat Monty Pythonish in a lot of small communities to carry this regulation against having the instruction and practice of cosmetology in the same building too far, and we hope, obviously, that that won't be the case.

Looking at section 27, which deals with repeal of a section in the Skills Development and Fair Wage Act, it appears to be red-tape reduction, and we as B.C. Liberals and the official opposition are always in favour of that. This does look to have been an onerous regulation. If a lesson has been learned, that's good; and we hope to progress from there, rather than reverting time and again to the creation of red tape.

That deals with kind of the lighthearted aspect of my response to this bill, and then there's the deadly serious aspect, which pertains to the Workers Compensation Act and the issues there. Obviously change is required, and we applaud the government for being willing to make positive change.

The Royal Commission on Workers Compensation received somewhat conflicting input from individuals who presented to it and from employers versus labour groups. I believe the consensus of the employer groups was that receipts should be provided for funeral expenses and that there should be a maximum of perhaps $5,000 for funeral expenses. The consensus of the labour groups was that receipts should not be required and that the range should be up to more like $9,000.

The opposition has done some research into the costs of funerals. Certainly a reasonable funeral can be provided for $5,000, and indeed the Veterans Affairs department and others have a smaller sum than that that they provide in the event of paying for a funeral. But this is an issue that one hardly wants to see the government take too hard a line on with people in the terrible position of having lost a worker in a workplace-related death.

This question of whether all receipts should be provided or not is a question that I hope the cabinet will look at with

[ Page 13078 ]

[2010]

With regard to the provisions for the accident fund, certainly the opposition supports the maintenance of the accident fund. This is why it's there. No worker who dies on the job should leave an impoverished family or a family who will be impoverished by the expenses of dealing with the funeral and with the loss of income and the consequences that flow from them.

With regard to the classification of industries, more power to this initiative. In fact, I'm not sure that it's going to break the classifications down closely enough. When I see Class 1, "Primary resource," I've been hoping that the government will actually break down primary resource industries. For example, the top-of-mind example to me is Highland Valley Copper, which has an exemplary record in the mining industry and receives awards every year for its expertise in loss prevention and safety initiatives; yet it pays the same assessment rate as other mines. I'd very much like to see an assessment system that reflects positive performance in preventing accidents and preventing injuries.

As I say, on behalf of the official opposition, more power to a system that breaks down between industries and between loss experiences within industries. Those things being said, we'll deal with the specifics at committee stage. Generally, we feel supportive of this act. We don't see reason to oppose this act, and we intend to vote in favour of Bill 65.

The Speaker: For closing remarks, I recognize the Minister of Labour.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll be very, very brief and simply say that I want to thank the member for his thoughtful, albeit quick, overview of the legislation. I think he has indeed pointed to the principal areas of the thing, in which we take some pride.

It's also been quite legitimately said that there are questions that remain. I look forward to dealing with those questions in third reading. I'm confident that his particular concerns about red tape and other matters are addressed in the legislation, and I look forward to that debate during third reading.

Again, I thank him for his comments, and with that hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 65, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 60 be read a second time now.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

Almost 80 percent of the province's firefighters are volunteers. These volunteers, along with other firefighters, are often active in many different volunteer activities in their communities. Because of these time demands, it is becoming more difficult to recruit individuals into a volunteer fire department. The long-service medal and the medal of bravery provide recognition for those volunteers who signed up and stayed with the service, despite family, work and other commitments.

[2015]

There are only a few organizations that ask individuals to place their lives on the line to protect others. Legislative recognition of these two medals demonstrates a high regard for the courage and dedication to the cause of fire and life safety shown by the B.C. fire service.

Hon. Speaker, I ask that all members lend their support to this important piece of legislation.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, it's a very good thing to see recognition for the work that is done by men and women who work in the fire departments throughout our communities. There is no doubt that communities have always recognized that people working in the public safety areas, especially in the fire departments, have to be recognized in the most admirable way for the contribution that they make to their communities by putting their lives at risk time after time after time. Of course, municipalities have recognized their contribution, particularly through making sure not only that firefighters are given the very best training opportunities available but also

[ Page 13079 ]

At the same time, I had hoped that the minister would recognize that this is only one way of giving recognition to these firefighters. As I said before, municipal authorities have always supported fire departments and workers by assuring first-class, up-to-date equipment. Unfortunately, through the actions of this same minister, who has recently cut grants again to these same municipal jurisdictions, she has not enabled many municipal authorities to indeed continue to work on that basis -- of the best for these firefighters. I hope that in the future, when the minister is looking for an opportunity to further express the support of the provincial government for firefighters throughout British Columbia, be they professional or volunteer, she will at least consider that some funding has to come back to municipalities in order to provide the fire departments with the equipment that they need to fight fires. If that happens in the future, then I think we'd be doing a little bit more. . . . This is a very important gesture, but I believe it is not enough to recognize the contribution of firefighters in British Columbia.

I conclude with these remarks, Madam Speaker.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm delighted to just offer a few comments in support of this particular bill, because I think it is indeed an important one.

[2020]

I had no idea, frankly, what this was about until I walked in and saw about 50 people in the small town of Ladysmith all receiving long-service awards as volunteer firefighters. I had no idea that so many people in that community had made that commitment to community -- that dedication -- their own mission. Listening to those people, many of whom I knew, but many of whom I didn't know were volunteer firefighters. . . . I didn't know that, even though I knew them. Well, somehow they kept it a bit of a secret, I guess. I was touched deeply to discover the kind of work they had done quietly, without recognition, for lo those many years -- in some cases, up to 40 years. It's a cliché, but it's true: these are people who literally do put their lives on the line.

It's one of those things that I think all of us who tend to hide in the safety of cities, where we have this marvellous infrastructure in place and we assume everything is taken care of, and life goes on and we don't have to worry about those kinds of things. . . . When we pause to reflect, consider that our safety and our comfort depends to a huge degree on the work done by those people -- as I say, much of the time without recognition, without thanks, without appreciation.

That was an epiphany-like experience for me. It happened about six or seven years ago. I haven't forgotten it; it was wonderfully educational; it was wonderfully uplifting. I think about what this bill does -- albeit it's pretty straightforward; it's not a huge change in legislative practice or anything -- to simply recognize the good work done by our fellow citizens, those women and those men who make that sacrifice of their time and their energy and their ability to protect the public interest. I think we ought to recognize them. It's long overdue, and I'm delighted that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is bringing forward this legislation. I'm sure that everybody in this chamber will be pleased to support it, as I have.

B. Barisoff: As a volunteer firefighter who has got a 25-year service medal for the community of Oliver, I would congratulate the minister on the fact of going down this road of getting pins for that. We have medals for that particular award. We had a member in our fire department -- who, unfortunately, passed away just last year -- who had over 50 years of volunteer service. The member was Charlie Brown. He was probably one of the epitomes of the volunteer fire departments across British Columbia. I think it's only appropriate that I mention his name at this point in time, because he did a lot for volunteerism in the community of Oliver.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a pleasure to stand this evening in support of Bill 60. The community I live in is Maple Ridge. The communities I represent politically, provincially, from Mission-Kent have all-volunteer firefighters.

My only real taste of experiencing some of what these volunteer firefighters go through on virtually a daily basis across British Columbia happened about ten years ago, just three days before Christmas. My wife and I were enjoying a cup of coffee in the morning, when our back door burst open, our neighbour threw her photo albums on the floor and said: "My God -- my house is on fire!" It didn't take us long to get into our boots and coats and run next door through the bush to my neighbour's home. We got there at the same time the first pumper truck with the volunteers from the Maple Ridge hall No. 2 showed up. We pitched in as neighbours, supported our neighbour who was in jeopardy and supported the volunteer firefighters through the long day of fighting a very, very difficult fire in a log home. The result, at the end of the day, is that my neighbour's house stands to this day. They're living there. They're a comfortable family, and they're there only because of the dedicated efforts of the volunteer firefighters in our community -- who are also our neighbours.

[2025]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs to close debate.

Hon. J. Kwan: I thank all the members for their comments. Indeed, volunteer firefighters are an important service

[ Page 13080 ]

The long-service medal for B.C. firefighters was initiated by the fire commissioner in 1980 with the support of the Attorney General. The medal recognizes fire service members who have served 25 years in British Columbia. The medal of bravery was also created by the fire commissioner in 1980. A bravery awards committee, established by the fire commissioner, reviews the applications and makes recommendations. Only two of these provincial bravery medals have been awarded for acts of courage beyond that expected of a firefighter in the normal course of his or her duty.

The B.C. fire service is made up of representatives from three main organizations. They are the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association of B.C. There are some 9,600 volunteer firefighters in the province. Their contributions to our communities are significant. This request for the amendment in the legislation is one that they have requested. They fully support it. It is also supported by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, who really did some of the work to initiate this piece of legislation as well.

I welcome all of the comments in the House from every member. I think this is one of the few occasions -- although I look forward to other occasions -- where all members of the House stand in support of a piece of legislation that the government has introduced. I'm delighted that we do have that support from around the House. I'm delighted that we stand in unity to show our appreciation and our gratitude for all the volunteer firefighters in our province. I also thank the members of the volunteer firefighters service, in terms of their families, for their commitment. It is often because of that commitment and that voluntarism and that sense of community that brings the kinds of services and that builds the communities that we live in and builds the province that we all share. . . .

I'm delighted that this is a motion that we have now put on the floor for debate. I move, again, that Bill 60, intituled Fire Services Amendment Act, 1999, be read for the second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 60, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I seek your guidance. I believe we want to call the summary of the estimates in Committee A. Is that a simple motion, as straightforward as it seems?

The Speaker: Yes, exactly, you call whichever one you'd like to call.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would call the summary, then, of the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: I agree with my colleagues across the way. We'll begin with Agriculture, if we may.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Interjection.

The Speaker: We do it in reverse order at this stage, so it would be the opposition critic.

B. Barisoff: The minister gets to speak after me this time. Normally, I get to speak after him.

I'd like to say that we spent in the neighbourhood of a little over six hours debating the Agriculture estimates for the province. We covered the marketing boards and the agricultural land commission. We covered crop insurance. We covered the effects of crop insurance on the apple growers and the grain growers. We covered farm assistance and the whole farm program, the different things that the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, the B.C. food processing industry, the agricultural land reserve, the B.C. cattle inspection and beef tariffs. . . . We covered a lot of areas in the Ministry of Agriculture. I must say that we touched on a lot of different items, and we got a lot of answers for the different farming groups of the province of British Columbia.

[2030]

With that, I'd like to thank the minister's staff. They have indicated to me that there was a number of questions that we had in our ministry briefing that they would be answering for us -- questions that I'll have sent on to the ministry. I know that the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture have done a fine job in those areas. They have always answered questions that I've had. I will wait and hear from the minister now to close debate on the estimates. I would hope that, in the future, we create as high a profile for the growers of British Columbia as we possibly can.

Hon. C. Evans: I am thrilled to rise to close the estimates and wrap up the process that we went through this year. I thank the honourable critic for his comments. I just think there should be a thousand people in this room; everybody should be jammed in here to hear the wonderful story that is agriculture. I thank the technology brought in here by the previous Social Credit government so that it's on television, so the folks at home can see us talking about this miracle that is the agriculture industry in the economy of British Columbia.

You know, the whole world is going down the tank as commodity prices crash: coal's down, copper's down, lead's

[ Page 13081 ]

Everybody bemoans the passing of the family farm. In fact, while the Canadian agricultural industry dropped 9 percent this year, British Columbia increased. We were the third-fastest-growing province in the country, while the country went down. And why is that, hon. members? You know the answer, because I've been trying to tell you in years past. The rest of the country is engaged in the race to the bottom: the cheapest grain, the cheapest hogs, the cheapest apples. In British Columbia, the producers are geniuses. They looked at GATT and NAFTA and the Free Trade Agreement, and they said: "We probably won't do this as cheaply as Chile. We're probably not going to be able to produce apple juice as cheaply as China." They produce it for $20 a tonne; here in British Columbia the average price is $200. The producers looked at it and said: "Maybe we'd better not try to produce the cheapest food with the lowest cost and the highest amount of sprays on it and the most fertilizer and all that kind of stuff. Maybe we'd better grow the stuff the people actually want to buy, and then they'll pay us a better price." We moved into ginseng, we moved into floriculture, we moved into organics. We're growing apples that people want to buy. We moved grapes from the bottom end -- you know, that $5-a-gallon-jug junk that we used to grow -- to the high-quality VQA wines that the world wants to buy.

I know I have to wrap this up pretty quick, hon. Speaker, but estimates is our chance to tell the story. They don't ask questions in question period. The press doesn't care. This is our chance. It's 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock at night; we get to put agriculture on TV, and it's our one shot.

[2035]

The last thing I want to say is: hon. critic, sometimes it is necessary for the opposition and the government to work together. It is necessary for us to work together to defend British Columbia, and on July 8 this province is going to go and fight with the rest of the country for our share of the safety net system. For all the years of the history of Canada, the safety net system -- in other words, crop insurance and NISA and the stuff that puts a floor, a net, under agriculture -- has all been skewed for grain. It's all been aimed at the Prairies, and it's time -- now that we've diversified our economy -- that we get our fair share of Canada's funding. And as the member of the government side that's going to go fight for British Columbia, I want to officially here and on television invite the opposition member to accompany me to Saskatchewan and stand up for British Columbia and see if we can't come back with a better share of what Canada gives agriculture for the B.C. producers.

With that I'd like to say thank you. In spite of the fact that, of course, they only ever let me do it at 20 minutes to nine at night, thank you for letting me talk about my favourite subject here in the Legislature.

Hon. D. Lovick: I now call summary of the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

We talked about a number of individual sectors within the whole range of responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries. The shellfish sector -- the government had made an announcement on November 24 to embark on a shellfish strategy. That is an effort that we support, and hopefully between the Minister of Fisheries and BCAL and the Minister of Environment that initiative can be brought to fruition, in terms of the implementation.

[2040]

We talked about the recreational fishing sector and the initiatives that the government has taken there. Certainly there are some positive possibilities there for expansion of the freshwater fishery. And we support the efforts in that regard.

We talked about some of the projects that Fisheries Renewal is involved in and some of the issues revolving

[ Page 13082 ]

The last item that I'm going to mention is that we talked about federal-provincial relationships -- certainly a big issue for the provincial government and for our commercial fishermen, in particular, but also for our sport fishermen. Again, I encourage the minister to work together with the federal government, as I indicated to the minister in our estimates discussion. I think that the laying down of arms, if you will, which has occurred in recent months between the provincial government and the federal government is a good thing, and that the provincial government needs to work hard -- as does the federal government -- at trying to improve that relationship for the benefit of the fishing sector in British Columbia. So thanks for the opportunity to give this summary of our estimates debate.

Hon. D. Streifel: It was a bit of a pleasure this year to go through estimates -- both a pleasure in some respects and a bit of a disappointment. I think we went through the estimates in a very rational and businesslike manner. We addressed a lot of topics, as the hon. critic points out.

In a short response specifically for the member, I signed off a note today from Fisheries Renewal B.C. to the member. Answers to some of the questions he asked are coming in writing; it's on its way. I intend to follow up the other questions that we couldn't deal with on the floor in committee with written responses. That was the positive side of the estimates.

What I felt was lacking -- and I have to be straight enough to say it -- was a more in-depth exposure or view or examination of the plight of the coast of British Columbia as a result of being held off from an abundant resource for almost the third season in a row, with little or no federal government support. In the last few days again we read in the paper the rhetoric that comes from the federal government: they don't understand British Columbia's position; they don't know what British Columbia wants; they don't know what we're bringing to the table.

I take this opportunity, as we close the debates in the examination of my estimates, to again ask the opposition critic for support in delivering to the federal government what is really a well-known message in British Columbia on our position on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the plight of the coastal communities and coastal citizens and the devastation and destruction that they've been living under in the last few years. I believe that the commercial fishing industry on the coast can be viable and should be viable, with an abundant resource, but it takes some courage for the federal government, which has legislative control over the distribution of this resource, to act in a diligent, forthright and direct way on behalf of British Columbians as we allocate this resource.

The first allocation, beyond a doubt, has to be to conservation. There can be no question at all, in anybody's mind, that the first allocation of this resource has to be for conservation purposes. But the conservation doesn't stop at the American border, whether it's at the border with Alaska or whether it's at the border with Washington and Oregon. The Americans have to participate in the conservation of our resource if they are going to fish it.

[2045]

I want to take this opportunity to read into the record what are in essence the bullets and the clips that will become British Columbia's position as we move forward into this next round of Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. B.C. believes that these rules must be good for salmon in our fishing communities. I think that was the first premise that I spoke about.

B.C. wants to conserve endangered salmon and to selectively harvest salmon surplus to our spawning needs. That was our second premise. We can no longer go year after year after year, standing off our resource in the name of conservation while Alaskan fishermen overfish our resource. As long as the U.S. intercepts B.C. salmon, we have no assurance that enough can return to their spawning streams to ensure their optimum survival. The treaty must stop the U.S. from intercepting and overfishing B.C. salmon, which threatens the very survival of some of our species. Alaska must stop distant-ocean interceptions of B.C. salmon. Alaska must stop intercepting B.C.'s endangered coho. Alaska caught an estimated 800,000 pieces of our coho last year; our fishermen caught none. Alaska must reduce interceptions of B.C.'s chinook from last year's 64 percent to 50 percent as agreed to in the treaty. If Alaska continues to overharvest B.C. chinook, it will be the next endangered salmon species on the coast. Alaska must stop interceptions of B.C. sockeye. Washington must stop its interceptions of Fraser River sockeye and pink.

B.C. coastal communities must get fair compensation for past U.S. overfishing of B.C. salmon. Contrary to the treaty, over the past 15 years the U.S. has caught almost $1 billion worth of B.C. salmon. For this injustice, B.C. fishing communities must be sufficiently compensated, and U.S. interceptions and overfishing of B.C. salmon must stop. That's a very simple request.

Not only are those points put forward by the political government in British Columbia -- the NDP government and this minister; those are points that have been put forward by the Coastal Community Network, by the coastal community parliamentarians, by the fishing sectors, by all the interests in British Columbia, up to and including the salmon commissioners.

It's unfortunate. . . . My opposition critic asks us to down arms and work cooperatively with the federal government. I'm willing to do that. I've demonstrated over the past several months that that's been my public attitude. The Premier has demonstrated his public attitude to work cooperatively with the federal government on behalf of coastal communities. What we have is a circumstance whereby the federal government is ignoring all the advisers in British Columbia as we move forward to renew the fishing arrangements under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

When we started estimates in committee, the opposition critic asked me what my biggest disappointment was over this past year. I answered very forthrightly at the time what I felt was disappointing for me as a minister and for this ministry. In fact, the top-of-the-line disappointment is the inability of the federal government to come to the aid of British Columbia

[ Page 13083 ]

[2050]

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

Our estimates focused, to a large extent, on Bill 31 and Bill 46 and on the impact of the downloading of payments to municipal authorities. I'd like to touch on each of these three areas.

First of all, Bill 31 is seen by municipalities and municipal authorities as a way to find more control in dealing with issues that really are of importance to an individual community. Consultation with the UBCM has taken place in the past. When Bill 31 was delivered to the House and debated in the House, there was, in general, a feeling that it was a step -- not a great step, but a step -- forward towards that empowerment.

During the period since the introduction and when we started estimates, one thing has come to the forefront that has created some concern. Where the intent, I believe, was to empower community authorities, municipal authorities, there is quite visibly now some erosion of that power, in particular because of a section in the act. That is the section that deals with the counter-petitions. When an elected council that enters into a capital project where borrowing will have to be part of the financing of the project. . . . After deliberation in council, after public process and first and second reading -- public hearing -- if the council believes that the project is of such a nature that it is important to the community, they pass the proposal of the project. That council can then be challenged by a minority of 5 percent of people that are on the voters list. That 5 percent of community members can insist that that capital project will not go on until such time that the council has held a referendum, thereby petitioning the community at large whether this project should indeed go on or not.

Now, first of all, we should remember that this is an elected body that made a decision about what they as elected officials thought was of importance to their community. To see a minority group of 5 percent enabled to push for a referendum that the council either accepts as a recommendation -- and goes to referendum, with all the financial consequences -- or decides that they can't afford, and that project is dead. . . . I do not believe that that clause, in particular, is empowering a municipal authority. I really think all it has done is empower a minority; 95 percent of the community could well be in favour of the project. It is just one thing that I think Bill 31 has exposed, in not truly being a bill for the empowering of communities and giving communities the power of decision-making. It has been more a tool for small minority groups to stop progress in a community.

The second area we discussed was the leaky-condo problem. The homeowner protection office and the home warranty program introduced by this government have failed miserably. It was supposed to have been started on May 1 of this year. The program was delayed; it is now going to be July. It is questionable if the home warranty program can actually come to fruition. There's only one provider at this point, but it is questionable if the home warranty program is financially viable even for that one provider -- primarily because, first of all, the building starts have started. So for this year there are no home warranties under it and under the new mandatory program.

But what is more important is that it has become clear that the further reduction of home starts in this province is primarily caused by the uncertainty in the building industry about how Bill 46 and the homeowner protection office is going to impact the industry. The inventory of new product to be built is so small that even if everybody was part of the warranty program, it is doubtful that it would create enough contributions in premiums to make the whole program work. That's the second area we visited during the process of estimates. Clearly many questions are still unanswered. Hopefully, when the next section of the empowerment of municipal councils comes into effect, we're going to see more clarification on these issues.

