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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 17

[ Page 13125 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm really pleased to have 30 grade 5 students with Mrs. Diana Duncan from Tecumseh Elementary School in the Vancouver-Kensington constituency, a school which I could usually see from the window of my law office, as I used to practise law in my younger age. I'm really pleased that they are here. It's a wonderful school. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to welcome to the precincts today 53 grade 3 students. They are accompanied by 15 adults. Their teachers are Miss Liptrot, Mrs. Brost and Mrs. Phillips, and they are representing English Bluff Elementary. I know my colleague from Delta South would wish that we welcome them on his behalf.

S. Orcherton: It's a pleasure today to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Saanich South. I wish to introduce to the gallery today members of Mr. Stinson's grade 5 class from Cordova Bay Elementary School and their accompanying parents. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome to these chambers.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE IN KITIMAT

[1410]

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

C. Hansen: Will the minister tell us why she has allowed health care in Kitimat to deteriorate to the point that the only way they can get the attention of this government is to hold protest rallies?

Hon. P. Priddy: I have seen the letter, and I must admit that one of the other quotes from it says that the situation is Kitimat is not in any way as a result of a lack of funding or a lack of resources in that community. Nor is it about wait-lists. So while there's no question there are issues in Kitimat that my ministry and I and the MLA from Kitimat are working closely on. . . . We've spoken with people on that list, by the way, who don't necessarily represent the union which they've signed for.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: Kitimat received $35 million for a new health care centre. Kitimat received an increase in their operating budget. There are dynamics going on. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .in the community about concerns about the system. We're working hard to address that. We've put an acting director of medical services in there. We will also be putting an acting CEO in there, and we're working very hard with the community health council to resolve these issues.

The other option, which is the one the letter asks for -- and I assume the opposition would be up saying that we shouldn't -- is to put in a public trustee. That is a step that you take very, very carefully.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will not do that until all options are exhausted.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I think that epitomizes what's wrong with health care -- throwing money at a problem without a plan, without a vision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The member has the floor. He will not put his question until there's quiet in the chamber.

C. Hansen: Kitimat's NDP MLA, the member for Skeena, has been quoted as saying. . . .

An Hon. Member: That's a lie.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon? Hon. members will come to order. There will be no more of that.

C. Hansen: I think, hon. Speaker, we've maybe hit a sensitive point.

Kitimat's NDP MLA, the member for Skeena, has been quoted as saying: "Do you realize that you people are going nowhere with this?" Well, the "you people" that he was referring to are the 600 citizens that attended that protest rally. Will the minister tell us why the citizens of Kitimat, who have already lost one doctor and are threatened with losing two more in the near future, are being denied the right to quality health care?

[ Page 13126 ]

The Speaker: With some order in the chamber, I will be happy to recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue being raised in Kitimat is indeed about regionalization, and there are some challenges there. But where the member comes from and where many of us come from, regionalization is working extraordinarily well. There are communities where, in point of fact, it is still having challenges, and Kitimat happens to be one of them. But I really object to the comment that that's an example of what's wrong with health care. Maybe I can call the people in Kitimat and say: "We're accused of throwing money at it, so we won't give you the $35 million for your health centre, or we're not going to give you an increase in your operating budget."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. P. Priddy: If the example the member uses is that putting money into a new health centre for Kitimat is throwing money at a problem, then I think the people of Kitimat might take a very different view on what that would do to the quality of their health care.

HEALTH MINISTRY STRATEGIC PLAN

[1415]

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The question will not be posed until there is order in the chamber.

G. Plant: The Health minister didn't promise to release it to the health authorities. She promised to release it to the people of British Columbia.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Vancouver and Victoria have fallen far behind Edmonton and Toronto in providing quality health care. No wonder the minister is afraid to release her so-called strategic vision to the public. Will the minister confirm that the reason she won't release the document is because she has no strategic vision for health care in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: The strategic document went to health authorities for comment before being released to the public, because that would seem logical. Those are the primary constituency groups that will be affected -- and are affected -- by a strategic plan. So giving it to them first for comment. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .does not seem to me an unwillingness to release it. Given that it's in 150 places around the province, it's hardly about keeping it from the public.

Secondly, I would suggest that if the strategic vision of the opposition is that we are throwing money at health care and that $35 million for a new health centre in Kitimat is not a good part of a vision, I would really hesitate to know what their vision would mean for quality health care in this province.

CARDIAC CARE PLAN FOR B.C.