Hon. J. Kwan: It's with delight that I close the Municipal Affairs estimates summary. First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of my staff for their great work on an ongoing basis within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs: Suzanne Veit, my deputy; Lori Wanamaker; Ken MacLeod; Gary Harkness; Leta Hodge and Shayne Ramsay and Dan Maxwell of the homeowner protection office. I also want to thank the member, as well, for some of the comments that were presented during the estimates process. Some of them were indeed helpful, some of them were interesting and some of them I disagree with.

[2055]

The direction that we are moving in is indeed to ensure that more and more local governments do have the tools they need within the changing dynamics of government within communities, and to recognize that we're heading to the twenty-first century. And that's the thrust of the Municipal Act reform. Within the Municipal Act reform we also have, and will continue to look at, the changing local government financing issues as well, and those changing dynamics between governments. We did bring forward a change in the

[ Page 13084 ]

Those are the changing dynamics and also, I think, the changing economics and fiscal environment that we are faced with today. We have not always agreed on all the different components. However, I think what we do agree on is that we do need to move forward and build on those changing relationships.

Another area that the ministry has actually worked hard on in the last year is other initiatives within our communities and within the ministry. Library services is a significant component within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We have also engaged in recognizing the regional differences between our communities; especially, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs engaged in negotiating the Fair Share deal for the north. That was a significant and important piece for the Peace region. Other areas include the safety and standards department, in terms of moving forward changes around safety initiatives for the province. As well, we have worked hard in evolving and moving forward on regional growth strategies.

Finally, there's another area that we have worked hard on, and that's the homeowner protection office. Through the homeowner protection office, we were able to bring forward a new act that will provide for the best warranty program in North America with respect to residential construction. We have had in place the loan program to provide assistance to leaky-condo homeowners, to provide for some relief for them. There is other work being done in the homeowner protection office, including developing research and education pieces as well, and mandatory licensing in the system to ensure that we can prevent the leaky-condo crisis from resurrecting itself.

There's still much work to be done through the homeowner protection office. There's no doubt about that. However, in the short duration of six months, the office has done a tremendous job in addressing the very complex issues that accumulated with the crisis in the residential construction industry, especially in relation to the leaky-condo crisis.

[2100]

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that with the current sessional orders, I no longer need to advise the House that we will sit tomorrow, but I will anyway because old habits die hard. With that, hon. Speaker, I would move the house do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:01 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thought I'd make a couple of opening remarks -- about 15 or 20 minutes -- that may answer some of the more technical questions. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce the members of my staff who are here with me today. Just arriving is Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations Chris Trumpy, and we're joined. . . . Just entering the room is secretary to the Treasury Board Lawrie MacFarlane; and I have with me the acting senior financial officer, Marcus Barthropp, who's here behind. There'll be others that will join us throughout.

The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations plays a key role in the overall administration of the economic and financial affairs of this province. My ministry is responsible for supporting government in the development and implementation of economic and fiscal policy and the translation of those policies into our annual government budget. In the 1999 budget, I set out a number of key priorities, both for the Ministry of Finance and for the government as a whole. The budget does improve on health care in this province. It provides for more beds, more nurses and shorter waits. It improves education to ensure that our young people have the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed in the new economy of the twenty-first century. And this budget also helps small business create jobs, with a substantial small-business tax cut which will help business grow and will diversify B.C.'s economy. The activities of my ministry support each and every one of these goals, while also working to ensure that the government and its ministries and agencies deliver services in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.

[1440]

It's been an encouraging year of growth and development for my ministry, not only in terms of our service to the

[ Page 13085 ]

In his report on the estimates process earlier this year, the auditor general made a number of recommendations that fall into two broad categories: those that involve the role of government more narrowly and those that affect the parliamentary process in British Columbia at a broad level. My ministry has already taken action to implement the recommendations of the auditor general which involve the Finance ministry directly. Those measures include a restructuring of the estimates process to report capital costs in a way that more appropriately meets the needs of those who use the estimates. There's the inclusion of unfunded pension liabilities in the estimates, something that the Ministry of Finance has included in the public accounts since the '94-95 budget year. There's the use of cautious assumptions in developing the revenue outlook, an approach that we've taken since 1997. This year's budget also included additional information on the assumptions underlying our economic revenue and expenditure forecasts. There will be an amendment of the Financial Administration Act this session to formalize by statute the Economic Forecast Council that was created two years ago to advise the government on forecasting prior to the preparation of each budget. A further amendment clarified the issue of timing of interim financial statements. Under new legislation, government is required to publish the council's advice in this budget.

To address the broader issues of parliamentary process identified by the auditor general in his report, I appointed an independent panel to recommend changes arising from the auditor general's report released on April 16 of this year. This group is operating independently of government and is expected to consult widely with all who have an interest in this important subject. The panel chair has met with the Public Accounts Committee, and the panel is required to report to government and the Legislature by September 30. That report will be made public upon its delivery to me. I am very much looking forward to Mr. Doug Enns's report.

I'd like to move now to a brief overview of the day-to-day operations of the Ministry of Finance. We play a number of strategic roles for government. These are to provide the corporate infrastructure for government, including revenue collection, purchasing, financial processing and banking. We provide the regulation and infrastructure vital for provincial commerce, including corporate and personal property registries and financial sector regulation, and we provide analysis and advice to the government through the Treasury Board, the office of the comptroller general and the cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

I'll just take a few moments to highlight some of my ministry's achievements over the past year along with some of our plans for the coming year. That might help in providing information as we begin. We've provided additional support to the revenue division to hire 33 additional audit and compliance staff in the coming year. That will support government's tax policy and ensure that persons not voluntarily complying with existing legislation pay their fair share. The ministry has also established a new consumption tax advisory committee, comprising approximately 30 business-related associations and government representatives, to facilitate two-way communications between the business community and government on consumption tax issues and policy.

[1445]

The office of the comptroller general maintains the provincial government's accounting system as well as the quality and integrity of the government's financial management and control systems. To improve and standardize accounting systems across government, the OCG has implemented the Y2K-compliant corporate accounting system. We call it CAS. That's in six government ministries and organizations. The OCG is also facilitating e-commerce, with piloting of at least four electronic forms and an electronic signature policy for forms.

The Public Sector Employers Council, which manages and coordinates collective bargaining across the public sector, successfully concluded landmark agreements with public sector unions throughout '98-99, including a three-year master agreement with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. The Superannuation Commission's priority for the coming year will be to implement the new integrated pension administration system, IPAS, which will significantly reduce the large number of manual calculations made and eliminate the need for data entry of a transaction into a number of different non-compatible computer systems.

The Business Task Force, which I chair, has had a very successful first year since it was formed in May 1998. The task force met quarterly and has made three public reports since its inception. The task force has received over 500 suggestions from business for ways to reduce the cost of doing business. Government has taken action on 80 percent of the task force's suggestions for regulatory change. A combined on-line search service has been developed by the manufactured home registry and the personal property registry to enable the public to obtain ownership, location and lien information on manufactured homes through one search result.

We'll talk about this again, but the past year has certainly been one of significant change for B.C. Transit as well. As you know, the responsibility for the greater Vancouver transit system was transferred on April 1 of this year to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, now called TransLink, putting the responsibility for transit priorities where it should be: in the hands of the people who use it.

The year also marked the announcement of our government's decision to expand SkyTrain through the Broadway-Lougheed-New Westminster-Coquitlam corridor, providing world-class transit in a world-class city. Our decision to expand SkyTrain also paved the way for a landmark agreement with Bombardier Inc. to build the new SkyTrain cars in a

[ Page 13086 ]

We've also been providing analysis and advice to government through Treasury Board staff. Crucial economic and financial analysis and support of our strategic priorities has been given over the past year, including health care and education funding and through treaty negotiations as well. Treasury Board staff will continue to provide me with advice and support to implement additional improvements to the budget process in the months to come.

[1450]

I'll just highlight some of the improved reporting over the past year. We've increased budget information and in-year updates on government capital expenditures. There's more extensive reporting on debt indicators, and there's increased reporting on economic and fiscal indicators and assumptions in the annual budget.

I'll conclude with just a very brief overview of the province's economic outlook from the perspective of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. In 1998 the B.C. economy suffered the impact of the economic crisis in Asia and declining export income. A reduction in the number of people moving to B.C. has also had an impact on housing starts and retail spending. It was a very challenging year for our economy. However, I am pleased to report that there are some signs of recovery, and I estimate an economic growth of -- it is modest, but it is on the plus side -- 0.5 percent this fiscal year. Growth continues to be the strongest in the high-tech, film, tourism and service sectors, which is the new economy.

In spite of a difficult year for Asian markets and a major decline in commodity prices, the B.C. economy did continue to create jobs -- a net of almost 60,000 new jobs in the past year. Significantly, B.C.'s youth unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since 1994. Over 20,000 more young people have jobs today compared with March of last year.

B.C.'s exports did suffer as a result of the Asian economic crisis in 1998, but the first-quarter exports for this year are up 8.4 percent. Low commodity prices had a major impact on our forest industry last year, but early results for 1999 are showing modest signs of recovery. Supported by the forest action plan, reduced stumpage rates and less red tape, earnings in the first quarter of 1998 are well ahead of last year's figures.

Since the oil and gas initiative was announced last year, the industry has had a record-breaking year with 650 wells drilled; that compares to 583 the year before, which was at that time a record-breaking year. Natural gas production increased by 2.4 percent in 1998 compared to 1997, and the recent April 1999 sale of oil and gas rights was 172 percent higher than that of April 1998.

The number of people visiting B.C. from other countries continues to rise. There was a more than 15.2 percent increase in the number of international tourists in February compared to the same period last year. Overall visitor spending rose by 3.5 percent in 1998, for a total of $8.8 billion.

It's not often that I get an opportunity to say thank you to hard-working officials, but I do want to say thank you to the staff of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and all of the other organizations and agencies for which I have responsibility. It has been a challenging year, and we'll talk about that, I know. There have been difficult economic circumstances. However, we've also had successes, and we've had accomplishments that we need to recognize and be proud of. We are seeing the start -- and it's a modest start -- of economic recovery. We do continue to work with our partners in the private sector to grow the economy and to create jobs for British Columbians. I am looking forward to a discussion with my legislative colleagues and seek their input and their advice.

[1455]

Procedurally, I think the minister is correct: there have been some changes in the way the government has produced its estimates and its forecasts in the last year. Those stem primarily as a result, but not exclusively, of the auditor general's report into -- how can I put it politely? -- a massive misrepresentation, I would say, of the state of the finances which were contained in the '96 budget year. I think that those improvements are helpful; they're helpful to the people of British Columbia who choose to take the time to look at the way the government is putting its books together and to have a sense of what the state of the economy is -- what the state of the provincial finances are. That is certainly helpful. I think the estimates document this year is more readable and more usable, and I think the budget report reflects that also. I think that the people who worked on that, whomever they are, deserve credit for the work that they've put into that.

The one area where we're still lacking in, I would say, forward movement is that of accountability, in that I don't think there has been at the political level -- well, maybe there will be; who knows -- the accountability and the explanations given by the minister for the failings of her government and her ministry in managing the province's finances. I tend to spend a little bit of time on that, particularly the debt management plan in its various incarnations since it was first brought forward in the early nineties and, secondly, on measuring the economic strategy and the economic plans that the government has put forward.

The minister says that a key part of her responsibilities is developing and monitoring the economic development of the

[ Page 13087 ]

I'm not going to get into that immediately; I'll be pursuing that a little later. But just to sort of frame that discussion in the opening comments, the aims of the three-year economic plan were to stimulate the economy, make B.C. more competitive, attract investment and create jobs. Judged against these criteria, I would think anyone would have to say that the economic plan -- the three-year economic plan which appeared last year and seems to have disappeared this year -- failed, if looked at. . . .

Last year we had a GDP growth rate of negative 0.5 percent. Real GDP growth per capita has fallen in three of the last six years and is expected to decrease in '98 and again in 1999 -- certainly not an economic growth strategy that is working in any way, shape or form.

Total investment in British Columbia fell by 8.3 percent in the last calendar year to $19 billion. It's the second-largest decline amongst provinces in Canada. Statistics Canada is projecting another drop in capital spending of 4.4 percent in 1999. Business investment in British Columbia fell 10.5 percent in 1998 and is expected to decrease another 9.2 percent in 1999. Private sector capital spending in B.C. has decreased for three years in a row.

[1500]

While the government likes to trumpet employment growth as one of its telltale signs of an improved economy and one of its methods of trying to convince British Columbians that everything's fine -- "The economy is not performing as well as it should be, but there are a lot more jobs" -- when one delves a little deeper and if one looks at commentary that's been done by people who specialize in commenting on these issues -- economic people, people who look at StatsCan information and try to translate it into something the general public can understand -- one can see that, in fact, the vast number of those jobs are either self-employed positions. . . .

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

It's difficult to tell, and I know there's discussion out there as to how many of those are real, well-paying jobs. How many of those are the contractors that are out there, self-employed, making a decent living wage, and how many are people who have come to call themselves self-employed, as the fashion is, when asked? That's a tricky question, and that's an area, I suspect, where StatsCan results and B.C. Stats have become soft in the last number of years as far as accuracy goes.

Secondly, there has been a significant increase -- in fact, an 11.6 percent increase -- in public sector employment. If one wants to get a read on what the health of the economy is, you really need to look at private sector job growth. The number of private sector jobs has essentially remained unchanged, with the meagre growth rate last year of 0.3 percent. In fact, British Columbia has experienced virtually no growth in paid private sector employment since mid-1995.

Those are all indicators, I think, that lead British Columbians -- they should lead British Columbians and, I would hope, the government -- to believe that their economic strategy, certainly from last year, and the economic plan and the economic method that they've been employing and deploying for the last number of years have simply not worked.

Rather than learning the lesson and thinking that perhaps the government needs to be a little bit more aggressive in trying to turn the economy around, the government has decided to step backwards to a model that I think has been pretty much discredited by all modern economies. That is to grow their way out of the recession through spending and a continued massive increase in debt -- in fact, a fairly significant ramp-up in that debt.

That brings me to the area that I want to discuss first with the minister, and that is the debt management plan, the revised debt management plan, the modified debt management plan, or the five-year fiscal framework, I think, as it's now called. Clearly, in the early nineties, when the government brought out their debt management plan, there were some goals that were set. There were some benchmarks that were going to be pursued. Indeed, if you look not even at the early ones but at the 1995 version of the debt management plan. . . . I'd just like to read into the record and, perhaps, remind the minister what the goals and benchmarks were that were set by the Minister of Finance in 1995 for the debt management plan.

Number one was to maintain British Columbia's credit rating as the highest of any province in Canada. That clearly hasn't happened. British Columbia has slipped to third place now as far as credit rating goes. The minister laughs. I don't think it's very funny. The reality is that we have fallen.

Number two was to eliminate, over 20 years, the $10.2 billion in debt incurred from previous budget deficits by using budget surpluses to pay down the debt. We haven't even begun to do that. In fact, we continue to rack up ever-increasing deficits this year -- last year, $890 million; this year, $980 million. So in fact we're going in exactly the opposite direction from what was committed to and set as a benchmark in 1995. We're doing so at an ever-increasing and ever-expanding rate. Clearly the government has failed dramatically to meet that goal and benchmark.

[1505]

[ Page 13088 ]

So clearly all indications are, in the next two or three years, anyway -- if one looks at even the government's own forecast -- that there's going to be no turnaround in that whatsoever. The government's not forecasting a balanced budget for another three years. If they were to actually hit those targets over the next three years, which, given their past track record, would probably prove to be next to impossible, it would be three years before British Columbia was even starting to put the brakes on the negative advancement, if I can put it that way, to those four measures that were put in place in 1995.

Can the minister tell us why she thinks that in the four, heading towards five, years from 1995 -- not in all of which has the province of British Columbia been in recession; rather, only in one of them -- the government has failed to hit any one of those targets and is in fact moving in the opposite direction?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Chair, I'll seek your guidance. I mean, I'm always willing to show some leeway, but estimates are for the year '99-2000. I'm more than happy to discuss the estimates of the year '99-2000. I understand the point that the member is trying to make from a historical perspective, and he and I will never agree on the historical analysis of what's right for the economy. So I'm going to actually address my comments in terms of what the current situation is with the debt management plan. Then the member can seek opportunities to comment on past debt management plans if he wishes, based on the comments that I make.

Our government considers the use of capital spending to be an important factor in the economy. We also consider the use of capital spending to be an important factor in achieving the social objectives and the social priorities of British Columbians. It is impossible to discuss spending on capital without discussing how you meet your social objectives and your program objectives in the area of health care and education and the protection of children and families as well. In past budgets we have made clear what we expected to meet during the course of that fiscal year.

On our debt management plan -- certainly in the years '97-98 and '98-99 -- we met our targets completely. I think we were 0.1 percent off this year, but we did meet the targets in those years. Have we revised the debt management in order to accommodate the improvements in the areas of health care and education? Yes, we have. Did we make our revisions public? Yes. Has that had an impact on our credit rating in one area? Yes, it has. All of those are a given. All of those are facts to deal with.

What is it that we're trying to achieve in terms of an overall economy -- and meeting our social objectives -- in spending on capital? I had one person describe to me that perhaps the opposite point of view of spending on capital now is that you save all of your pennies right now -- don't invest any money; don't pay any mortgage; don't have any debt servicing -- so that you can save all of your money to then build hospitals and schools. Well, we've chosen to actually build the hospitals and schools -- SkyTrain, Vancouver convention centre, highways -- right now, when we can probably get better value for your dollar by investing it now. We are getting better value for your dollar. That's certainly true on the SkyTrain project.

Does that mean that we're going to spend more now while we get better value for your dollar -- where perhaps we can actually have an effect on the economy? Yes, it does. Does that mean we've revised our debt management targets? Yes, it does. Does that mean it's had an impact on the credit rating? Yes, it does. Does that mean that we will continue to invest in schools and hospitals? Yes, it does.

[1510]

First of all, the minister says that now is the time to invest in capital expenditures because of -- I assume; she can correct me if I'm wrong -- an economic downturn. She thinks that now is the best time to engage in those capital investments. Her rationale is that it is in order to get better value for the investments that are made. Well, clearly if the government was looking for better value -- she would disagree with me, of course -- a fixed-wage policy, which artificially inflates the cost of projects and puts money into various union pension funds and other plans, etc., is not necessarily getting the best value for the dollar. Certainly there are ways out there. People in the private sector compete and contracts are let and bid. As long as quality is maintained, certainly there are savings to be found. She would disagree with me; I understand that. But that, I think, is the general assessment that's out there. If the government was looking to get best value on the SkyTrain project, they wouldn't be deploying the HCL-type model for the project.

I don't think that the rationale the government has for engaging in capital expenditures at this point in the economic cycle is because they're going to get better value for the money. I would argue that the reason for that is that there was a debate that took place in the cabinet and caucus of the New Democratic Party, and those who advocate big spending -- big capital expenditures, big financial expenditures -- won. Those that were advocating a more "let's stay the course and try to be fiscally responsible" approach lost. That's why there was this. . . . At least the change in terminology from last year to this year has been quite remarkable. Last year, and indeed in previous years, there were all sorts of things about being fiscally responsible, about trying to hit debt targets and about living within your means. In fact, that's how the government was elected first of all in 1991. One of their number one priorities was: "If we don't have it, we won't spend it" -- living within one's means of fiscal responsibility.

Certainly all of that rhetoric and all of those public announcements and all of that money that was invested in the advertisements for those campaigns around previous budgets

[ Page 13089 ]

In fact, the Premier of the province a number of years ago -- I don't have the quote right in front of me -- said something about how, in order to protect health care and education, we have to ensure that we maintain a fiscally responsible government: that we get our deficit under control, balance our budget and pay down our debt. Now we have the reverse of that argument being made by the Minister of Finance -- and it's a different argument than she made last year -- and it's that the government is making choices, that they have priorities and that, in fact, the only way to protect health care and education is to cease to be fiscally responsible, to go out and spend huge amounts of money, to run massive deficits in the order of $1 billion, to really neglect to begin to pay down any debt or even attempt to pay down the debt in any way, shape or form, and to assume a strategy of spending your way out of the recession. That is something that I think has been rejected by every modern economy that I can think of as a means to try and create economic activity.

It's a mug's game to think that the government can spend a province this size out of a recession. It just can't happen. What's required is private sector investment, private sector job creation, private sector growth. You know, we'll disagree on that. I think the minister believes that the government has a role to play, if not the biggest role to play, in turning the economy around as far as intervening in the economy. Certainly that's been indicated by the money that's being spent -- even today, as we speak, and yesterday, the day before and in weeks past.

[1515]

I would be ecstatic if those two investments had gone ahead as a private sector investment, and I think all British Columbians would. But when the government chooses to get in and spend its way out of a recession by picking winners in private sector companies and becoming equity shareholders in one case or loaning money in another, then we have a problem. I must say it's a little bit of an improvement over investing in pulp mills that are bankrupt. At least there's a chance of getting some money back somewhere down the line. But the philosophy is an erroneous one, I think, and will lead to further deterioration in the confidence that people have in British Columbia and in the ability of this government to manage the economy and turn it into a prosperous economy.

I want to ask the minister. . . . She said that she has hit the targets in two years or came pretty close to hitting the debt management targets. The problem is that it's hard to tell when the government is hitting the debt management targets from year to year, because the targets are changing. In fact, when the government misses them or when they see they're about to miss them and don't stand a chance at all of hitting them, they just change the targets. They just move them, create a new plan and call it something else. Indeed, I think we've seen five iterations of the debt management plan in the short time that I've been a member of this Legislature. It seems that virtually every year, the government does away with the debt management plan that was in place in some incarnation the previous year, and it creates a new one.

Certainly in this fiscal year the difference is more pronounced. In fact, I would say the most shocking thing to come out of the budget this year was the government's abandonment, really, of any sense of responsibility around prudent fiscal financing this year. It was an all-out change of tactics. They just decided: "That's it. We don't care how much money we spend. We don't care what the deficit is. We don't care what the debt amounts to. We've made a choice. We've decided politically -- for political reasons -- to head off in this direction, regardless of what all the empirical evidence tells us the effect will be on our economy. We've decided to do that. We're right. Every other jurisdiction in North America is wrong. We're the only ones who got it right, and this is where we're headed." So I think it's a little bit much to hear the minister talk about hitting debt management targets, because those targets change all the time.

Does the minister have. . . ? Could she tell me, perhaps, maybe in this year's. . . .? I mean, I know it's almost two months into the fiscal year. I guess we're a little over two months and a day into the fiscal year. Can she tell us, when she comments on the debt management plan numbers, whether or not her ministry has already started the revision of the five-year fiscal framework, which was tabled a couple of months ago, and whether we're actually still on track for that or if those changes have come out? I would anticipate that some of the investment the government has made in the private sector was not necessarily anticipated at the time the budget was in place two months ago. I don't know, perhaps the government was, at that point, looking at investing in Western Star and Conair Aviation and looking at putting more money into the capital expenditures at Skeena Cellulose.

Perhaps the minister can tell us whether or not she thinks the public should have faith that the debt management plan in its fifth incarnation, being the five-year fiscal framework, is something that's going to be in place for a while. Or is it something that we're likely to see changed in the near future?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The five-year fiscal plan is published in the budget document starting at page 44.

[1520]

The Ministry of Finance has brought forward these debt management plans over the last number of years and told us. . . . I read the goals and benchmarks, which have changed a little bit over the last little while as they become irrelevant. Once the highest-credit-rating-in-Canada target sort of went by the wayside because we missed it, it sort of dropped off the list of goals and priorities, and it doesn't show up on the new one. In fact, it's not there. I don't think there's anything there. . . .

I remember there was sort of a transitional period, though, because it used to say that we were going to have the highest of any province in Canada. Then for one year, I think, it was among the highest of any province in Canada, and now

[ Page 13090 ]

Can the minister tell us if there's a government policy on when we're going to get upset about the credit rating falling? Is there some threshold there? It's no longer the best; it's no longer amongst the best, as I can see in the fiscal framework. Does the government still have an unwritten policy about how low they're going to let the credit rating go before they get upset about that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I just finished meeting with investment houses in the United States and in Canada, and there is still a very great deal of interest in investing in British Columbia. In terms of buying all British Columbia bond issues, they've done extremely well on the market and will continue to do so. The underlying strengths in the British Columbia economy are well recognized.

Of course it's important to have a strong credit rating, and we do. We have the second-strongest credit rating amongst the provinces. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is better than Ontario's, it's better than Manitoba's, it's better than Saskatchewan's, and it's better than the federal government's. It's not better than Alberta's -- that is true. That's the only province that it's not better than, and that's because we were actually building hospitals and schools. That's why we're spending more.

Of course, there are two parts to a debt-to-GDP ratio. There's the numerator and there's the denominator. In February 1998 and March 1998 no one -- not the Liberals, nor we -- was predicting a recession. That changes the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio. That's why no other province actually talks about a debt-to-GDP ratio. We have actually gone fairly far out on the limb in terms of using that as a marker.

The credit rating is important. However, there are factors that are not incorporated into the credit rating. I meet with every credit-rating agency -- or those who choose to come out and meet. Three out of the four did this year. I travel to the investment houses and have discussions with those who are responsible for trading our bonds, and the financial factors are taken into consideration. The expenditure factors and the decisions that go into that are not.

It is true that we did make choices in this budget. One major credit rating agency recognized those changes and the underlying factors and made no change to our credit rating. Another chose to downgrade it. However, it is a very important factor. Is it the sole factor? No. Have we made sure, in all of our budget documents this year, that we outlined the risks both on the positive and the negative? Yes. For the first time, we've done that, and we've done that in the area of what it costs to service debt as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: No doubt there are people willing to purchase B.C. debt issues, because we're going to pay it at some point, and the interest rate is good. As long as that exists, as long as you can find a buyer and a seller and they agree on some rate in between, there will be a trade. So to stand up and say, "People are still buying our bonds -- hey, everything's fine," is not necessarily the best measure of whether or not you're managing your debt properly. In fact, there are always people who will loan money to the countries that are in the absolute worst state, because they often know that in most cases the IMF will come and bail them out. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're in good shape economically. While British Columbia is nowhere near that -- I hope it never gets anywhere close to that -- certainly the fact of the matter is that the government has set, over a number of years, a benchmark that we would have the highest credit rating in Canada. Then it became "among the highest in Canada," and now there's no comment on it.

I'll ask my question again to the Minister of Finance: what is the level at which. . . ? Is there a policy, or have we just stopped looking at that? Is there a policy around what the acceptable credit rating will be for the province of British Columbia? Is there some level below which alarm bells will start to ring and the government will change its tactic? Is there some threshold? We know there was a threshold before. I'm asking if there's a threshold now, because the fiscal framework as it exists today doesn't take that into consideration. It's not there. It was there previously, and it's not there anymore. I'm wondering if the government has just abandoned any sense that that's a measure. Or is there something that's there but just didn't make it into the final draft of the fiscal framework?

[1525]

yyWe took into account several factors in determining this budget, one of which was the priorities for managing the cost of the debt. Another priority was determining what, if anything, needed to be spent in terms of reducing debt growth, and we determined that more needed to be spent on transportation infrastructure. The third priority we took into account was: what is the best time in which to improve spending on particularly important programs, such as health care and education? So those are all of the factors that are taken into account. British Columbia still has a strong credit rating and certainly underlying strengths in the economy as well. Those are the factors that are determined in each and every budget.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says that I should tell her what the number will be and we'll discuss that. She's the Minister of Finance. Perhaps she could tell us what's her threshold? What is the figure? Is there any credit rating at which the government will start to be worried about their credit rating? It appears to me that the minister is not worried in the least about what the credit rating of the province is. She has expressed no sense to me that she's concerned at all about the decline in B.C.'s credit rating. All she talks about are the underlying strengths and the fact that people will continue to buy our bonds. Can the minister tell us. . . ? You know, she's the Minister of Finance. What is her threshold beyond which she's going to start to get worried? So far she's expressed absolutely no concern that B.C.'s credit rating is slipping.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member opposite is quite correct: one has to. . . . In fact, I don't know whether he was just saying this implicitly. The credit rating is one factor that needs to be taken into account in a budget. The credit rating itself is meaningless, except for the impact that it has on the ability to service your debt. That is being taken into account. It's being

[ Page 13091 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is telling us that she is worried about the credit. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: She doesn't say that she's worried about it; she considers what the credit rating is when she's making the determination on budget decisions. It's one of the things that she considers.

What I would like to know, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, is this: if it was, for four years, so important to put in the debt management plan that British Columbia would maintain the highest credit rating and then to say that it would be maintained as among the highest credit ratings. . . . People could at least see, relatively, where they stood to other provinces. It was perhaps an inexact measure, because those provinces are also doing things that affect their credit ratings -- mostly up, I might say. But at least it was a benchmark that was listed right there. In fact, it was called a benchmark in the debt management plan. It was one of four benchmarks that were an indication to British Columbians of how well the government was managing their debt. It was important, because it made it there; it was trumpeted right around the province. All I'm trying to get from the minister is: what's the current benchmark, or do we have one around the credit rating anymore?

We'll be talking about the cost of the debt to the government, the government's ability to pay for it and its impact on other ministries in a minute. What I want to find out from the minister first is: what is the benchmark that's in place now? Is there one? Is the minister saying that B.C. can withstand another two downgrades or go down two or three notches or one notch or no notches? I'm wondering: when is the minister going to start to become concerned about the steady decline in B.C.'s credit rating?

[1530]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm aware that they consider that. In fact, it's one of the reasons that the Hongkong Bank of Canada -- last week, I think -- put out a negative comment on the fiscal and the economic state of British Columbia. It was because the government lays forth these plans and never hits any of the targets. They said that the credibility of the government and the NDP Minister -- or Ministers -- of Finance is virtually nil on those as time goes by. There have been so many plans laid before them, and those targets haven't been hit. That's fine. The minister can say that. It doesn't answer the question.

All I can say is that I'm going to interpret from what I've heard from the minister -- her refusal to give us any sort of a benchmark -- that the government has abandoned any measure of the credit rating as something that they want to live up to. There is no longer any target in the Ministry of Finance around what an acceptable credit rating is for the people of British Columbia to be able to see and note. There's no sense at all in the Ministry of Finance that there's a number beyond which we really don't want to fall.

Really, we've forgotten about that now, because we're off on this growing ourselves out of the recession. Whatever happens to the credit rating is fine, because we made a choice. If that's the case -- and I assume that's the case, because that's what the minister has more or less been saying; at least, that's what I'm getting out of it -- then fine. We can accept that the government has no credit-rating target. For all intents and purposes, now that the decision's been made to grow our way out of the recession, the credit rating can just do whatever it wants.

What I'd like to ask the minister is: what does she feel the current impact is of our credit downgrades? We saw an analysis from the Treasury Board about point spreads -- I think I've got it here -- that was done by the Ministry of Finance two years ago. Can the minister tell us what the current spread is on five-, ten- and 30-year B.C. government bonds relative to the government of Canada?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we can get that for you. I think the question that perhaps is relevant here is: what impact has the downgrade of Standard and Poor's had? It's been one basis point; the spread has increased by one basis point.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister knows that the downgrade in itself isn't the only thing that triggers a change in the point spread. In fact, every time a bond is issued, the spread will adjust to whatever the market is. For quite a while in British Columbia we had the highest credit rating in Canada, but we had one of the larger spreads, or certainly not the narrowest spread. In fact, for a period of time we had a higher spread than the province of Manitoba on ten-year bonds, on five-year bonds and, significantly, on 30-year bonds. So having a better credit. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: If you have the information there, then what are you asking for?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm asking the minister because it's two years old. She may rely on two-year-old economic data to forecast elections, but I'm asking a question of the minister. If she's not prepared to answer it, then that's her problem. The fact of the matter is: government economic policies have a significant impact on an ongoing basis. It's not just a credit downgrade that adjusts that point spread. So if the minister says the downgrade only cost one basis point, is the minister telling me that in the time since January 1997 there's been no change at all in the basis point spread between Canadian government bonds and B.C. government bonds?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, my apologies. I don't know why we're getting into all of this -- so testy already. I don't plan on it in these estimates. I also don't plan on rising to the bait when the members opposite suggest certain things that I've said. I'm not going to respond to that. My comments will stand on the record as I've put them.

What I'm trying to do is help the member opposite, who is relating the credit rating to the cost of debt servicing. That has changed relative to other provinces -- with whom we

[ Page 13092 ]

[1535]

G. Farrell-Collins: Do you have the five-year numbers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. I can get that for you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm trying to. . . . Alberta was 27 on the 30-year, I believe. I'm looking -- and I would appreciate a copy of the more current data, because I think it's insightful and helpful. . . . In fact, two years ago, in 1997, the bond spread in British Columbia on a 20-year bond was 20 basis points; it's now 31 basis points -- a change of 11. The 30-year bond spread was 30 basis points, and now it's 47. That had gone up since 1996. In fact, in 1996 it rose by two points. . . . So we've seen a 19-point jump since January of 1996.

But I think, more particularly, in the last two years we've seen a 17-point change in the 30-year bonds, and we've seen an 11-point jump in the ten-year bonds. So we've had essentially a 50 percent increase in the spread between government of Canada bonds and British Columbia bonds, if you look at the ten-year figure. In other provinces the spread is declining; in British Columbia it's going up. I looked here where we have Ontario. Well, Ontario's gone up a bit too.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Right. They all have. The spread has widened for all of them.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. The minister says they've widened for all of them. I'd love to see the document and see what all is there. The minister said that since the credit downgrade the impact on B.C.'s bond spreads was one basis point. That's not the whole picture. The reality is that the day after the budget the minister was in a scrum here, and she was asked about. . . . Oh no, it actually was the day of the downgrade. The minister was in a scrum and said that the markets had already adjusted for the budget and the credit downgrade had had no impact. Can she tell us what the spread change was between the day before the budget was tabled and the time of the downgrade? This is up to March 15, 1999. The budget came in after that. Does the government not have any data more current than that? Or perhaps there have been no sales since then.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have recently been in the market. We issued a couple of weeks ago, and the spread widened by one point, relative to Ontario -- by one point. So that's the most current experience.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to make sure I'm getting this straight. The government was in the market about two weeks ago. The spread increased 1 percent, she said, relative to Ontario. I'm assuming she meant widened. Sorry -- one basis point. The spread widened one basis point relative to the other provinces. How many did it widen relative to the government of Canada, which is what the real measure is? You don't measure it directly to the other provinces. I don't know what they're doing in the market at the time. How did it change relative to the federal government's bond numbers?

[1540]

Hon. J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to give you -- which I assume is the information that you want. . . . We can get you all this technical information -- no problem. I thought what we were trying to discuss here -- maybe I'm wrong -- is what impact the credit rating had and the change from the budget and the effect the credit rating had on our ability to compete in the market.

We don't compete with Canadian government bonds. That's the overall supply and demand. Our bonds compete relative to other provinces, and that's the determination of it. Prior to what we were trading at at the time of the budget. . . . What we were trading at at the time of the budget compared to our most recent issue, the spread widened by one point. So that's the change that's taken place on our issue since the budget.

But I can get you all of the other information about what the spreads are relative to the government of Canada in the overall market. It'll take some. . . . I don't know whether you have that now, Bob, or do you want to. . . ? We can get that for you, though.

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me state what I think I heard. I'm not trying to put words in the minister's mouth. I'm just trying to clear up what the information is that we're getting.

From March 15 to May 15, the government was not in the marketplace, was not putting out issues. So the government has data from March 15 -- it's my understanding -- of the point spread between B.C. government bonds and Canadian government bonds, which was so much for five-, ten- and 30-year bonds. The next time the government went into the market was about the middle of May, and the only change from the middle of March to the middle of May was one basis point. Is that correct? I just want to be clear on what the facts are.

The Chair: Minister, through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Sorry. My apologies if I wasn't.

Post-budget, going into the market, who we compete with -- which is Ontario; other provinces as well, but our biggest competitor is Ontario -- are. . . . The cost of borrowing for us, and therefore the impact on the taxpayers, was one basis point higher than prior to the budget. So that's the net

[ Page 13093 ]

The Chair: Minister, you are not speaking through the Chair. Please remind yourself to do so.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not looking at you, but. . . .

The Chair: You're using the second person.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Do I have to look at you? Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: I don't care where you look. Just use the third person.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you like, I'll speak to you and look at you.

I won't spend a lot of time. We can come back to this when we get the information. Or if I can have a look at the information perhaps, while my colleague is up on the next subject area at some point a little later. . . . We can have the political discussion about that at a later point. I thought it would be easy perhaps. . . . The minister is speaking oranges and I'm speaking apples. We can have that discussion.

Yes, we compete with all the other provinces. We compete with everybody who's out there trying to sell bonds, including public sector bond issues. Everybody's out there in the marketplace; we compete with everybody. We compete with Brazil; we compete with everybody. Investors don't care so much, you know, where that money goes. They're looking at their return. So we do compete with everybody.

The only way to measure that -- or the way it's measured here in Canada, necessarily -- is the spread between ourselves and the federal government, because the federal government guarantees our bonds. They're there, and our rating can never be any higher than theirs. As a result, there's that spread. I understand how that works. We can have the argument about whether we're really competing with the federal government or competing with Ontario or Quebec or Alberta. I mean, to me that's an irrelevant argument. One can look at that by comparing what Alberta's spread is with the federal government's and what Ontario's spread is with the federal government's and Manitoba's. Then one can look and see what the B.C. government's spread is. Then we can make that determination, and that's fine. But what I was trying to get at -- and I'll wait until I see the actual document; perhaps it'll be a little easier to have a discussion -- is how we fared.

[1545]

The fact of the matter, though, is that it's getting more and more expensive for the British Columbia government to borrow money. This fiscal year total new borrowing -- which is partly, I think, refinancing is $3.5 billion or $3.6 billion. Can the minister tell us -- and I know it's sort of a technical calculation. . . ? But does she have a general idea in the numbers of millions how much more it's going to cost us for that $3.5 billion than it would have had we had the same spread even of a few years ago? This document talks about a seven-point spread costing us about $2.5 million on $500 million. Is there any sort of quantifying being done on what that increase in cost is as a result of the increasing spread?

Hon. J. MacPhail: On the borrowing program for this year, one basis point is the equivalent of $2 million at cost.

G. Farrell-Collins: That wasn't quite my question. That's good. Unless the minister is. . . . For each basis point, she's saying it's $2 million. So if we've seen. . . . For example, I think it was on our 20-year bonds that the figure has gone from 20 basis points to 31 basis points since 1997. That's an 11-basis-point change in two years. So in fact, if you look at what we. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: It depends on the size of what you're borrowing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I understand that. I'm trying to determine. . . . Perhaps we can have this discussion through the Chair rather than across the way. I'll ask the questions. The minister can try and answer them, and then I'll try to understand what the answer is and follow up with another question. It works better that way.

The minister is saying this. Let me get what you're saying. For the $3.5 billion of borrowing that's going to take place this year. . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, please. For each basis point, it will cost us about $2 million. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The borrowing program is $6 billion this year, of which half is refinancing. On the basis of that borrowing program, a one-basis-point increase in market circumstances costs $2 million.

[1550]

[ Page 13094 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not suggesting for a minute that we're going to come up with an exact figure here. What I'm trying to do is get a general sense of the magnitude of the added costs to the people of British Columbia as a result of the widening spread between Canadian government bonds and B.C. bonds. I don't accept the argument that we don't compete and that we only compete with Ontario. I don't believe that; we compete with everyone. You can measure yourself against Ontario to decide whether they're going up and you're going down and how you're doing. But they are not the only people we compete with.

I'm trying to get a sense. . . . I don't know if the government has done this, but I would think that part of your debt management plan would have been to determine how low that credit rating can go -- how great that spread can become -- before it starts to impact on money that's supposed to go to other things. It's not unheard of for that to be a problem. Quite frankly, I'd prefer that we didn't spend any money. It would be nice if we didn't have to spend any money on interest. The reality is that we do. We have accumulated deficits; we have capital expenditures. One would like to see the least amount possible. Certainly the fastest-growing item, percentage-wise, in the budget over the last number of years has been debt-servicing costs. I would think that there would be some attempt to keep that down. Clearly, I would say, that's not the case.

Is there some sense of what the result of these changes in British Columbia's fiscal policy has been on the cost of borrowing and the total dollar cost to the people of British Columbia? I know there are a lot of things that go into that: how much money you're borrowing, when you're borrowing it, how long you're borrowing it for, where you're borrowing it from, what currency you're borrowing it in. I know all those things are a factor, but certainly there has to be some analysis, some example, some determination -- other than perhaps a big, chunky figure at the end -- of what the total debt-servicing costs are for this year and about the impact that the credit rating and the bond spreads are having on the cost of us borrowing. It's got to be somewhere. I would think it's somewhere, and if it is, perhaps the minister can tell us what those general figures are. I don't need a precise dollar; I'm looking for general figures.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's determined each time there's an issue done. If the member is asking for that to be determined from a historical perspective, we'll certainly look into that. One determines the cost of the issue relative to the rest of the market at the time of issue. The one issue we've done since the budget and since the credit change has cost us one basis point more. If the member is suggesting that we should give him that information on each issue, I'll look into that and see whether we can do that.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me how much that first issue was for -- how much money was borrowed? She said that that one basis point amounted to $2 million. I assume she's saying that if we had borrowed the whole $6 billion at that time and if you extrapolated it, it would have been $2 million. So how big was this purchase? What was the cost on this purchase?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was $750 million (Canadian) -- the last issue.

[1555]

In the past, there was an attempt by the provincial government not to issue into the domestic market -- at least at one point there was -- in an attempt to not validate the underperformance of B.C.'s spread relative to its credit rating. As a result, the government tried not to buy in, to issue into, the domestic market in an attempt to not validate that. This latest issue -- was that done domestically? Was it foreign? Was it done in U.S. dollars, or was it done domestically?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I heard that answer; that's fine. It was Canadian -- domestic -- dollars; I think that was the answer that was given.

When did the government start to issue again into the Canadian domestic market?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think that we were out for only about six months.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm looking at the. . . . This is the budget estimates briefing book of the ministry from last year -- the '97-98 figures. I thank her office for sending it over -- through FOI, but at least it's here. It talks about the province's '97-98 borrowing requirement of $4.4 billion and the impact of the seven basis point spread. The underperformance of B.C.'s spread relative to the credit rating was seven points. The cost of that was $3.1 million, on $4.4 billion. So can the minister tell me -- this is from last year; I'll send a copy over, if you want to see it -- first of all, what the underperformance is right now? What point spread is the ministry valuing the underperformance of B.C.'s spread at right now? Three points? Five points? The ministry was valuing the underperformance of its spread relative to its credit rating at seven points. Can the minister tell me what the government is valuating it at currently?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If we can see the document, then we'll answer the question in the context of the document. I just want to give some information while staff are analyzing this. In terms of the 30-year issues, there's been a factor. . . . I reiterate that we take the credit rating very seriously, and we work very hard on all fronts to accommodate the strengths of British Columbia in the context of our credit rating. I spend a lot of time dealing with investment houses on these matters.

I do want to bring to the member's attention that the 30-year bond issues that have occurred have really. . . . The interest rates in those areas have plummeted and have far outstripped any costs that may have occurred because of a point-spread increase, and therefore it's very hard to determine. . . . We're actually not getting any increased cost on the budget for debt servicing because of the interest rates falling around the 30-year bond issues. I point this out only because there are factors taken into account that sometimes cannot be separated out, isolated and accounted for simply on their own.

[1600]

[ Page 13095 ]

Really, what one has to do, I think. . . . The only way to measure it is to look at what the spread is relative to the government of Canada, unless there's some other benchmark that the ministry uses. I certainly haven't seen it in any of the briefing notes, so I'm assuming that the ministry uses the point spread between Canadian government bonds and British Columbia government bonds. That is the appropriate measure. Now, that's going to be affected by how well the federal government adjusts its fiscal standing up or down and how well they perform relative to other people. You know, it's all fluid; I understand that. But it's really the only mark in the sand -- as shifting as that sand is -- that we can measure ourselves against and compare ourselves to. I think it's significant to ask that question, and it's important to ask that question. I'm going to continue to draw upon the spread between Canadian government bonds and British Columbia bonds because of that.

The minister says that that spread may have been increasing between Canadian government and B.C. bonds, but that's okay, because the interest rates have been decreasing at a rate that's either about the same or perhaps even better, or quicker than that spread is increasing. As a result, at the end of the day it's not affecting our total debt-servicing costs much anyway. I would say that if one uses that argument, we're also passing up those savings. We're passing up the savings that perhaps other jurisdictions are getting because of their fiscal house being in order.

Interest rates are going down, and they're benefiting from that. In British Columbia interest rates are going down, and we're not benefiting from it, because our spreads are increasing and we're paying the same old rate. I don't think it's good enough to say that we're doing okay because our total cost isn't going up. There are savings that we're forgoing, because we're not managing our fiscal house very well relative to other jurisdictions or competing jurisdictions. So I'll sit down and see if the minister has had a chance to look at that other document and perhaps respond to it.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The only point I was making was the fact about the 30-year bonds -- the fact about the difficulty of isolating out one factor when several are affecting the market. I wasn't making a political argument against it or in favour of it. Since the comment was made, it also may mean that in making choices about whether to invest in hospitals and roads and transportation that are much needed, it makes sense to take into account the cost of borrowing on the taxpayer relative to building those things at the same time as well.

On this question, the note here talks about comparing our debt-servicing costs to the province with exactly the same credit rating and what the difference is in that. That was what this note refers to. What we'll have to find out for you -- and we will do -- is what the base is as it exists now and then the spread. So we'll determine that for you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wouldn't mind getting the document back, because we had to pay for it, I think. I wouldn't mind getting it back. We try to be fiscally responsible on this side of the House. If we're going to pay thousands of dollars for FOI documents, I like to hang on to them for a little while. I know that the minister doesn't have to pay for them; she gets them. That's fine -- so she should.

We've talked about this a little bit. I think the general impact here -- we can sum it all up -- is this: the government has not been managing its fiscal house very well. There's no doubt about that. I think the commentary from all the economic analysts is in. They're clear, virtually, if you go through the various commentators as they list the federal government and then the ten provinces. Maybe it is that they just start in the east and work to the west, and that's why we're always last; I don't know. But it seems to me that by the time they get to British Columbia, they don't have a lot of nice things to say about the way we're managing our finances. Almost to an individual item, the economic forecasts include comments that are very negative about the way the government of British Columbia has managed its finances over the last number of years, the fact that we've failed to really hit any of the debt management targets at all and that we're going in exactly the opposite direction to what we promised them when we went and talked to them.

[1605]

The fact of the matter is that the way British Columbia is managing its debt -- the way, more importantly, that it's managing its finances -- is affecting that debt. In turn, in one way or another, however you want to squeeze the lemons, you're still going to get lemonade. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, British Columbians are going to be paying more in interest costs than they were previously, relative to everybody else, because our credit rating is declining. The confidence in British Columbia's ability to service those debts is declining; however large or small that is, it is declining. The comments are universal.

I think the difference between what the government has decided to do and what the opposition would advocate doing is that the government has decided that it doesn't matter. They've made choices. They've made choices to invest, as the minister says, in a variety of infrastructure projects. At the end of the day, I guess, the accountability will finally rest with the people of British Columbia as to whether or not those investments are investments that they want, given the cost of them, given the long-term effect it has on their ability to grow an economy, have a vibrant economy and create jobs and opportunities for the future. I don't think that those decisions are made without impact, both positive and negative. The government is making those decisions on an ongoing basis.

So we'll wait and see. I'll be very interested to see if we hit the first-year threshold numbers of the five-year fiscal planning framework. I'm not convinced that we're going to. We haven't done it in the past, and I don't think this one's going to be any different. I expect that next year, maybe it'll be the four-year fiscal planning framework or the revised or the modified fiscal planning framework. But it'll be something else. I'm pretty confident, given the past track record, that we aren't going to hit those targets in any sort of measurable way.

[ Page 13096 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: As other jurisdictions do. They don't necessarily talk about their debt-to-GDP ratio; very few of them do. But they do talk about the servicing costs of revenue dollars going towards debt servicing. In this particular situation, we said that over the five years a debt range of 22 to 27 percent has been set, because of its affordability. The debt-servicing costs are under 10 cents per revenue dollar, which makes ours the second-lowest debt servicing in Canada.

G. Farrell-Collins: So according to the five-year fiscal planning framework, the accumulated debt -- whatever that's going to be over the next five years -- will be affordable as long as it remains below the. . . . I think the minister said 27 percent of GDP. That's what I see here for 2003-2004, anyway: a 27 percent debt-to-GDP target. I think that's what she said. And the debt service cost will remain below 10 cents on the dollar.

It seems to me that that's where we're at right now. Other jurisdictions, it appears, are actually balancing their budgets and paying down their debt. There will be, at some point, some. . . . I mean, some of them have a long way to go, but at some point we're not going to be as competitive. We're not going to be the lowest or the second-lowest. We used to be the lowest in Canada, and now we're the second-lowest in Canada -- just like we used to have the highest credit rating, and we're now, I think, tied for third. Yeah, I think we're tied for third as far as credit ratings go, depending on who you speak to.

[1610]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and just let me tell you how we arrived at those determinations. We compared ourselves to what was happening in the rest of Canada, and the view that credit rating agencies have taken about the rest of Canada as well, both in the area of debt-to-GDP ratio and also debt-servicing costs. British Columbia is well within the sustainability range on both of those.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the problem is this. Once one gets to the 10 percent on the dollar and the 27 percent of GDP, does it all just stop? Does the demand then stop for new capital investment, or is that. . . ? Are we just at that point going to say: "Okay, no more spending; we're just going to maintain this level. No more capital investment; we're going to maintain this level. As we pay off past debts and as we retire old bond issues, that's going to be the measure by which we expand"? Is the government saying that, forevermore after that -- you know, as much as you can -- that's the appropriate target? We're going to just take the 27 percent of GDP, and we're going to maintain that? It used to be that the government had a plan to pay down the accumulated debt, and there was a goal over the term of the debt management plan to decrease the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the. . . . I think it was even into single digits at one point -- 8-point-something percent. Now we've taken this other point of view.

I'm wondering why, in one case, the goal was to pay down the debt so we would have more money that wasn't being put into debt-servicing costs and was instead going into programs -- health care, or to protect education, etc. I thought that was the government's philosophy; that was the plan. That was the strategy, and that was the right way to go. Now it seems we've shifted, and we're heading the other direction where the way to protect health care and education is to go out, according to the minister, make those choices, go out and invest in capital, invest in schools, hospitals and roads, run big deficits that then become part of your debt -- and that's the way to protect it. Then you just sort of get it to that high level and sustain it there in perpetuity.

Why the change in tactics? Why the change from believing as a fundamental principle. . . ? That's what we're talking about here -- the fiscal planning principles. Why do we change from having a fundamental fiscal planning principle -- being to balance the budget, to pay down the debt and then to take that money that you're saving and reinvest it into the programs that people would like to see and into new capital expenditure, etc. -- and now take the tactic that the way to do that is to in fact increase the debt, spend it now, drive up the deficits each year and the accumulated debt for capital investment and accumulated deficits and then sustain it at that level? And that's the way to protect health care and education? I'm wondering when that change happened and what the thinking was with the Minister of Finance that that was the appropriate way to go all of a sudden, after using the strategy of paying down the debt -- or at least talking about paying down the debt -- for so long.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We canvassed this thoroughly -- both the opposition and the government -- in budget debates, so I expect the question's a little bit rhetorical. Let me just offer a couple of technical answers to the question, because the member is dealing with this in the issue of numbers. As I said earlier, there are several factors that affect the numbers. One is the denominator -- which is GDP growth -- just to reassure the member that there's a difference between the absolute number of dollars that you spend and the amount available as a percentage of GDP. The public can decide, when we actually make determinations about whether expenditures should be increased, whether there is room in a growing economy to spend more on capital or whether there isn't -- and still remain within those targets.

[1615]

I must say that as I tour the province I get questioned on two fronts, often by the same people. One is from the business

[ Page 13097 ]

I think people will make choices about what to do around capital spending and when to do it, based on community need within the range of affordability. We have put forward in our document the determinants of affordability. But others may disagree.

G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose that's one of the burdens that governments have had for centuries, if not various millennia -- people will ask you not to tax them so much but to give them more services. I suppose that's just one of the burdens that government has. Government's job is to try and explain why they're doing what they're doing and try to make the right choices for the long-term benefit of the people they're elected to govern. Sometimes you have to make choices, and the minister has made a choice. The government has made a choice. I guess I was asking what the rationale was for the change.

There was this longstanding policy -- the New Democratic policy from certainly the late eighties, early nineties when they came to government -- that the way to protect the economy, health care and education was to pay down the debt, get things under control, be fiscally conservative and manage your finances, and that would move you along. Now there's this big change. It was a pretty surprising change to a lot of people in British Columbia, quite frankly, when the minister rose and read her budget speech -- that this change in tactic had been taken. I don't think there was anybody in the province who expected a nearly billion-dollar deficit for this fiscal year. I don't think anybody was prepared for that or expected that to happen. I think it was pretty much universally seen as extremely irresponsible to make that change and to bring in a deficit that high. Certainly the commentary was like that, and I think most people feel that way.

Now, I've seen the polling that the government has done on spending on health care and education. I know the government has a message problem. The message problem is this: British Columbians don't understand that money going into programs in health care and education is really helping health care and education. They don't see it that way. What works best, what sells best -- according to the government's own polling and focus group research -- is buildings, infrastructure, things you can see, opening a hospital, opening a road, opening a school, something that's visual. That's what the government's own information tells it.

I suspect that research was done for the reasons that led to this budget. The government wanted to move its popularity numbers, and it had extreme pressure from within itself, within its caucus and its party, to go on that kind of spending spree. The research backed them up. People like to see new hospitals. They like to see new schools. They like to see a new road. It's tangible; you can see it on television; it's right there. I suspect they probably don't like to see fast ferries anymore, but having a large edifice there helps to consolidate the public's focus that the government's doing something to deal with health care and education.

I would say that the problem there isn't necessarily that the government isn't putting enough money into it; it's that the government's not communicating very well with the public about what really needs to be done in health care and education. Because they've been trying unsuccessfully for so long to sell themselves and their policies in one way, they've decided now: "Forget it; that's not working. We've got to get re-elected, so let's go and put all the money on the capital expenditure side." That's where they're headed on this big spending spree. It's what they're inclined to do; it's what they like to do. It's certainly what the Premier likes to do. It seems clear to me that that's the tactic they've taken, and I suspect that the research that was done led to that decision in no small part.

[1620]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I find that question, again, rhetorical. I appreciate that that's the role we're supposed to play here. But I've been very open about responding to credit-rating agency reports. They express their concerns, and there are positive remarks there. When meeting with people who are in investment houses. . . . They also publish reports, and those reports are public as well. So their reports speak for themselves. The concerns are expressed, and the opportunities are listed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I read the reports; I'm sure the minister reads the reports, as her ministry does. That's not really what I was asking. What I was looking for was a sense from the minister of. . . . It's one thing to read a report and see what's there. What I'm curious about is: what do the people say? I can't imagine going to these people year after year, and they say: "Oh boy, another NDP minister from British Columbia -- snicker, snicker, snicker. Let's go see what they have to say to us this year."

Maybe I shouldn't say it that way, and I apologize if the minister doesn't like that. But what I'm curious to get is a sense of the response the minister gets when she shows up to sell a budget -- this one in particular. It must have been. . . . Because it was so unexpected. . . . It was something that was different from what most people thought, and it certainly was a big change from the previous budgets the government brought in, at least as far as the rhetoric. What was the response? Did they shake their heads? Were they enthusiastic about it? Did they think that it was a positive thing to do? What was their reaction, on a personal basis? Or does she not want to deal with that and wants me to read the report and stick to that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I find the discussions with the investment houses and the business community outside of this province very thoughtful, very well informed and, almost to a person, analytical on a long-term basis that is non-partisan.

[ Page 13098 ]

My staff and I take these tours extremely seriously. There's a lot of preparation that goes into them. There is certainly no candy-coating whatsoever. The people that we meet with are very well informed, and there is no ducking of questions either. The feedback I get is that our tours are very well received, from their frankness and also the level of discussion that occurs. We are received differently in different places. I find that the American investors are very interested in issues such as land claims. I've had more thoughtful discussions around the impact of land claims, from an economic point of view, in New York than anywhere else. That came as a positive surprise to me. There have been thoughtful discussions elsewhere, as well, but they're very thoughtful.

There are a range of concerns listed, some of which include the debt and deficit issue. But there are equally a range of concerns listed, for instance, in places like Ontario -- it's interesting -- from investors around the issue of health care. They don't hold a universal view, because, of course, some of them are personally affected by health care, as well, and therefore garner a greater understanding. The proof, of course, is always in the pudding about follow-up interest by investment houses, and I think it's safe to say that in this last tour, the follow-up interest was great.

[1625]

I want to leave the minister with something that I hope someday we get to read about British Columbia. I'll just read it to the minister. It's from a bond-rating agency. It says that the province's proven commitment to prudent fiscal management and the province's balanced approach to budgets, continued improvements in the province's financial position since the latest upgrade in '96-97 -- particularly the further decline in the level of debt, which has lowered its debt-servicing costs -- and a diversified economic base have resulted in modern economic growth, despite sharply lower commodity prices and weak global demand. The province's conservative debt management strategy and large, diversified portfolio investments also support the province's rating. It goes on to say:

"The movement to [this credit rating] level is also supported by [the province's] ability to manage exogenous shocks to its budget and fiscal position, which [is viewed] as an important credit strength. Not unlike other provinces that also have exposure to primary industry and the resource sector, weakening commodity prices due to global supply/demand imbalances have placed pressure on [this province's] ability to generate non-renewable resource revenues. . . . [However,] the ability to manage exogenous budget shocks remains a key aspect of an issuer's financial flexibility. Saskatchewan has been successful in that regard."

Saskatchewan is a province that's governed by a social democratic government. It has the same, if not worse, pressures put on it as a result of world commodity prices, whether it's wheat or lumber or potash or oil and gas. It has managed its finances so that in the event of a downturn, it's better positioned to deal with it. It has more flexibility; it has more ability to respond to it and protect its people better than it would have if it hadn't engaged in that.

I worry about British Columbia, if in the long term the commodity prices don't recover in any meaningful way, if the Asian recovery lags longer than expected. I worry that British Columbia is going to find itself in a sustained period of an economic slump or recession that's going to have an impact on our province -- something that's going to take us decades to recover from. That's why I think the budget this year was so irresponsible. That's why I think the government's failure to hit its targets in the past is so irresponsible, and I worry that British Columbians are going to pay for that over the next number of decades, both fiscally, financially and with lost opportunities to themselves and further in following generations. I hope that doesn't happen. Someday soon I'd like to read something positive like that and see British Columbia have a credit upgrade instead of a downgrade.

I know the member for Oak Bay has some questions.

I. Chong: Before I begin, I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff of the Ministry of Finance, who have been very helpful over the past year in providing the information and briefings I have requested. The minister is probably aware that I did request a briefing recently regarding some areas -- that being the property purchase tax information, the Unclaimed Money Act, as well as the corporation capital tax.

One area that I did not have an opportunity to canvass with ministry staff, which I'd like to ask the minister for more clarification on currently, is the new corporation small business tax holiday. Since the introduction of this tax holiday I've been trying to ascertain, I suppose -- or substantiate, I guess -- the figures that the ministry has provided in terms of the tax revenues saved by the corporations or the tax revenue opportunity lost by the government -- however you want to word that.

[1630]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going to provide information on several items. One, the corporate income tax holiday for small

[ Page 13099 ]

I. Chong: Maybe I need to clarify to the minister. The corporate tax holiday that was introduced in 1996. . . . There was mention -- perhaps it wasn't in this budget; I could be mistaken. . . . There was a figure that was provided for in the budget as to how many businesses would benefit from not having to pay taxes for two years -- newly incorporated companies. Two years ago I requested from the Small Business minister and also from the then Minister of Finance a determination as to how they calculated the number of small businesses that would benefit them: are they monitoring the number of corporations that are being registered on an annual basis and, if so, whether they could they provide that information. That, essentially, was what I initially started requesting information on two years ago.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We monitor the people who apply for the tax holiday. In '97-'98 there were 280 applications received, and 134 were granted; 55 were denied, cancelled or withdrawn; and 91 are pending review, for a total of 280. In '98-99, 633 applications were received; 411 were granted; 57 were denied, cancelled or withdrawn; and 256 are under review, for a total of 724. So far, in the two years, the program total has been 913 applications; 545 granted; 112 denied, cancelled or withdrawn; and 256 pending review.

I. Chong: That is helpful. From the amount that applied and were granted, can the minister advise the dollar value of the corporation tax savings for those that benefit from the tax holiday?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Of those granted -- the ones that are actually getting the benefit now -- the benefit is a total of $2.4 million to date.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise us of the cost of administering this program? I know there would have to be either additional staff or resources or a system set up for this. Can the minister advise what that cost is to date?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The cost of two FTEs.

[1635]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The two FTEs are it for approval, compliance. . . . It's a very bare-bones program.

I. Chong: That sounds like a rather conservative approach to it. That's appreciated.

The reason why I'm asking some of these questions is because I recently heard a number of concerns from those who have applied and completed the forms for the tax holiday. What seemed to be a problem -- and I don't know if it still exists -- was that there seemed to be an excessive cost to those who apply for the tax holiday in terms of the refunds being granted. For example, if somebody was applying for a tax holiday and they only had a $5,000 profit, the business tax holiday of 9 percent at that time, or 8 percent, would amount to some $450. But in order for a small business to apply for the tax holiday, they first of all fill out the form and send it in. Then a letter comes back from the Ministry of Finance requesting copious amounts of, I guess, backup. Sometimes, for smaller amounts, it doesn't appear that the means justify the ends.

I wonder if the minister can advise if her ministry -- these two FTEs -- has established a threshold upon which the bureaucracy and the paperwork that goes back and forth in order to grant the tax holiday. . . . Is there a threshold in place before the extra paperwork goes back and forth? I have seen and heard that with refunds as low as $95 or $100 being requested of this ministry, they're being requested to provide paperwork that would take $500 or $600 worth. . . . That is why we end up with some of these applications in a pending state. Some people have just given up. Certainly it would make the streamlining of regulations for this ministry, if there was in fact a threshold established. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's perspective. Yes, it's true that because it was a new program, we certainly have been rigorous in its application. Now that we've had two years of experience, we are changing the pressure of that rigour anyway, in that we are demanding less information. But by the same token, if the tax credit is for $500 or less, we don't do anything with it. If it is $500 or less, we lighten up on the information that's required for that. That has developed as a result of two years of experience.

I. Chong: The situation that was raised for me was about a $95 refund. The accountant who brought this to my attention and who was requested to fill out all the forms and send them back said that it would cost him $300 to $400 of his time to prepare this and send it back to the Ministry of Finance. He basically said to forget it and, as I say, brought this to my attention. This was only a year ago, so I can appreciate the fact that there is now a threshold. Also, for the minister to know, I would imagine that the business lens has been applied to this particular piece of legislation to enable the less rigorous approach to be taken.

[1640]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a credit.

[ Page 13100 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The business doesn't pay. It gets a credit for the portion of the provincial tax. If their application is turned down, then they actually have to pay that tax.

I. Chong: I'll take a closer look at this perhaps, and if I need to canvass back with the minister, I will. My understanding was that the corporations would actually file their corporate tax returns. They would send in their taxes and then apply to get the taxes that they've remitted -- which would have gone to Revenue Canada, for all intents and purposes. One cheque is cut when the corporation tax return is filed. They would request the refund through the ministry, and that's why I was surprised to hear it is a credit as opposed to an actual refund. But I will look into that further to see if in fact there is confusion on the part. . . .

I would like to leave that for a moment and look into the corporation capital tax. I did receive a briefing from ministry staff, as I mentioned earlier. But what I have not been able to establish is, with the increase in the threshold that has been introduced in the budget, whether those increased threshold amounts are for businesses that have been established with those capital expenditures to date or whether in fact there was a second level threshold for potential expansions of businesses. Some people will have met that threshold and can enjoy the benefit of not paying corporation capital tax. They're looking at expansion, perhaps, of their businesses. I'm wondering if there are opportunities in the corporation capital tax exemption levels to provide for new renovations or new expansions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The threshold change for when one starts to pay the corporation capital tax applies to all assets, new or expanded. But there is a corporation capital tax holiday that's just been increased to four years. If it's not new investment, it applies on. . . . If a company is already in existence and expands, the four-year corporation capital tax holiday applies on expanded business or investment or starts right at the beginning for brandnew.

I. Chong: I would also like to go back to a comment the minister made in her opening remarks about the number of increases to the FTEs. Can she just give me clarification as to those -- whether they were for auditors or for clerical staff or technical. . . ? I understand that a number of years ago there was concern that we were not able to deal with compliance audits and collection of tax revenues as a result of not having a sufficient number of auditors. I'm wondering if that concern has been addressed.

[1645]

I. Chong: The Finance critic just reminded me -- from last year's briefing -- that last year there were 35 new hires of auditors and collectors. When the minister mentioned 33 in her opening remarks, I'm just curious whether that's an additional 33 in addition to the 35 indicated last year. Are we in fact, over the course of two years, up to 68 new personnel -- FTEs -- in the auditing and collection area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they are cumulative -- 68.

I. Chong: My colleague from Okanagan-Penticton reminded me that with every auditor that is hired, there is an expected $500,000 worth of revenue collected or accounted for. I see the minister putting her thumbs up, and ordinarily I would be "thumbs up" as well, if in fact that actually were true.

My recollection earlier in this year was that the auditor general had issued a report that recently stated that in fact our collection -- our collections on outstanding debts -- had actually increased. Perhaps the minister can give me some clarification: with the hiring of the additional 68, are we still going backwards as opposed to catching up and in fact dealing with our accumulated accounts receivable that seem to be rising?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That report from the auditor general was across government, and as I recall, the debt collection difficulties were in the area of fines for traffic violations and also in Human Resources. So I don't have that information on those two areas.

Just in the area of Finance, if I could, we were attempting to hire 30 new staff last year -- you said 35, but it's 30. We ended up only hiring 22 just because of recruitment, but those 22 recovered more -- about 30 percent more -- revenue than what we had targeted for the 30. So we're well on a track of hiring good auditors and getting the money, value for the. . . .

For the member, just on her issue of tax credit for the small business, we do have a bulletin here. If the member doesn't have it, I'd be happy to give her a copy and, secondly, take the particular case and have staff work with her on that.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's concerns and efforts in that regard. The particular case did resolve itself, because the accountant just got so fed up that he said he wasn't going to bother submitting the application, and ministry staff in their wisdom decided to process the application realizing it was under $100. So it did resolve itself, and that's how, I presume, the changes were made.

I am also pleased to hear that the auditors hired did collect more than what was anticipated from the 30 or so hires that they were anticipating. If she's hiring good auditors, I'm sure they're from sound professional organizations and won't be too biased in that area.

[1650]

[ Page 13101 ]

But it also indicated in the brochure. . . . Perhaps more clarification from the minister is on how long that deferment of those taxes can last. If somebody was not able to pay their taxes for some reason in one year, and then they wanted to defer those taxes for up to five years, is it a requirement then that the next or subsequent four years' taxes must be paid? Or is the deferment program one that, once established with a homeowner, can accumulate over a number of years? If this is not the case, whether there's been consideration in that matter, given that there's a number of communities and homeowners who have certainly suffered as a result of our ailing economy. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The program works so that once one is eligible, one is always eligible. The taxes are paid when the property is sold.

I. Chong: Again, I do understand that once a person is eligible they're always eligible. So we're saying essentially that a person who once establishes themselves as entitled to a property tax deferment can defer the taxes in perpetuity with no maximum. Is that the case as well? If somebody is fairly young -- in their forties -- and unfortunately, due to difficulty, defers their taxes this year and can't seem to find a job in the community in which they're living, as a result of major industries moving out, are they entitled to defer all future taxes until such time as they can pay or sell their property? Is that how the tax deferment program will work?

I've not had to encounter it. But as I say, given that there are various fiscal constraints on a number of communities now, this may well happen. I would hope that the ministry has some plan in place for this.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The tax deferment program applies to people who are either 60 or disabled. I assume that the question around the forties is for a person with a disability. The tax deferment is allowed to continue until the tax -- the value of the tax deferment -- exceeds the equity in the house.

I. Chong: I would also like to ask the minister some questions in regards to what actually is in the budget, the 1999-2000 estimates. I note that in the area of corporate services there has been an increase of about $1.2 million. I'm wondering, in looking at the narrative, whether the Y2K costs would be included in this area and if that's where a substantial part of the increase is, or in fact whether the Y2K costs would be covered in the office of the comptroller general.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have allocated our Y2K costs by program. So if there are Y2K costs in the OCG, that would be in the OCG's budget, for instance. There's not one line, one allocation, across the entire ministry for Y2K costs. The corporate services. . . . Sorry. You were asking what the adjustment is for -- the $1.2 million? Do you want me to just outline it for you? It's pretty mundane.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Does one want me to allocate it?

A Voice: One does.

[1655]

It was $225,000 for capital amortization adjustment; $240,000 for transfer to ministry initiatives from government services -- we took over government services; transfer of PSDO. . . . Oh, this was $895,000 that got transferred to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service.

A Voice: Was that for his office?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll look into that, I'll tell you.

We talked earlier about the new transfers from this office to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, a program transfer to deal with the new CAS registries, which we talked about in the opening comments. The rest are adjustments around operating costs adjustments and capital amortization adjustments, and then there are assistance costs for Treasury Board staff of $470,000.

I. Chong: As the minister says, I would concur that some of those are rather mundane -- capital amortization. I was curious though, as I say, to find out whether in fact the Y2K costs were there. One of the reasons why I raised that is because, as we all know, there are huge costs that large corporations are incurring and have incurred as a result. But does the minister have a to-date cost of the Y2K costs that she can provide to us, whether it's for all government ministries, whether it's ministry by ministry and whether she has kept an accounting of that -- a to-date cost?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just say that the overall Y2K costs are held and accounted for under the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, under ISTA. I can account for ours. We actually have ours listed on a web site, and I'll get you that site. It is accessible to the public.

Our overall costs are estimated to be $15.6 million for the Ministry of Finance. We've spent almost all of that, because we plan to be ready by July 1 for almost every single priority or a substantial number of those priorities. I can give you the web site so you can go and see it by program -- Y2K readiness.

The Ministry of Advanced Education did provide us with information that the cross-government cost to be Y2K-ready -- for core government; that wouldn't be hospitals, etc. -- is $70-80 million.

I. Chong: That's helpful. I am curious, because it certainly has been a discussion in the Public Accounts Committee when I was a member a number of years ago, and I know the current members are always being apprised of those issues. But I'm also wondering whether -- and I know the auditor general has been concerned about this -- the liability issue of Y2K has been addressed by this minister or whatever ministry that needs to address it. There have been some concerns that should a system fail and the responsibility rests with a government ministry or a Crown, there could in fact be liability issues. You know, it's great to know that we'll be compliant and that there won't be a problem, but still, in order to ensure that we've looked at all the issues. . . . The liability certainly is one. In some cases such as municipalities, they deal with risk management, whereby they set up their own self-managed contingency fund. In some cases they actually go out and buy

[ Page 13102 ]

[1700]

I. Chong: That would be helpful. I just thought that being the Finance ministry, there would also be some controls through this ministry.

One last question. In the estimates for '99-2000, in regard to the office of the comptroller general, I notice that in the internal audit services there are recoveries from ministries and Crown corporations. I wonder if the minister has a breakdown of that for those internal audit services.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'm just trying to manage how we're moving here. There are a number of officials waiting, and I just want to let the minister know where we're at so that she can maybe send them off to dinner or whatever, or they can come back if she needs people.

The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head has some further taxation questions which she'll raise. I have my colleagues from Parksville-Qualicum and from Penticton, who want to ask some questions on B.C. Assets and Land. That would probably be next, if that works for the minister. I would see that wrapping up maybe by quarter to six, by the time we get out of here, and then afterwards coming back and dealing with some other items -- depending on how that goes -- perhaps on the economic development stuff. I don't know if you want to free some of the staff to go now, or whatever.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Anyway, just for the staff's information, we'll need the tax people and B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. The rest of you can. . .if you wish or feel free to stay. I thank you very much. That's very kind of you.

On the internal audit, we will get that. Sorry, I don't have it right here, but we'll get that information for you.

Just on the Y2K compliance stuff, yes, the member is correct. We do have a responsibility for risk management across government that rests within the Ministry of Finance, and there is a requirement for all programs to have a business continuation plan in place that, of course, deals with the Y2K issue as well. Those are progressing very well, and the report to the deputy minister to the Premier is imminent.

I. Chong: I would appreciate it if the minister did provide that list of the internal audit services. I've always seen that appearing in the budget estimates and have never really gotten information as to which ministries and which Crowns consistently or sporadically had requirements for internal audit services.

In regards to Y2K, I appreciate, again, the minister clarifying the risk management issue. As I understand it, all businesses in the private sector now, as well, have to include within their disclosure statement of their financial statements that there has been consideration of a business continuation plan as a result of Y2K. If we're seeing that businesses in the private sector do this, certainly in the public sector Crown corporations and ministries that have business plans should also include those things.

[1705]

It appears that our legislation contains a two-year requirement for people to live together in a number of the provincial statutes. But if you take a look at the federal statutes, as the minister's staff provided, there are a number of federal statutes that only have a one-year requirement. The reason I raise this is because in a common-law situation, so many people nowadays think that six months is the requirement, and people erroneously go to the land titles office and make these transfers and find out that they're offside and are having to pay property transfer tax, when in fact I don't think that was the intention. Had they gone to a person that performs marriages. . .

A Voice: A commissioner.

I. Chong: A commissioner -- thank you, hon. member.

. . .they wouldn't have to have a two-year condition before property can be transferred into their spouse's name.

So I did raise this with ministry staff, and I think it's appropriate that the minister provide, perhaps, some of her thoughts on this, to see whether we are going to move towards relaxing this so that people who are genuinely caught offside don't get caught offside. At the very worst, if we can't look at making those changes, then perhaps we can change the forms that are provided for people who make property transfers, so that they're aware, before they sign on that dotted line, that they are in fact going to be offside.

I know the ministry staff also indicated that there was information available. But as the minister can appreciate, when people go down to file these forms, they go into the land titles office and immediately just want to fill everything out. They don't necessarily spend the time, because they're looking to cut down on time for regulation as well. So I think it's a valid point -- and I did raise it once before to the previous minister -- and certainly her thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The point is well taken that the form needs to be clarified to articulate the current definition, and we are doing that. So I thank the member's input into that. It's very clear now that it's two years.

On the issue of the definition of spouse. . . . It's interesting, because I actually deal with this issue with my other hat on as House Leader, in the management of legislative change. That really is a family relations issue, and we are certainly, as the member is probably aware, looking at the application of

[ Page 13103 ]

Certainly the B.C. Law Institute has their own view on that. Interestingly enough, they say that an appropriate time is two years. Anyway, that's what they say. I will raise this matter with my colleagues in terms of the definition of what qualifies as the length of time, but we have not examined that yet. I expect the answer from our government would be that we would not be looking at changing that definition in the context of one application, but broad application.

[1710]

What I wanted to pass on to the minister, as well, is that the reason why so many people -- and she must have them, as well; constituents coming into our offices -- sometimes complain about the provision of government services is because of the inconsistency of policies being applied. This particular issue certainly has been raised in my office. But there are also issues where people apply for social services benefits or human resources benefits. Two people who suddenly decide to live together are immediately deemed, in less than a month or two, for the purposes of the eligibility -- whether they receive social services benefits or not -- to have a spousal relationship. That's where the inconsistency lies in a number of the policies that are being applied. I know it's pretty difficult to apply a broad-brush approach to it all, but at the same time, that is the basis of complaints which we as MLAs often get. So I appreciate the minister providing that.

Back to the property transfer tax. I understand that the idea of the property purchase/transfer tax -- which originated in 1987, before this government's administration -- was to deal with the cost of transfers and registrations. I'm wondering if the minister has an analysis or a breakdown of the moneys generated, or user fees paid in, for the property transfer tax versus the cost to administer this.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The property transfer tax this year collected $220 million in revenue. I expect that if there is evidence that we said this was cost recovery. . . . There are 15 people that administer. . . . This is a tax; it's called a property transfer tax. Sorry, it's not cost recovery.

I. Chong: I appreciate the clarification from the minister. That was what my next question was -- the cost of administering this and how many people were involved. I'll take it that the 15 FTEs are allocated to that.

The other area of taxation I'd like to ask the minister about is the provincial sales tax or social service tax. I presume that the staff here are able to answer that. Again, as one of the opening questions on this, can the minister advise me of the number of FTEs that are hired as auditors for PST -- those who are auditors, versus those who are on the collection side? Unless they are all doing dual jobs. . . ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This year we will have a total of 120 auditors on the PST side. That's including the hirings that we've just made.

I. Chong: I presume that the 120 therefore would be auditors as well as collection people.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The 120 are auditors. We have an additional 30 in collections.

I. Chong: The only area of the PST I'd like to ask about is in the area of possible PST exemption when it applies to the leaky-condo issue. I know that this may fall perhaps under the Minister of Municipal Affairs, where she was attempting to work with the federal government to get the GST exemption for repairs to the condos. But I never heard much about the efforts made in terms of PST. Being that it's a provincial tax, certainly the minister and cabinet can decide whether they want to internally, or provincially, deal with this, regardless and exclusive of the GST exemption -- whether they get that or not. Certainly this would have helped those who have excessive costs in the area of leaky-condo repairs.

[1715]

It's an interesting question. There are no plans now. . . . There certainly were no plans contemplated in the budget to do a PST exemption for leaky-condo repairs. But it is an issue that I get approached on -- I know that -- by people who would still advocate that.

I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I thank the minister for her candour in trying to answer that. I suppose I haven't had as many questions in my area, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, at this point -- knock on wood. There haven't been as many leaky condos, so there haven't been substantial repair bills and renovation costs to look at. But I think it would be wise to consider the idea of the PST exemption, perhaps, because it would only be on the material costs. It certainly wouldn't always be on the labour costs. As we know, PST isn't applied to that. These would be moneys that would not ordinarily be collected, because these repair bills would not ordinarily exist for people. Certainly that would be a concern.

I know that there has been discussion of a very general nature that it would be too difficult to administer -- to segregate these costs and to refund them to people. Again, I would submit that that isn't a difficulty. I know that two years ago it was easily identifiable that all the PST collected on the proceeds of the late Princess Diana sales. . . . Those PST dollars were actually easily identified, and the moneys that were collected as PST were allocated to charities on behalf of the Princess Diana fund. I know that the system is in place; that could be done. I'm just offering this to the minister for her consideration. Again, we want all those who are affected by this tragedy to know that the government looked for solutions as well, and the opposition obviously wants to offer those solutions.

I think the Finance critic also has some questions in this area. I'll defer to him.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the minister probably gets as many constituency calls on this issue as I do -- maybe not; I

[ Page 13104 ]

I am really mindful of the impact that has on people. It's a huge cost for people who. . . . Living in Vancouver alone is very expensive. For people who've had to scrape together the money to get a down payment and purchase -- in many cases -- their first home. . . . In some cases, it's their last home. They're retiring and have moved out of a single-family dwelling into a condominium. Many people have found that when they've experienced those leakages, they've been really wiped out. All of their equity is gone. They're facing huge bills. They're having to walk away from any money they've put into their home. Some people can't even afford to do that. They're living in conditions that aren't healthy. I think all of those items have been discussed. There was a big political issue made of them last year with regard to the report that was done. But there has still been no real help offered to those people who are retroactively having to deal with this.

I get the calls in my constituency. I've talked to people; I've been to homes. They'd like some help, even if it's token help. It doesn't look like they're going to get the GST exemption from the federal government. Certainly, I think, when the provincial government is out advocating that the federal government provide the GST exemption, one should look at doing something on the PST side. I know there's nothing in this budget for it, but many people are facing very serious urgent conditions. I think if you're spending $20,000 to repair your home, to get it back to where it was before it started to leak, the 6 percent makes a big difference. It doesn't fix the problem, but it's pretty hard to fork out that money and also have to write the GST and the PST at the bottom of the bill before you write the cheque. It's a big burden on people.

[1720]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think it's one of these areas where we probably agree, based on our own constituents, because it has been an unbelievable tragedy for many people. I do believe the homeowner protection office is working. . . . But the members have made a suggestion that is very interesting. I know the members know this: by exempting something, that is in effect an expenditure on the budget. Nevertheless, I am also. . . . I had not connected the rebate around the Princess Diana CD, which is interesting. I'm going to go look at that.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's probably not in the same range. . . . It's a good record; it's just not that good.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm talking about systems, though. The member was offering it forward as a system solution. Anyway, I appreciate it, and we'll do some work on it. Thank you.

I. Chong: Again, I do appreciate the minister looking into it. I just want to comment on one of her last comments about the idea of an exemption being looked upon as a revenue forgone opportunity cost in the budget. I would just like to reiterate that those tax revenues collected would not otherwise necessarily have been collected, had it not been for the requirement to repair the leaky condos. So yes, tax revenue is lost, but there are also increased tax revenues that would not otherwise be there.

The last area that I would like to ask the minister some questions on before I defer to my other colleagues. . . . In the budget it refers to some of where their sources of revenue were, and that was in the sale of BCBC assets. There was very little clarification as to what that might entail. I wonder if the minister can provide more clarification as to what sale of BCBC assets she would be looking at as a revenue source in this budget.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure the member hasn't had a chance, because it just occurred yesterday, but there was an exchange by the minister responsible, the Minister for the Public Service, with, I think, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. It was a good exchange. It was an accounting of what assets are available, the range of assets and what assets we have no intention of putting on the market. BCBC does hold about $2 billion in assets, both in developed and undeveloped. . . .

I've had a lot of questions from the private sector about why we are in this business. Certainly with those that would suggest that there's an opportunity for government to get out of a business, BCBC does crop up. It's interesting that -- and I understand this -- lower Vancouver Island MLAs have a different view about BCBC than perhaps other MLAs do, because of the widely-held assets in the lower Vancouver Island community. As I recollect, the minister offered that the asset sales would be done with a great deal of sensitivity to assets that are valued by British Columbians, but certainly there are many opportunities to meet the target in areas that are either undeveloped assets or basically assets that can be sold, and services that were contained within that asset offered back at a much cheaper rate to government. Those will be the principles that will guide the sales.

[1725]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we are taking our guidance from the business community on this. It was a recommendation

[ Page 13105 ]

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I don't need to canvass the last area I have, in regard to unclaimed property, at this time. The ministry staff did provide some very good information, and when legislation comes forward I'm sure they'll be helpful in providing a briefing.

At this time, I'd like to defer to my other colleagues, in particular the member for Parksville-Qualicum. I thank the minister for her answers.

J. Reid: B.C. Assets and Land has raised a lot of questions and concerns because of the formulation of policy that's ongoing. It involves many small businesses spread out through British Columbia, often in remote areas. With B.C. Assets and Land, some of the concerns are with the approach that is being taken in dealing with the concerns of small businesses. So to start off in a very general sense, if the minister could explain the overall mandate of B.C. Assets and Land.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The genesis of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation arose because of the difficulty that people who were using the land were confronted with in having to go to various different ministries for either approval, permitting, payment of fees or renewal of leases. There was a time when the government was being pummelled because of a huge backlog in dealing with the way in which we permit use of land -- the way we either lease it or sell it. So it was decided by our government to incorporate under one corporation that has an independence from government the use of land -- of Crown land -- and to apply the policies around land use that are determined by government in a way that's consistent, quick, fair, efficient and cost-effective. That was achieved by taking some of the responsibilities out of the public service and putting it under the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, which operates like a Crown corporation -- cost recovery.

[1730]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe we could deal with specifics; in terms of changes in policy around fees, we can talk about it in terms of specifics.

J. Reid: I appreciate the minister's request to talk in specifics; however, if we don't clear up some of the general definitions, these are going to come up with every specific case.

Okay, with establishing fee increases for different sectors -- for example, freshwater fishing camps. . . . Businesses there have been looking at fee increases from $1,200 a number of years ago to $12,000, with the potential of going to $24,000. They've been told that the Crown is looking for "a fair return to the Crown." Under that specific, would the minister offer what a definition of "fair return to the Crown" would be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and that's a very good example, because, of course, the change to market-based rates is based on a policy that has been in place for ten years -- certainly prior to our government assuming office. The pressure of that came from the business community itself. People who are on private land want to have a competitive environment, whether that be on their own privately held land, or whether that be on Crown land as well.

Just in terms of the freshwater fish camps, there certainly was a policy that some of these leases -- and I think the proof was in the pudding -- were basically giveaway leases. On the average, up until 1992 rent was $15 an acre for lakefront property. That's well below market value -- much below market value. We were getting major complaints from people who were on private land, so we surveyed the private sector and other jurisdictions to determine what fair market value was. That's an underlying principle to determine fairness. In this particular case, the private sector survey came to the conclusion that our lease prices were out of step with the market. We did seek individual solutions about phasing in the changes in order to be fair to the current businesses.

Just so you know, there are 295 commercial fish camps. Half are leasing Crown land and the other half are on private land. The solution. . . . Fifteen of those Crown land-based camps are withholding partial rent to protest the increases. All the rest are paying and getting on with their businesses. We are attempting to work with those 15 to find a solution that works in a manner that meets their business concerns as well.

J. Reid: Could the minister explain how the B.C. Assessment Authority's figures are used for determining value for fees for Crown land?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. Assessment Authority assessment of the land is the base upon which the rent is applied.

J. Reid: With B.C. Assessment, when they're looking at a piece of land and assessing the value of it, they don't differentiate between whether that's leased land or whether it's owned fee simple. Does that consideration impact on the way fees are assessed by B.C. Assets and Land?

[1735]

J. Reid: With BCAL being an evolving or an emerging Crown corporation, could the minister explain what written

[ Page 13106 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: All the policies are contained in the Crown land account. A change in fees requires -- just as anything does in government -- approval from Treasury Board. Treasury Board has a very strict practice in place that consultation has to occur, and communication around any changes.

J. Reid: Does that mean, then, that the policies that guide the setting of fees are in writing and available to the public?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two places where. . . . Again it would be helpful, if the member has particular concerns and we can deal with specifics. . . . The terms of agreement are in the lease that the person signs. It is a commercial transaction, and the policies on how fees are set and the fees themselves are contained in the Crown land account. When there is a change to that, it goes through Treasury Board and is published.

J. Reid: With Crown lands and the usage of Crown lands -- and we're talking about specifics -- we know that there are a variety of uses. Have the different uses for Crown land been categorized so that for the public and within B.C. Assets and Land there are different categories of usage, so that decisions can flow from those categories?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two aspects to this question. If the member is asking if it is the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation that determine land use, there have been many other processes which determine land use, such as the CORE process and then following up, the LRMP -- we didn't get one in East Vancouver. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Be careful what you wish for.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you do one on the PNE, it might actually resolve that. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we did do one on the PNE; that's correct. Sorry, we did have one; there's now a great, big, giant hole in the middle of the PNE.

Those issues are not determined by B.C. Assets and Land Corporation; they're also influenced by Supreme Court decisions such as the Delgamuukw decision. But there are categories. Once land use is determined, there are categories of fees, and those are all contained in the Crown land account.

J. Reid: With the actual fees that are collected by B.C. Assets and Land, could the minister explain the internal structure? Do those fees go into general revenue, or do they go into B.C. Assets and Land. . . ? Is there a Crown land account that those fees go into?

[1740]

J. Reid: From the Crown land account, are there moneys that go back to different ministries from that, or does it all go through general revenue and then is just appropriated from that account?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They all go into the Crown land account with the exception of the University Endowment Lands, which is an endowment fund -- if there's any change there.

J. Reid: So the question was: from that account, can they go to specific ministries?

Hon. J. MacPhail: My apologies -- I didn't answer clearly. They flow into general revenue from there, not by specific ministry, except for the University Endowment Lands.

J. Reid: Could the minister give a figure for the projected revenue of B.C. Assets and Lands this year? And how does that compare with what was collected last year, even though it was under Environment, Lands and Parks?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In '98-99 we collected $54 million, and our estimate for this year is about $69 million.

J. Reid: Would that be for the same land base, or is there a percentage increase in the use of Crown lands over this next year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it's on the same land base, because Crown land is Crown land is Crown land. But we are getting through. . . . Are we using exactly the same amount of land to garner this revenue? No. We're getting through the backlog now, so there's a greater percentage of Crown land that is being permitted, and therefore revenue is flowing, business is created, etc. There's been an unbelievably good record by BCAL for getting through the backlog of approvals. Then, of course, there's Crown land sales, as well.

J. Reid: Would the minister have an idea of the expansion in use of Crown land -- what areas that lies in?

The Chair: Noting the time, minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In two general areas: commercial back-country recreation usage and shellfish aquaculture.

[1745]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not there yet, but we're getting much closer.

J. Reid: So you're getting closer. Does the minister express the intent that B.C. Assets and Land proposes to recover all fees, in dealing with Crown lands through the particular businesses or industries that are occupying the Crown lands, directly up front as fees?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't answer the question in terms of the costs for the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, because

[ Page 13107 ]

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

J. Reid: As we left off before our break, we were having a discussion about recovering costs that the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation incurred in administering Crown lands and we were looking at the fees charged to cover those costs. I believe the answer at that time was: "Yes, we're moving towards accomplishing that, but we're not there yet." Also, I believe the comment was that obviously there are other interactions between government and any given industry, and those cannot be recovered in such a direct manner as is being done with B.C. Assets and Land.

But looking at the policy, and the decision to recover fees for direct involvement with government, it seems to be either a precedent for other aspects of government, or else totally unfair in that there are many industries serviced by the government in the province of British Columbia where the costs of interacting with government are not charged to them directly up front. Those are considered to be part of the general revenues and the expenses of the government in doing business with business.

So the concern is that with B.C. Assets and Land recovering their costs for interacting with business, this is a disadvantage to any industry -- not just looking at the land that they're based on, but a disadvantage in actually having to do business with the province. Would the minister care to comment on that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the member may interpret it as unfair that in a commercial transaction government actually recovers its costs, but I doubt that the taxpayer would agree with the member. These are commercial enterprises using Crown land where the value of that enterprise and the use in a commercial way flows directly to the taxpayer. So it is our policy to move toward cost recovery, and we'll stay with that.

J. Reid: With the idea that industries that have to deal with Crown Lands. . . . There are a number of them that don't have options. They can't work within the private realm. They only have one landlord, and that's B.C. Assets and Land. The tenure holders in that situation. . . . There's a concern that there's more cost recovery going on than is necessary, that the base costs of administering the programs, perhaps later if not now, will be expanded and that there will be an increase in bureaucracy funded directly through raising the fees involved. Would the minister like to comment on that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll be happy to deal with the specifics of a situation where there are no alternatives. If the member would like to put forward a specific, it would be helpful.

J. Reid: Certainly with the concerns that. . . . I'll go back to the example that I started with -- freshwater tourist resorts -- and the concern that at this particular point in time there is a base function in administering the tenures. Originally those tenures had a 30-year renewal on them. Now when they expire and they don't get a renewal, they have to get a replacement document. The replacement document is for 20 years. In that trend, there's a concern that there will be increasing costs in doing business, in carrying on administration, which will be justification for raising fees, which is an increase in bureaucracy. So with this idea of cost recovery for dealing with businesses, is there any way that BCAL can satisfy the concerns of businesses? In other systems it's "user pay, user say," but in this case there isn't any option for those users to say: "We don't need that extra service. We don't need this administration. We're willing to pay for 30 years rather than having to change that." So is there any comfort for businesses involved with Crown lands that the fees won't increase for added services that they don't particularly want?

[1845]

J. Reid: Another example would be marinas, where getting a water licence or a water tenure. . . . There isn't any other option. There's only the one landlord. Therefore there's no other place for that business to go, no other options. In a situation like that, if the lessee, or the tenure holder, is feeling that the bureaucracy is increasing -- wanting to provide more services, supposedly, that the businesses don't want -- what would be the method for the public to be able to hold B.C. Assets and Land to account, to be able to say that the increase in bureaucracy isn't necessary or isn't justifiable?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate that the member may have future concerns, and we, of course, can deal with future concerns that are speculative or hypothetical now when they actually occur. The record of BCAL, actually, is to eliminate bureaucracy and eliminate the backlog of approval at quite an unbelievable rate. So that accusation has not been made yet under any circumstances.

[ Page 13108 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The commercial back-country recreation policy is, of course, canvassed under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The policy is applied evenly across all applicants. If the member suggests that there should be another way, then that would be a policy matter, not an estimates discussion. But if there is a suggestion that there shouldn't be a taking of fees up front, then we'll disagree.

J. Reid: The concern on behalf of the public -- and across many different sectors that I've spoken with -- is that B.C. Assets and Land has a policy of revenue generation rather than economic development. That is a very real concern for people whose fees have the potential to greatly increase.

[1850]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The fee structure is based on commercial viability. There is no component now that suggests that the use of Crown lands should further enhance subsidies to business than what currently exists. So the example that the member gave. . . . Was it a fish camp operation? I'm unaware of a situation such as that. I know that there were stories of that nature, but I'm unaware of that actually occurring. If the member is suggesting that she actually has details of that kind of increase that we're not now currently managing, I'd be happy to deal with that as a specific situation. But there is no current situation such as she describes that I'm aware of.

J. Reid: I spoke with the individual last night who gave me those details, so I'll be happy to pass them along to the minister. The question, again, is with commercial viability. Certainly, if BCAL wants to be a responsible landlord, then the businesses that are running on Crown lands have to commercially viable. The question is: how will that be determined? What indicators would give B.C. Assets and Land, as landlord, the indicator that perhaps the fees are set too high and that rather than encouraging economic development, they're actually stifling it? What would those indicators be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The application of lease fees is done on market assessment, as I explained to the member earlier. The commercial viability of the operator is just that. There are other indicators. We set the fees, the tenure and the lease based on moving toward market competition, which is being demanded by all businesses. Commercial viability has many other factors to incorporate into it.

J. Reid: That's admirable, but in real life it's not necessarily so, in that industries can certainly suffer through the administration of government policies. I would understand from the minister's answer that there indeed aren't indicators being watched or assessed to be able to determine if an industry is in trouble. Whatever communication they're receiving they would take into account, but there's not actually any watchdog mechanism in place.

I'll go on with my other questions. When we're looking at formulas for determining lease fees, I understand from the minister that depending on the industry or the competitiveness, there would be different lease fees, for example, for marine tenures. There would be different structures for land-based tenures and for tenures where there's already direct competition, etc. Are there any formulas that have been determined to be acceptable, depending on the circumstances? Or is BCAL still generating these internally to address concerns on an individual basis?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm trying to suss out the direction of the member so that I can help her. Pricing and fee policy is not set on the basis of an individual business, nor would there be any business organization that would ever advocate that to me. In fact, they advocate exactly the opposite. I think Liberal Party policy is that as well. I'm sure we'll get hammered later on for the fact that we've chosen to subsidize individual businesses. Pricing policy is based on the sector, and that's exactly what business has asked us to do. I'm not quite clear whether the member is suggesting that the pricing policy which BCAL enforces should be based on the viability of an individual business. That would be inappropriate.

[1855]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It would help if the member is referring specifically to aquaculture tenures. We can deal with that specifically, but otherwise. . . . That is the area that I think we are exploring here, so if it is, we need to know that, and we can answer the question specifically.

But otherwise, it's a market-based assessment by the Assessment Authority.

J. Reid: I've got the same question from many different sectors, so it's a question. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 13109 ]

Another question that arises from the general public -- and I've had a number of these queries -- is with the fee structure for Crown lands. What policy does B.C. Assets and Land have for the use of Crown lands, and where would that line be drawn? For example, if there's camping that's going to be taking place on Crown land, then we're looking at fee structures. What about day hiking? What about just walking? There's a line, and people want to know where that line is for charging fees for the use of Crown land.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's part of the commercial back-county recreation policy. It's not part of BCAL.

J. Reid: Referring back to the reduction in the length of time that tenures are being given out for -- the reduction from 30-year leases to renewals with 20-year leases. Could the minister explain why the leases are being shortened?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, if I could just clarify, the policies around those issues are set by the Crown lands branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. BCAL implements them. I know that the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are finished, but I'd be more than happy to assist you in getting those answers from them.

J. Reid: For my last question -- just a fairly general one, again addressing the concerns of small business rather than the specifics. . . . The concerns many people that I've talked to, dealing with B.C. Assets and Land, is a fear that their fees are going to rise, and they're going to be put out of business, or their businesses are going to suffer. So would the minister share with us today. . . ? Certainly part of being a landlord is having a good relationship with the tenants. So as far as public relations go, and staff in dealing with tenants, could the minister explain what processes are in place, or if there are any new processes planned, for dealing with concerns or complaints?

[1900]

We're doing that in certain areas. We're certainly in consultation with the business community, both those that are in a current sector. . . . For instance, around the shellfish industry, we're dealing with those that are currently in the industry versus those that wish to enter the industry. There are community discussions going on there. We certainly have discussions going on about competing interests around the commercial back-country recreation policy -- and there are competing interests; there's no question about it.

In the late eighties and the early nineties, this province was plummeted into what was called "the war in the woods" -- land use wars -- out of which many processes arose, one of which was BCAL and others were CORE and the LRMP. All of these are about developing better relationships based on commercial viability and proper land use. I'm very committed to those processes working properly.

R. Thorpe: I was intrigued by the minister's comments about BCAL: cost-effective, quick, independent, getting rid of backlogs. Those words were very encouraging.

I was just wondering if the minister could advise us of the status of the issue that was announced at the Premier's Kamloops summit last September. What is the status of the McMaster report on fees and leases for fishing camps in the Kamloops area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I can't report on that. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks commissioned the report, but I'd be happy to get you that information.

R. Thorpe: It's always very interesting to me what we can comment on and what we can't comment on, and how we run behind another ministry.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, if I could perhaps finish my question, then the minister could comment.

This was a commitment made to fishing-camp operators and it has. . . . Land use, Crowns, assessments -- all the things that we were talking about earlier talked about specific examples. I would like to know what BCAL is doing. BCAL, I believe, knows it's sitting in the minister's office and knows it's been sitting there for sometime. I would like to know what they're doing about moving it, so we can do things in a quick, cost-effective manner.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not ducking the question. I'd be more than happy to assist the member to get the information from the proper source, and I commit to that.

R. Thorpe: I would appreciate receiving that in a very quick manner. This is an issue where we're now into our thirteenth or fourteenth month after the fact.

My last question with respect to that is: can the minister advise whether she or any of her senior staff talked directly to the author of the McMaster report with respect to the contents of that report?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

[1905]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thought the question was: have we? And the answer is no.

[ Page 13110 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can give you the specific numbers. The overall backlog on land tenure generally was about 3,300. It's now about 1,650, and there's also been about 1,900 new applications -- I'm trying to remember -- in the interim, as well, that have been dealt with; But I'll get you the exact. . . . So 3,300 backlog, 1,900 new applications, and the remaining backlog is about 1,650.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise if BCAL staff are aware of a group called the East Kootenay Environmental Society?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Do you care whether I know, or is it just the staff?

R. Thorpe: I always care what the minister thinks.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware of them.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise if in fact it's correct that the Cranbrook office of BCAL and MELP is not issuing licences right now with respect to back-country?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's not true.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise whether the Cranbrook area is withholding and delaying unnecessarily applications pending for Canadian Mountain Holidays?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't have to fight about this. I talked to the guy this morning, too, and no, we're not.

But let me, if I could, perhaps just deal with the issue that you're probably talking about. There's some discussion around land use issues, even in a community where they actually reached agreement on. . . . They went through a very difficult process around land use issues and reached agreement, and, as a result of that, policies flowed from the application of land use into the permitting area, etc. There's still some concern amongst some at the community level about what proper use of our Crown lands is. It's my view that we have the policies in place. We've made major investment over the course of this decade, from all aspects of the community, and reached agreement on what proper use is. The commercial back-country recreation policy flows from that and will be applied. But I do know that there are some in the public domain who would suggest that there should be more consultation.

[1910]

R. Thorpe: In the Cranbrook area, is there an increasing backlog, or have you in fact reduced the backlog? What has been the experience in the last 30 to 60 days?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Generally, the backlog has been reduced across all regions. Cranbrook does not stand out as an exception to that, but I'll get you that information.

R. Thorpe: I used that example because earlier the minister was asking for specific examples. That's why I used that example. There are others, and I'm sure, if the minister talked to the individual today, perhaps others would be indicated. There is some concern there. When can those small business operators who want to invest money in British Columbia, who want to create jobs in British Columbia, who want to pay taxes in British Columbia, expect some action from the government on these issues in the Cranbrook area?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I hope I'm not getting a confusing message from the opposition. On the one hand, we're being asked to make sure that we do consult with all those affected and to make sure that there is community buy-in, which I totally support. And on the other hand, we're being asked to get on with it, which I totally support. We have to do both, and that is what we're doing. We're making sure that there is community consultation. I would suggest that any person who is awarded an approval of a permit and then faces huge community backlash is no further ahead. So we are proceeding.

We are proceeding to approve in the fashion that we're mandated to do. But we're also sensitive to the fact that there must be community consultation of a degree that allows the small business to flourish and reside comfortably within his or her own community. I spoke with the particular operator that you mentioned just this morning, and we agree on that. Now we have to make sure that we proceed together.

R. Thorpe: I would just like to assure the minister that the minister is not receiving any conflicting representation on views from this side of the House. I think the member for Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo specifically said that perhaps she didn't explain her question properly, or the minister didn't understand it properly. What we want is to make sure that people who want to do business have an opportunity to do business under the exact mandates that you said: independence from government -- that was one of the mandates; quick, cost-effective. So we are saying: "Government, get out of the way. Live up to your commitments and meet your deadlines so that the private sector can get on and create the jobs." As the minister knows, government does not create jobs. The private sector creates jobs.

I was just wondering if we could maybe get a time line, a decision date, on when we might expect the helitenures in particular to be resolved. Will it be June, July, August, next year? What kind of a time frame are we looking at?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is regular communication with the particular company that you mentioned. Thursday the government will be meeting with the company again. I've offered that the owner-operator come in and meet with me right after that. We're proceeding. Sorry, I don't want to grandstand here and give you a particular commitment, but certainly I'll report out on our talks.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a clarification to an answer the minister gave the member from Penticton. She said the backlog last year was 3,300 applications, that the current backlog is 1,650 and that there were an additional 1,950 applications

[ Page 13111 ]

[1915]

J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister. The first one involves Nimmo Bay Resort Ltd. This is a father-son team, Craig Murray and Clifton Murray. They were honoured today as being the 1999 minister's environmental award winners for business, industry or labour. They wrote a letter to BCAL some time ago; I don't have a copy of the letter or the response. They were seeking to purchase the one-acre site that they're currently leasing. They got back an answer that they thought was not really addressing the issue. The claim was made that there were problems with Highways and possible problems with the site, but they would like to make a renewed effort to purchase that property. So I want to ask the minister if she has any comments on that particular request, for starters, to purchase their property.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to look at the correspondence and get back to the member within a day.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that response by the minister. What is the policy of BCAL with respect to tenure holders having the opportunity to purchase property? As I understand it, the government has certain revenue projections for BCAL that will be mainly generated by land sales. But is it the policy that virtually any tenure holder could make an application or a request to purchase the property that they're operating on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we encourage this policy. There are certain other factors that affect policy, because they're Crown lands -- for instance, aboriginal land claims issues, access issues, floodplain issues, future liability issues, etc. But generally, we encourage it.

J. van Dongen: Well, I think it's useful for any tenure holder that they could make that request. I just want to ask the minister; with respect to the salmon-farming tenures, what is the status of renewals? I know that we were starting to build up a number of situations where the existing tenures had expired and people were looking to renew. I think that in the next year or two there's another whole bunch of tenures that are going to expire. I wonder if the minister could tell us: what is the current status of tenures that have expired where there has not been a renewal put in place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me give you some. . . . What I hope is reassuring is that there's been a move back from probably what the current tenure holders need reassurance as. . . . There's been no move by our government to in any way indicate that they have to leave or change. We're currently working on -- but we do. . . . That's the one side, and the other side is that there's a moratorium. There's a renewal that has to occur in between. So the Ministry of Fisheries, B.C. Assets and Land Corporation and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are working to give comfort during this period and no disruption -- comfort through no disruption -- during this period of deciding the future of the moratorium.

[1920]

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the member has canvassed this issue with the Minister of Fisheries, I would certainly defer to his answers to the member. My assessment of our government's action is that we want to be the least disruptive during a period when the future of the finfish industry has not been decided by our government. I admit to that. It certainly is our view to renew the leases as we can, but in the context of all the other policy issues that have to be decided in the face of a moratorium and our government committing to a policy around aquaculture. Given all of those caveats, yes, it is our wish, through BCAL, to give comfort through renewed leases.

J. van Dongen: I can assure the minister that I didn't canvass the issue of existing tenures in any detail with the Minister of Fisheries. I guess the one concern with respect to renewals -- and I understand the government's position on the moratorium and that it's still being considered -- is: would existing tenures possibly not be renewed or be basically left out there in some kind of non-conforming position and an extension of an existing lease, for a reason other than the moratorium -- for example, native land claims issues or claims being made by a local band with respect to a particular fish farm site?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think it's safe to say that BCAL's role is an advocate for the current operator and that BCAL takes the approach of finding individual solutions to problems such as the ones that you may list. If the conclusion comes that a farm has to relocate, then BCAL puts a priority on assisting in the relocation that makes the most business sense for the operator.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that answer and the efforts by BCAL to support existing operators.

I just want to mention, finally, the shellfish initiative that the Minister of Fisheries announced on November 24 -- which really, I think, could be classified as an economic development initiative. I view that as a positive announcement and certainly want to see that announcement get through the implementation phase. There are two issues that I want to mention to the minister. One is the whole goal of economic development versus revenue generation. I hope that the government takes a balanced view of those two objectives. Certainly BCAL is being considered by the government as a tool for revenue generation. I don't want to see that conflict too heavily with the goal of economic development. So I just want to mention that.

In terms of the pricing issue, very often the perception of what a piece of land or water should generate in terms of revenue is overestimated. I would make the general comment for the minister that certainly in my experience in agriculture,

[ Page 13112 ]

[1925]

I just wanted to pass on those comments on the shellfish initiative to the minister. It's one that we support, and we hope that BCAL and the other ministries involved can come to an agreement with the industry in the near future.

M. Coell: Good evening to the minister. I was able to canvass a number of issues of the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation in the Ministry of Environment estimates, although the minister did make it plain where she couldn't answer. So I have a couple of questions for you and an example I'd like to share with you that the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation is dealing with.

I can tell you that I think people are finding it difficult to get financial information on the corporation. Your web site -- when you print up everything that's on it -- reads very much like a disposal corporation. Everything is for sale. There's not a heck of a lot of information on your site, and I think that's creating some problems in the community.

One of the questions I asked the Minister of Environment was: how many staff did she lose to go to the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation? I just wonder if you can tell me how many staff you got from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Between auxiliary and permanent, it's about 125 to 130 staff.

M. Coell: What is your complement of staff now that you've hired, as well as the staff that you got from the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's what the staff is, on the Lands side. We're probably going to staff up about another ten on the Lands side.

M. Coell: Is the minister saying that there were no more staff hired after the transfer from Environment, Lands and Parks?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we haven't staffed up yet.

M. Coell: The minister is saying that she's planning on hiring another ten staff, approximately, to add on to here. I would be interested in knowing the types of roles those people are playing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Virtually all of them will be assigned to the regional offices to deal with tenure applications.

[1930]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It doesn't affect BCAL.

M. Coell: I would just like to leave you with an example. B.C. kayak tour operators are facing a new fee from BCAL. All the operators now have to apply for a land tenure for all the campsites they intend to use for more than 14 days in a six-month period. Kayak tour operators do not build structures on the land. They offer a variety of different camping experiences with no-trace camping. They're typically operated in four or five different zones, using five or six different campsites on a tour.

Each land tenure process now requires an application for each campsite in each region. The costs are $500 per region and $100 per campsite. A tour operator would now get a fee or a bill of $5,000 to carry out a business that they were carrying out for nothing a couple of years ago. The application process is arduous, to say the least, with maps for campsites being required and diagrams for camp layouts being required, indicating how many metres apart the tents will be, and so on. This way of operating doesn't seem business-friendly to me. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've actually been working with the group and, I think, probably the particular individual you're advocating for. Certainly the news media report is not accurate in terms of what's developed and in terms of the fees being charged. We've been working quite extensively to deal with the individual's concern. Of course, the fee structure arises from the commercial back-country recreation policy. We've been doing extensive work to be fair and to deal with the individual's concerns, and none of that's been reflected accurately in the media.

M. Coell: Would the minister tell me what the land tenure process is for campsites for kayak tour operators wishing to operate in B.C.?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sure you're well aware that the commercial back-country recreation policy and how it applies to land use is part of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I'm not sloughing off; I just don't have the answer to that. But as to how it's applied, its application is through BCAL. The issue that this particular kayak operator is facing is whether indeed the determination of campsites is for inciden-

[ Page 13113 ]

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that explanation. I can tell her that operators -- and, I know, the member for Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo -- on a number of things are finding difficulty dealing with two ministries which in many instances are sharing the same office in the region. You're getting the same sort of answer as you are from the minister here and from the Minister of Environment. There needs to be a lot more coordination and a lot more business sense for operators like this. It's just taking a problem that we identified a year and a half ago and exacerbating it. So I leave that for the minister's consideration.

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of brief questions to the minister. How, for instance, are the sales for the applications processed in the Prince George office for BCAL? Is there an order in which they're done? Does it have anything to do with when you apply and that your number is such and such, and those kinds of things? How is the process done within the office?

[1935]

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I mean, some are more difficult than others.

So as an application comes in, it's dealt with immediately. I ask the question because just a short time ago I was informed that there was a dollar value placed on applications, and the ones with the highest dollar value were the ones that were dealt with first. People, for instance, who were trying to purchase a piece of property which was not an expensive piece of property. . . . If it was in the neighbourhood of $10,000 or something, it went to the bottom of the pile and would stay there indefinitely -- in fact has proven to be the truth. . . . I just wonder if we're treating everyone equally. If there's a property that comes in at $2 million, does that one get all the attention until it is sold, and do all the others just sit in the corner until that takes place?

I guess that's basically my question. I'm not going to single out any one particular sale or application; I think that would be totally unfair. I'm asking in general terms: are all people that apply through the Prince George office treated equally, regardless of what the dollar amount is at the end of the day for government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. They're all treated equally. We want to move every application through as quickly as we can.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that. I will take forward that response, and I hope that's what takes place within the Prince George office specifically, from here on in -- that directions to value dictate the prioritization of where that application fits in the process. I'm glad to hear that you're processing all of them in a timely fashion and that you are actually treating everyone evenly or fairly, regardless of what the amount of the transaction is.

R. Coleman: I just want to put a quick question on the record, and I'd like some response from the ministry or from this agency. It has to do with the Finger Lake fishing camp. It's district block 103, No. 288644 lbf, lease No. 702664. The reason I bring it here is because my office seems to be experiencing some frustration in getting answers out of the offices dealing with this file. We dealt with the Ministry of Environment and then bounced back and forth. This particular application, I understand, has been outstanding for about a year. These people have been waiting for some sort of response from BCAL or whoever is responsible for this. It's a request to turn a lease into a freehold title purchase on a fishing camp that some people have substantial investment in. There's other land in the area that has gone through the application process in the meantime, I'm told. It came in after this and has been allowed to go to different title. I'd just like to get a response back from BCAL as to the status of this file and other lands in this particular area, so I can get a handle on what's going on here. I don't seem to be getting the responses I need from the agency or from the ministry.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we'll get the information for the member and look into it quickly. The offer is there for -- I know many members make use of this -- contacting the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation directly -- the CEO, Lorne Seitz -- for individual casework.

[1940]

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's an excellent idea. Of course, the transition has occurred only within the last couple of months -- the full transition of BCAL's first full responsibilities from MELP. So a briefing would be appropriate, and then advice on how to move forward.

R. Thorpe: Just a very quick question. It's my understanding that the BCAL asset sale has picked up the file on the government sale of 4,400 vehicles which was announced last March. On that assumption, I would like to know: has BCAL done any post-audit work on the results of that sale vis-à-vis what the original expectations were when the announcement was made? And if so could they share those details with us not necessarily here tonight, but afterwards?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, actually, the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation was responsible for the sale. The administration

[ Page 13114 ]

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Maybe it's just a little wiggle room.

But what I want to know is. . . . There was a sale, and there were some components of the sale. So has there been a post-audit done on the sale? I think the sale had a value of $37 million at the time, by TD and PHH. But I also believe -- I thought, if I remember reading Hansard properly from last year -- that there was an asset renewal component of that, which was built into the $37 million. Now, is that managed by BCAL, or is that managed by the ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That part is what's being managed by the ministry. It's the sale of the vehicles, and that's exactly what we're auditing and will report out to you on -- and that's where the good news comes in.

R. Thorpe: When do we think that that first year's audit will be complete and we will be able to share in detail that documentation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The actual new program came in on July 1, so the first year audit will be finished at the end of this month. We're preparing it as we speak to be concluded by the end of the month, and we'll get something out very quickly after that.

R. Thorpe: Just off the top -- and I don't want to get into too many details, but. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Yeah, get out of town before there's any more questions.

I don't want to get into too many details, but there was great speculation -- of course we all live out in constituencies, and we bump into people from time to time -- on the trade-in values of vehicles. I want a global answer here. There was great expectation that the book values were highly inflated for the sale purposes. Can the minister advise: have they in fact, as they've traded in vehicles, suffered substantial losses, as had been rumoured in the field?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the good news; you're going to force me to give you good news. In fact, the opposite has proven to be true. On average, the sale price has been 29 percent higher than anticipated, than the book value. That's the excellent news.

R. Thorpe: Last year, the minister may recall, when I asked about the cost of PHH, she mentioned that the cost would be a flow-through. Can the minister confirm now that when someone from a ministry calls for repairs, etc., there is a $25 authorization fee charged by PHH to process such work orders?

[1945]

R. Thorpe: Last year in the estimates it was said that "we've established a contract management group to monitor this." Could the minister advise who this management group is? Is it an internal management group, or is it an external management group?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an internal contract management group -- four FTEs.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister -- I'm trying to move quickly here -- advise: how often do they manage this? Are there monthly reports with respect to the management of the fleet of vehicles?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Two and a half of these employees -- that's their full-time job. They liaise daily, regularly, with PHH. The success of the whole program will be reported out next month.

R. Thorpe: That's encouraging, but my question was: does this group issue monthly reports to. . . ?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: They don't. Okay, that's fine.

By the middle of July we'll have a copy of this final report. I look forward to that briefing, and -- through the Chair to the minister -- I thank her and the staff for those answers.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to spend a little bit of time on some of the economic development provisions and aspects of the government's fiscal policy, but I want to come back a little bit. I appreciate that in the intervening time frame, ministry staff has obtained for me the copy of the spread history that we talked about earlier on the interest rates for bond issues. It actually makes very interesting reading. If we look at today's figures for British Columbia, over on the five-, ten- and 30-year time frame, and compare it with what it was in, let's say, March 1997, or for that matter. . . . I think January 1997 was the date I was using earlier.

That spread has changed quite significantly. In fact, in January of '97 versus today the five-year spread has jumped10-1/2 basis points, from 14 to 24-1/2 points; the ten-year has jumped from 20 to 36-1/2; and the 50-year basis point spread has jumped from 30 to 51-1/2. That's from January 28, 1997, to the current date today.

That's a fairly significant deterioration in the point spread over that 28-month period. I think it comes back. . . . If one looks at the same time frame. . . . The example that, I think, the minister gave earlier was Ontario, and the same change has been, I would say, nowhere near that same increase. I'm glad to see the numbers. I think it's probably a little more severe than I had anticipated, and I do worry about that. Since January 1999 it hasn't changed significantly. Certainly in the intervening period -- the intervening two years -- there was a pretty dramatic change there, and that will be a problem for the province of British Columbia if things continue as they are now.

[ Page 13115 ]

[1950]

The minister's response in the budget this year to the ongoing bad economic news was that the government was going to grow itself out of the recession. I think that strategy was universally panned by various economic commentators. If you look at any of the examinations of the various budgets put out by various governments across Canada, it was pretty universal that people thought British Columbia was headed in the wrong direction. Does the minister have any reason to believe that growing our way out of the recession here in B.C. is going to work any better than it did or didn't work in other jurisdictions?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I take issue with the. . . . First of all, the member said that we've given up on the three-year economic plan, and it disappeared. Well, it's far to the contrary. In fact, the three-year economic plan was laid out in detail in the '98-99 budget, and we've delivered on every single promise that we made there -- absolutely every single promise, including keeping to our tax cuts even in the face of a recession, including working on a sector-by-sector approach to stimulate the economy. Jobs have been created.

I'm interested to note the member's analysis of job creation. Certainly in the last quarter of '98 and the first quarter of '99, the job growth was in the private sector. The job growth was not in self-employment, as the member said. You know, it's interesting. The credit-rating agencies themselves recognized the strong job growth. The economic forecasters -- the independent economic forecasters -- recognized the strong job growth. No one is challenging that, except I now hear that the opposition is challenging the job growth.

We delivered on our tax cuts, and yes, that did contribute to the deficit -- $280 million of tax cuts in this budget alone contribute to the deficit. In fact, we introduced a new targeted tax cut in the area of the small business tax cut. I met with the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada last week, who is in no way suggesting that the economy of B.C., which is doing much differently than the rest of Canada, is based on anything other than the Asian economic downturn and commodity prices, some of which are recovering now. In the meantime, in the forest sector, with the immediate recovery of commodity prices, the industry has been able to absorb that and turn that into its own bottom line, because we have cut red tape and cut their cost of doing business. This was the goal -- that when commodity prices recovered and market prices recovered, that would go to the bottom line of the forest sector companies. And that's exactly what has happened.

There's no question that the new economy is doing very well. Exports are up by 8.4 percent; manufacturing shipments are up by 5.7 percent. I'm not lauding this as an economic recovery, but I am suggesting that there is hope for good news -- as was our three-year economic plan. The independent economic forecasters of recent delivery have been above what our economic forecast is. In fact, that's demonstrated in that consumer confidence rose in the last quarter of last year and in the first quarter of this year. Car and truck sales are up, home sales are strengthening, and airport passenger traffic is up.

[1955]

We have taken an approach of targeted tax cuts, and the targeted tax cuts are working. The evidence is there in my opening comments around the oil and gas industry, in the forest sector, in film and in tourism.

We are continuing with our three-year economic plan. We did publish an update on the three-year economic plan both to the public generally at the beginning of 1999 and in our budget, and we will continue to do so.

But I would also say that while there are certain parts of the public -- a substantial majority -- who are not enamoured with broad tax cuts to business, we have still committed ourselves, even in the face of an economic downturn, to deliver on the tax cuts that we promised over last year, this year and the coming year.

G. Farrell-Collins: How would I characterize the government's continued comments on the bright future of British Columbia's economy? I suppose, when you're at the bottom of a valley, anywhere upslope looks higher than where you are at the present time. For the minister to say that a number of indicators in the last quarter have started to trend upwards. . . . I think that while it's nice to hear, it's going to be an awful long time before we get anywhere near where we were prior to the downturn. When one sees housing starts in British Columbia drop by 35 percent to, really, their lowest level on a per-capita basis since those figures have been kept -- some 50 years -- one has to ask oneself whether or not that's an indicator of strong, broad economic recovery. I would say that no, it isn't.

Certainly there are some areas of the economy that have been performing well. The film industry is one; the high-tech sector is another. But when one looks at what's going on in other jurisdictions and the growth rate of the high-tech sector in places like Washington State, Oregon and the Ottawa area, one finds that the rate is also high. The minister shakes her head. Maybe she has some new data; I'd love to see that. But certainly the information I've seen over the last three or four months is that the rate of growth in the high-tech sector in other jurisdictions, while also positive, is more positive than it is in British Columbia, and that's part of a trend. That's not to pooh-pooh that news; that's good news for British Columbia. It's good that we have growth in the high-tech sector. It helps

[ Page 13116 ]

The film industry, which is an even smaller portion of our economic base, is doing well, and that's good news. We're glad to hear that; we hope it gets better; we hope it grows in exponential rates. But it's such a small portion of the overall economy that it's a pretty small hook to hang one's hat on. I certainly hope we're not looking at those aspects of the economy and hoping and taking solace in them and saying everything's fine, because all one has to do is get outside of the lower mainland area -- even the GVRD, quite frankly -- and see that the economy in other parts of British Columbia is not benefiting from either of those two sectors in the same way, perhaps, that the Vancouver area and parts of the Victoria area are. Certainly in northern Vancouver Island -- really, anywhere in rural British Columbia -- it's quite a different story. We are seeing major hardship in those communities -- major downturns. Housing prices are dropping; housing sales are dropping. People are leaving the province. All one has to do is talk to any of the car rental companies -- moving companies that rent moving vehicles. They're having trouble getting them back into British Columbia once they leave. That's a problem.

[2000]

For a long time there was no recession. Everything was fine, we were being told. Then, I don't know, I think somebody asked and did some focus groups on it and some polling, because I've seen some of the results the government had. It became trendy, I think, to acknowledge the fact that there was a recession. Once everybody else in the province had become convinced of it, it became okay to acknowledge it. In fact, it became a good communication tool to acknowledge it and say: "Yes, but look at all the wonderful things we're doing."

The reality is that the changes the government has made towards tax changes and the changes the government has made toward regulatory burden reduction are just not going to cut it. They are way too little, and they are way too late. If you look at what's happened. . . . I mean, today was a good example. We are talking about things that the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation and the backlog. . . . While that backlog has improved, there are still a wide range of problems and concerns. People don't know which part of the government they're dealing with. They talk to one ministry; they get one answer. They talk to another ministry; they get another answer. All of those kinds of things create uncertainty and create a bad climate for investment.

Also, I would argue that when. . . . I think this last year was interesting, because the business community tried in a way that was as non-partisan as they could possibly make it. They brought together people from right across British Columbia to their business summit, and they barred the politicians from it. The minister and I were all not allowed in the door. They invited us to dinner, and that was it. The rest of it was: no politicians allowed. At first I thought that was a little odd, but in retrospect, I think it was the right thing for them to do. They came together. They touched on their problems and concerns that exist across the province. They made a list of things that they felt needed to be addressed. I don't think any one of them ever believed they were going to convince an NDP government to give them half of the items that were there or any significant number of the items that they'd asked for. But they certainly thought that they would at least be listened to.

While the summit was going on, the government's spin machine was in full force. The minister was there pooh-poohing the suggestions of the summit before they even came out. The new Minister Responsible for the Public Service, who seems to have taken on a bit of an economic portfolio, made a ministerial statement, if I remember correctly, slagging the report of the business summit that was submitted to the government and released to the public. Those kinds of attitudes -- the failure to recognize the problem in any meaningful way, the desire to gloss over the problem with anecdotal information that makes it look like everything is fine, an advertising campaign that makes it look like the government is making substantive changes in the way it does business when they're really not, and then, I think, reacting in such a negative way to those suggestions that are put forward by the business community -- don't do the government any good and don't do the province any good.

The reality is that we have a big problem in British Columbia. We have a resource sector that currently is undercapitalized. They have not invested in an upgrade in machinery or equipment through the last business cycle. We have equipment that is antiquated and not competitive. Our pulp mills, for the most part, are in that state. Our sawmills, in many cases, are in that state. Forestry is still the backbone of our economy in British Columbia, no matter how many films they shoot and no matter how many computer chips we've started designing. For the foreseeable future, forestry will continue to be the backbone of this economy and the backbone of government revenues.

[2005]

As much as the minister will bring forward positive information -- and there are little shiny stones if one looks for them -- overall, British Columbia is undergoing an extreme economic crisis across the rural areas of this province. For the minister to really continue the charade that they're doing all there is to be done in order to turn that around is, I think, disingenuous.

[ Page 13117 ]

So when the minister goes out into rural British Columbia and meets with those people and gets that kind of reaction, I hope she doesn't take offence at it but rather understands the frustration that small businesses have in trying to deal with a government that doesn't seem to understand how British Columbia's economy works and doesn't seem to want to make the choices that will help turn that economy around for the longer-term health of their communities, of their businesses and of the people that live there.

So it's difficult for me to hear the minister stand up and say that this three-year economic plan that they brought in last year is on track. It's great; everything's been done. The minister says she lived up to every promise that was in there. That's not the issue. The issue isn't whether or not you've lived up to the promises that were there; the issue is whether or not what you did had any effect. If it didn't have any effect, then the government has got to relook at it and try to adjust it and come up with a better strategy, a more assertive strategy to try and turn the economy around.

Certainly, by any measure that one uses, looking at this economic plan you can't call it a success. It was not a success, and it's not about to be a success until the government tries some different tactics. I don't know if the minister is going to stand up and offer us another set of statistics taken out of context, or focused statistics, to tell us that everything is turning around and everything's fine. If she does, it just reinforces, I think, the message that the people of British Columbia are getting from the government: they don't understand, they don't get it and they're not willing to take it seriously.

I don't know if the government has any other plans that they are working on to take this further to try and turn the economy around, but certainly what was brought in last year and over the last number of years is not working. There is no big turnaround in the economy of British Columbia; we may be bottoming out in some sectors. Hopefully, we are bottoming out in the forest sector, because I don't know how much more those communities can take. There is no fast-rising elevator that's going to bring us back up that I can see -- unless the minister can see that. Perhaps she can point it out to us.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would prefer that the member not put words into my mouth -- which I asked him not to do earlier. I have been very forthright both in my budget and in the comments here about the economic circumstances. I just finished saying that I'm going to give the good stats as well as the bad stats, and the member stands up and says: "She's cherry-picking." Well, the member is olive-picking with all of the doom and gloom -- black-olive-picking. Really, I honestly fail to understand, as a British Columbian -- a person who's responsible for someone beyond myself -- why anyone would want to do that.

If it is somehow to partisan political advantage to ensure that there is no hope in the economy, have those politics. . . . The member is welcome to have those partisan politics. I want no part of it. I mean that seriously.

[2010]

I spend all of my day, as does the majority of our government, working within our own communities to do whatever we can to help the economy in the context. . . . I guess that means. . . . When the opposition pours so much hateful accusation upon our heads about the damage that we're doing to the economy, if the economy does turn around, then is it a syllogism to say that we would then be given credit for it? I don't know. I expect that no, they won't do that.

For that very reason, I cannot take seriously their analysis of the damage that we're doing now, because it is for partisan reasons only. Yes, our resource sector is in deep turmoil, although it is recovering, by their own admission. Is the recovery short-term? Yes, they expect so, and I certainly take their advice on that. The recovery is demonstrated in the return of commodity prices, but much more work needs to be done. We're not standing still in that area, and we don't in any way suggest that the recovery is permanent; nor is it structural. That's why we're moving forward with the forest action plan that the Minister of Forests will be happy to go into detail about.

In the oil and gas sector, actually, we're doing better than our major competitor in Alberta, because of the regulatory changes and the tax changes that we've made. And yes, we are doing better than anywhere else in Canada -- in fact, we're doing better than Hollywood, California -- in the area of film production, because of the tax changes, the infrastructure changes and the training changes we've made. We actually were in New York and had to face the worry of the industry in New York about how competitive British Columbia was becoming.

We are making substantial changes in the area of regulation and cutting red tape. The small business task force actually says that publicly, and they say that privately. I don't care whether they say it publicly. We're working very hard as a team there.

[2015]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not the critic for either of those.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, your party doesn't, actually. So let me be clear.

[ Page 13118 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'd be happy to hear your discussions with the labour movement. I'd be very happy to hear the discussions you've had with the labour movement directly on your fair-wage policy. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .through you, hon. Chair. So I don't mind engaging in sectors of the economy that disagree with. . . . I do it face to face. I don't stand up and make accusations and then don't go out and defend it directly to the groups, the way the opposition has not. And yes, there are disagreements. That's right. We're not going to cut the corporate capital tax and the high marginal tax rate to the tune of $1.5 billion. That's right; I said that directly to the business summit when we met with them. But we have made major changes as per the business community's requests, and those changes are having an effect. But what I will not do is make up rhetoric to the detriment of the economy, as the opposition has done.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then I guess the minister had nothing to do with sitting around the cabinet table and planning the forest jobs and timber accord advertising campaign, which misled the people of British Columbia that there would somehow be 21,000 jobs created in the forest sector, when we've lost some 9,000 jobs. I guess the Minister of Finance. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: See there, you made it up again. You just made it up.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is shouting across asking me to show her. All I would suggest is that the minister, with regard to the job loss in the forest sector, go back and read the Hansard from question period over the last two or three weeks. Go back and look at Statistics Canada numbers for forestry job loss in the intervening period since the date -- I can't remember the exact date -- that was set by the government for the baseline number from Statistics Canada. Well, if she would go and look at those figures, she would understand that in fact there have been job losses in the forest sector. If she thinks there haven't been, I think it just shows how out of touch she is.

The reality is that the government spent millions of dollars on a jobs and timber accord advertising campaign that promised people right across British Columbia that there were going to be 21,000 new jobs created in the forest sector. These are people walking out of their job site, after having been laid off, getting in their vehicle, driving home and watching the billboards as they go by, picking up the newspaper in the lunchroom at the mill and seeing an advertisement from the government -- who knows how many thousands of dollars it cost? -- saying that there are going to be 21,000 new jobs created in the forest sector while they're being laid off. Holy smokes! If that's not misinformation, if that's not misrepresenting the state of the economy to the people of British Columbia, I don't know what is.

The minister wonders why the government has zero credibility on economic issues. It's because the public gets it. They sit there in their job site or they sit there around their coffee table at home, and they know what's going on in the economy, because they feel it. They feel it every day. When the government goes out and spends their money -- taxpayer money -- to run advertisements that tell them something that's completely opposite to what they know in their gut, how can the minister not expect to have zero credibility on those issues? She has none; the government has none.

The people of British Columbia don't believe a thing this government tells them around the economy -- not a word -- because they've never hit their targets. They continually run advertisements that are at odds with what the people of British Columbia know, and they use their money to run those ads with. It's no wonder nobody believes the NDP. It's no wonder the NDP's at 18 percent in the polls. It's no wonder there is a government in crisis that has half a dozen bills on the order paper that are paper-thin. There's no substance to them; there's nothing in them. They go through a legislative agenda. There's no throne speech. The Premier puts this ridiculous little motion on the order paper that's supposed to be the government's plan for the session, the plan for the year, the economic plan, the recovery plan -- and it amounts to absolutely nothing. We still don't see it; we still haven't had it.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait until the minister's finished venting, and then I'll continue with my comments.

The fact of the matter is that this government has zero credibility. It has no economic plan. That's why we see nothing before the House and the Legislature. We're in one of the worst economic crises this province has had in decades, and there is no plan. There is nothing there designed to turn this economy around -- not a thing.

The one industry they could make some decisions on, one way or the other -- and at least we could deal with the uncertainty -- is fish farming. It's been four years and nine million studies -- who knows how many -- and they still can't come to a decision. For good or bad, tell people; make a decision. There's nothing there. So when the minister stands up and says that somehow the opposition is spreading doom and gloom that is destroying the economy of British Columbia, if it wasn't so ridiculous and such an asinine comment, I would laugh at it.

[2020]

[ Page 13119 ]

And if the Minister of Finance still, after having her job as long as she has, doesn't understand that $1.6 billion of tax revenue out of the economy every year doesn't have an impact on the economy, then she doesn't understand what she's doing. If the Minister of Finance doesn't understand how the regulatory burden and fee increases that her government has put on small and medium-sized businesses since 1991 has had an impact, then she doesn't understand the economy. And if she doesn't think that any of those things this government has done over the last number of years are now starting to come home to roost, then she's been asleep for the time that she's been there -- because they do have an impact. They have an huge impact on the economy. For the minister to stand up and say that the opposition, in raising those concerns year after year, time after time, trying to convince the government of the errors of their ways, is somehow engaged in -- I think the word the government is using now is hateful -- hateful attacks on the government. . . .

We don't hate the government; we hate what has been done to the province of British Columbia. We're going to stand up and talk about what the government has done to the province, and we're not going to stop just because the government tries to characterize it as something other than what it is. It's the opposition ringing the alarm bells and trying to get this government to realize what is happening in this province relative to other provinces -- and why it's happening.

I think the Minister of Finance should be willing to accept that, understand that and know that that's the job of the opposition. She might not like it. It might be uncomfortable, but that's the fact. The facts are that the economy is in terrible shape. A big chunk of it -- not all of it but a big chunk of it -- is due to the way this government has managed the economy over the last number of years. The uncertainty and the disbelief with which they're held by the people of this province and investors. . . . The lack of trust that's there. . . . You know, if she doesn't understand that, that's something she's going to have to deal with. Maybe five years from now or ten years from now, when she's out of politics, she can sit back and look at it and realize what really happened in this last decade. It has not been a good decade for the province of British Columbia, and it was her government in power, not the opposition, for those nine or ten years when it all happened.

It wasn't anyone else's problem; it wasn't anyone else's fault. It was the fault of this government. She can accept that; she can decline; she can ignore that -- that's up to her to decide. But that's the reality, and the people of British Columbia know that's the reality. I think that's reflected in the way that the people of this province think of this government and the way they listen very carefully to what's being said by this government. And it's probably the reason why they don't believe anything they're being told.

I don't know if the minister wants to respond. If she doesn't, we can move on to another area. If she doesn't want to respond, that's fine.

I'd like to ask the minister about Cupcakes, I guess it's known as -- the policy branch. There's been an investigation that's gone on for some time, looking into the way the government presented its two budgets in 1996 -- the early budget and the later budget. I'd like to know from the minister: how much staff time and how much money was spent in the Cupcakes division dealing with that investigation, managing that investigation and responding to that investigation?

The Chair: I'd like to remind the member that we are on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea.

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is that the deputy minister for Cupcakes was going to be here this evening. If he can't make it, then perhaps I could move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: He's coming, but it won't help if he's here to answer your questions.

The Chair: There's a motion on the floor that the committee rise and report progress.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I don't want to be difficult here. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: The motion is on the floor. Vote against it or vote for it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. But why are you doing this? We're just going to get him. There he is, right there.

The Chair: Would the member withdraw.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'll withdraw my motion.

An answer from the minister that she doesn't have a clue indicates to me that she's not prepared to answer, and if she's not prepared to answer, then we can do something else. I'm glad to see that the deputy minister is here. Now perhaps the minister can answer the question I asked earlier.

[2025]

The Chair: I would like to rule. We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Finance for the fiscal year 1999-2000. I'd ask you to keep your questions within that framework, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see the damage control is kicking in.

The fact of the matter is that the Cupcakes division of the minister's office obviously has been preparing for some time to deal with this report. My question to the minister -- much like it's been throughout the estimates process -- is: how much time is being spent in that department of the ministry dealing with the auditor general's report and the follow-up from that report in this fiscal year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The follow-up to the auditor general's report is in the Ministry of Finance, not CPCS. I'd be happy to answer how we're responding to all of the recommendations.

[ Page 13120 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have appointed a panel under Doug Enns of Pacific Coast Savings to deal with many of the recommendations that arose out of the auditor general's report. The secretary to Treasury Board and I have been working with our staff on economic forecasting, on reporting in a timely way and on quarterly reports. The ministry itself is working on making sure that the reports are out in a manner that is full disclosure. It's part of the ordinary course of duties of the Ministry of Finance staff, through the Treasury Board, and also with the. . . . I think it's Treasury Board basically that deals with the auditor general in terms of accounting policies, as well, as a result of the auditor general's report.

G. Farrell-Collins: In the last year or so -- I guess a couple of years -- there has been legal support granted to people who work for the Ministry of Finance. Can the minister tell us how much has been spent and how much is planned to be spent on that in the upcoming year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There have been no legal bills billed or paid this fiscal year related to the auditor general's. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe it's done somewhere else. The minister can perhaps enlighten me, because the lawyer for the deputy minister for Cupcakes has been sending letters to various media outlets threatening to sue them for comments that they've made in their coverage of the fallout from the '96 budget and his role in it. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell me. . . . I assume it's those, because that's the coverage that's been reported. If I'm mistaken, she can perhaps enlighten me. But my understanding is that those legal fees are being paid for by the government of British Columbia. If it's not her ministry, perhaps she can tell me which one it is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our ministry has not been billed, nor have we paid any. But I'll certainly endeavour to find out whether there is a ministry that is doing so.

G. Farrell-Collins: When members of the minister's staff in the Ministry of Finance find themselves in the position of needing legal advice and having to hire legal advice, can the minister tell me whether that comes out of the Ministry of Finance or whether that comes out of some other ministry, such as Attorney General? Where are they steered when they come to the minister asking for legal support in threatening to sue the media outlets for their commentary on public issues?

[2030]

G. Farrell-Collins: I would find it unusual if these lawyers were working pro bono for the deputy minister responsible for Cupcakes; I would be surprised. I would expect that they would probably be paid by somebody, and my recollection -- although I don't have much dealing with lawyers other than in my present capacity -- is that when you. . . .

A Voice: We like to get paid.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague, who is one, says they like to be paid. When a lawyer sends a letter to a media outlet threatening to sue them on behalf of somebody, they generally expect to be reimbursed for the time they put into drafting that letter, the consultation that perhaps led up to it, the research into looking at the various articles, listening to transcripts, etc., trying to find out whether or not a case might exist. Most lawyers don't fire out threatening letters like that without feeling that perhaps there's some reason to do so on behalf of their client, whether it's as a libel chill method or whether it's being done because they think there's an actual legitimate case for that lawsuit. They usually try and put some work into it to determine what the reason would be for sending such a threatening letter.

Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell me where those legal fees are being paid from. Certainly the deputy minister responsible for the department would have some idea of who's providing that legal advice and how that individual lawyer is being paid.

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're not part of the Ministry of Finance expenditures, as I've said, so. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: You said you didn't know.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .there are no bills being submitted here. There is a public service policy -- legal fees are paid for public servants in the course of carrying out their duties -- and I have no reason to believe that that policy is anything but being upheld. But the bills are not coming to the Ministry of Finance, and the policy, as I understand it. . . . I don't think there's any accusation that the policy is being violated. We've been forthcoming in question period about what that policy is. So I've provided all of the information that I have at hand, hon. Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I doubt the minister's done that, because she hasn't even asked the question. I've been sitting here waiting for it, and the minister hasn't asked the question. The reality is that somebody. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry -- what question?

G. Farrell-Collins: The question as to who's paying for those legal bills. The reality is that the gentleman who knows is sitting right beside her. She can ask him, and he can tell her. He's her staff person; he reports to her. He's the deputy minister responsible.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We need another process to find that out. I've answered the question.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

[ Page 13121 ]

There were bills last year, I think she said -- if I remember her correctly, moments ago, saying there were bills paid last year. Is this part of the bills that were paid last year? Is this an ongoing thing, or is it just the lawyer saying: "Well, gee. Thanks for all the business over the last couple of years. I'm glad to fire off a few letters threatening to sue various members of the media for their comments with regard to this budget fiasco." Is that how it's being done?

I think the people of British Columbia have the right to know that, and I would think the Minister of Finance could find out that information for the people of British Columbia so that they can know who's paying the legal bills of a deputy minister in the province of British Columbia -- to be firing off threatening letters to media outlets for their coverage of one of the worst budget fiascos in the history of North America. Certainly the Minister of Finance should be able to find out that information for us. If it's in another ministry, we'll go there and ask in that ministry, but certainly, as the Minister of Finance who's cutting the cheque, she can do the people of British Columbia the service of leaning over and asking the question.

[2035]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, there is a forum -- that's why I directed the member -- and that's question period. They've canvassed this in question period. This is about estimates; this is about what's happening in this current year. This is about making sure that public policy is being maintained. I've answered all of those questions. The member opposite is dealing with an issue that is best canvassed in a partisan political forum that deals with these issues, which is question period. And I hope he does do that.

I've answered the question in terms of the implications for this budget. I've answered the question even though we do have a minister responsible for public service policy. But to the best of my knowledge, longstanding public service policies are being upheld.

G. Farrell-Collins: She doesn't know because she hasn't asked. She's sitting right beside the deputy minister, and she won't lean over and ask him the question.

The minister has now had the opportunity to ask the question. Does she want to enlighten the people of British Columbia with the answer to the question? Or is she going to keep it as her little secret?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's exactly the same as the answer that I gave you, which is: there's a public service policy in place. That public service policy is public, and you had the opportunity to canvass it. All of the terms of the public service policy are being met.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Finance stands up in here, in the estimates debate of the Ministry of Finance, and says that it's not a policy debate -- that we should go out and take this question to question period, in a political venue. This is a political venue. These are the estimates of the Minister of Finance. This is the Legislature. This is where we deal with these issues. And the Minister of Finance may be uncomfortable dealing with it, but the fact of the matter is that she has a member of staff that reports to her who is out there, uncomfortable with the media coverage, and is having his lawyer fire off threatening letters to media outlets demanding retractions for their coverage of an issue, that, quite frankly, I think the vast majority of British Columbians are very uncomfortable with.

When does the deputy minister for Cupcakes find time in his busy schedule, given the crises that are around the government in this fiscal year -- to assuage the Chair -- to consult with his lawyer, to deal with this, to encourage his lawyer to fire off these letters threatening various media outlets for their coverage? How much time does he spend every day dealing with this? How much time does he spend trying to solve the problems of the government or communicate them differently? And how much time does he spend drafting letters and responding to media outlets? Is it all of his time, part of his time, one day a week, an afternoon a week? How much time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The public servants that report to me carry out all of their duties fully. I would just reiterate that if there is an issue where, as the member opposite suggests, a policy is being violated, there is a forum to deal with that. There is no violation of any public service policy at any point on the matter that the member raises. I didn't need to check with anyone to do that, but the member clearly is trying to make a point other than what is actually coming out of his mouth.

So I answered the questions; I answered them fully. And there is no more information to be added, unless the member wishes to make an allegation with some substance behind it.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not making any allegations; I'm asking questions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And I answered them.

G. Farrell-Collins: And if the minister is uncomfortable with those questions, then, that's fine. But I'm asking the question. . . . Well, it took five times to get the minister to lean over to ask the question of the deputy minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I didn't need to.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I thought I was going through the Chair.

The question to the minister was this: how much time in the working day does the deputy minister for Cupcakes spend dealing with his little personal problems with the media in defending his reputation? How much time does he spend actually doing government business?

[2040]

[ Page 13122 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no deputy minister that reports to me who doesn't perform duties on the job that are appropriate to his office. Certainly every deputy minister that I work with has no set hours of work, and in fact the hours of work are far beyond what would be a 40-hour week for every senior official that I work with. There's no senior official that doesn't complete their duties as required, at the expense of performing personal duties.

G. Farrell-Collins: So how does this work? If the deputy minister spends 60 hours a week at work, he's then allowed to spend whatever other time he wants at work dealing with this other issue? Is there some sort of a schedule, the minister's saying here, for the deputy minister for when he can and cannot deal with his personal issues while he's at work?

The deputy minister is sitting there in his office. Clearly part of the time he's dealing with the regular day-to-day crises in the government, and then part of the time, it appears, he's spending his time in communication with his lawyer, strategizing over how they're going to write letters back to the various papers, how they're going to have legal threats issued to members of the media to hush them, to stop them from commenting, to stop them from broadcasting their legitimate opinions on the fiasco that was engineered in 1996 to mislead the people of British Columbia about the true state of the finances.

How much time is there? How much time does the deputy minister spend dealing with his personal crisis? How much time during the week is spent dealing with that? I don't care. . . . Let's say he's already put in his 60 hours a week or 52 hours a week or whatever it happens to be that week. How much time does he spend at work dealing with his own personal crisis?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The public service policy -- a longstanding public service policy that is not unique to this province, that is across the country and exists in the private sector as well -- provides for avenues of recourse for a person, in carrying out the course of their duties, if there is public comment that requires a legal response. That public service policy is well in place, is well in force and is being upheld in this case. There is no public, taxpayers' money going toward any personal actions taken by any public servant.

I've answered that question. . . . The format for the use of estimates, either for sessional orders or for any business. . . . To talk about the conduct of a public servant is out of order. I have answered the questions in the context of public service policy and in the context of public expenditures as well. Beyond that, if the member is engaging in examining the conduct of a public servant, that is not in order in estimates.

The Chair: I would just like to caution the member that this is becoming very repetitive and perhaps it's time to move on.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'll have to find a different way of phrasing the question then, so as not to repeat myself.

I find it personally offensive, as a member of the Legislature and as a person who has to deal with the government of British Columbia, to find that there are civil servants who will spend their time, government money, taxpayers' money, writing threatening letters to media outlets because they don't like the commentary that's given, they don't like the analysis being given on a particular issue, they don't like the coverage that they're getting.

I think that all the coverage -- all the coverage -- of the budget fiasco, the budget lie, the budget cover-up, whatever you want to call it, has been more than balanced, has been more than accurate, has reflected, I think, quite frankly, the tone and tenor of the public's response to that abhorrent method by which this government deceived the people of British Columbia in 1996 about the state of the finances. They're pretty upset that they can't even talk about it, they can't even comment on it, they can't even write about it, they can't even broadcast their opinions, without being threatened by the government of British Columbia, without being threatened by a bureaucrat in the minister's office as to those comments.

So I find it extremely unfortunate that the minister feels that she has no accountability for the behaviour of the people that work with her. I'm sure that part of the legal opinions that this government has received is to have somebody go through the rules of the Legislature -- standing orders and precedents -- to find every single way possible to shut down any debate around that 1996 budget fiasco in any way they possibly can -- whether it be through Public Accounts, whether it be through estimates, whether it be through question period, no matter how it is. I'm sure that this government has spent a ton of money making sure that they've covered themselves up on this issue -- that they've covered it in such a way that nobody's going to be able to get to it, that we're going to have to wade through a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of policy and a bunch of decisions by this government in order to stop the people from getting at the truth.

[2045]

Given the time, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, nay. I want to respond, so. . .nay.

G. Farrell-Collins: You can respond first, if you want. I don't care.

The Chair: Would you like to rescind the motion?

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll withdraw the motion, given the minister's response.

[ Page 13123 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Is this a point of order?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. . . . Well, sure. Actually, it could be a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then say it's a point of order. Is it a point of order or not?

The Chair: Through the Chair, member.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a point of order. I'm actually in a very good mood, so the member doesn't have to be so testy.

Reading from MacMinn: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants, nor the decision of a judicial court." So, I'm not. . . . The hon. member considers himself a master at using the rules, and that's appropriate. That's appropriate in his job. The rules are there for a reason. That was the reason why I was citing the fact that this is not the appropriate place for the direction of the questions that the member is taking. There are appropriate forums that the opposition have available to them, many of which they've already used.

In terms of the examination of budgeting, how we are doing our budget, the review of past. . .the auditor general has reported out on that. The auditor general has made himself available -- although he doesn't see the reason for it -- to Public Accounts. The panel chairperson reviewing how we changed the budgeting process, who is independent of government, has reported to Public Accounts and is carrying on with his work and considers himself quite independent.

If there is an allegation to be made that a public servant is not conducting himself in a way that accords with proper public policy, then that allegation has to be made in a different forum. That's my only point.

Other than that, the questions have been answered in terms of estimates. It would be folly for the opposition to suggest otherwise.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, I have never alleged today that there has been any misrepresentation or mis -- how would I put it? misuse. . .misconduct, I think, is the word the minister continually raises -- on the part of any individual in the ministry around communications.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Go check Hansard.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister can check Hansard as many times as she likes. Perhaps she would let me finish my comments. I've never suggested that there was any misconduct. I've said that I want to know how much time is being spent by the people in the various ministries. . . .

[2050]

G. Farrell-Collins: No, actually, I wasn't easily distracted, Madam Minister. I was just amazed to see the current Premier, former Minister of Finance -- and the Premier who helped deal with that budget fiasco in 1996 and perpetrate it on the people of British Columbia -- show up in estimates to pat his colleagues on the back and wish them good luck. I just found that very interesting, that's all.

Back to the point of order, hon. Chair. The reality is that I never alleged any misconduct by any individual. I've been asking how much time is being spent in Cupcakes dealing with this crisis and how much time is being spent dealing with the other issues. Both questions are well in order.

The Chair: I have listened to both the minister and the member. I have cautioned both throughout the course of this debate and certainly have noted that we have been very close to the line.

This does draw to a close this evening's debate. I think I do not find, in particular, that this is a point of order, but we certainly have come very close to the line here. I would just add that it is inappropriate, in this forum, to be criticizing public servants who have no opportunity to defend themselves in this forum.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Noting the hour and the level of debate, I move that the committee rise, report progress and, certainly, ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:53 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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