I. Chong: It's about this Health minister and this government breaking promises time and time again.

It was just one year ago that this Minister of Health promised -- she promised -- to release her provincial advisory panel on cardiac care's five-year plan to lay out standards and acceptable wait times for surgery. That plan was supposed to come out last fall, and we're still waiting. Would the Minister of Health tell us why she hasn't kept her promise?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. Order, members. I won't recognize the minister until there is order in the chamber.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think there's any question that there is a five-year plan for cardiac care in this province, or we wouldn't have seen an announcement, not three weeks ago, that provided significant new dollars for cardiac surgeons, for cardiac facilities and for money in the riding of the member who asked the question. Additional dollars for cardiac care and cardiac facilities in that member's riding are part of looking at the strategic plan for cardiac care. There is still. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: The cardiac surgeons and the cardiologists who make up that panel have more recommendations to give us. It is a plan which you add to, and therefore we will put more resources in. We've listened to their recommendations. We've looked at what will be needed in the future.

Interjections.

[ Page 13127 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: That's the reason that people saw additional dollars for cardiac surgery and cardiac care in the member's own riding. Perhaps she didn't notice.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

I. Chong: What I see is this Health minister breaking more promises. This Health minister made a specific promise to release a specific plan in May of 1998. The Health minister promised us a plan for cardiac care no later than the fall. It's now a whole year later. Fall has come and fall has gone, and still there is no plan. When will the minister. . .

[1420]

The Speaker: Order, members.

I. Chong: . . .start doing what she promised she would do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Chair will recognize the minister when there is order in the chamber. Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: We can have the debate about whether a report was released on time, and I'm happy to do that with people. But let me tell you, the promises that this government does keep may be more important to children and families in this province than whether a report was out on a particular date. Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, we kept a promise to give B.C.'s Children's Hospital $28.5 million to improve quality care for children and families. We kept a promise. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .for 700 more. . .

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, complete your answer quickly, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .cardiac procedures. We kept a promise for 1,000 more hip and knee surgeries.

REPORT ON HEALTH AUTHORITIES'PERFORMANCE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Reporting on Better Teamwork, Better Care will be done as part of. . . . That's why the strategic plan is out to Health authorities. We're going to be measuring that. I mean, there are reports from the auditor general. There are overall reports on Better Teamwork, Better Care that are available to anybody who wants to see them. Part of the real accountability is making sure. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .that health authorities are accountable for how it's working, because that's what patients and taxpayers expect to know. They expect to open it up and see a report card -- which they will -- about how many surgeries and what the outcome was in their own region.

I'm sorry, the government does not. . . . I'm not making promises all over the place that cannot be kept. Again I would say. . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .that we have fulfilled our promise. . .

The Speaker: Answers are getting a little long.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .to hire 1,000 new nurses.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess just the opposition gets to be that long, then, hon. Speaker.

HEALTH CARE IN KITIMAT

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I would suggest that the people of Kitimat will see that this government delivered on $35 million for a new health care centre, which it promised. They will see that this government and this minister. . .

[ Page 13128 ]

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .and this ministry delivered an increase in the operating budget this year, which we promised. This government delivered on not moving orthopedic care out of Kitimat, which we promised. Those three promises have been kept, and so will this one.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act to clarify and improve the operation of the provincial interest sections of the act. The provincial interest sections of the act establish a process whereby the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may remove a matter from the Agricultural Land Commission and decide the matter itself. That process is a recognition that there may be, in time, rare cases where a matter involves interests that are important to the province as a whole, and those interests are broader than that which the commission is capable of addressing within its specific mandate of protecting agricultural land.

The process was added to the act in 1993 as part of the legislative initiative that did away with appeals to cabinet when it was added to the act. It was fully expected at that time that it would be rarely used. That has indeed turned out to be the case, as the process was not used until last year, in the case of the Six Mile Ranch, when it was invoked for the first time.

David Perry, in his report on the Six Mile Ranch proposal, recommended that the provincial interest process needed to be clarified. He also said that we needed to be clear about how we should balance the conflicting values that might exist once the provincial interest clause of the act was invoked.

To that end, in May 1998 I asked Moura Quayle, who is the dean of agriculture at UBC, to review the provincial interest provisions and then to provide me and, through me, us with recommendations on how they might be improved. Dean Quayle carried out a broad, provincewide series of public consultations involving a great number of people and sectors. They provided Dean Quayle with many invaluable insights. The single strongest message that came back to me from the Quayle report was that we need to make sure that the government always knows exactly when and how it can make decisions on the use of the land in the ALR in place of the Agricultural Land Commission. That is why today we are acting on Dean Quayle's recommendation to clearly define the provincial interest.

[1430]

The second key recommendation made by Dean Quayle was to make the inquiry process itself more informed and open and accountable, if and when cabinet does use the provincial interest clause. The people Dean Quayle heard from made it very clear that they want to be able to participate meaningfully in an inquiry, and then they want to ensure that cabinet has the best information it can possibly have before it considers making a decision on a particular matter.

These amendments will do both of those things. They will ensure that (1) the Agricultural Land Commission itself is involved in all stages of a provincial interest referral; (2) the public is provided, before they are expected to give their thoughts, a discussion paper including all of the facts of the matter before them; (3) public hearings are held, not simply in the region that is being considered and where the particular application is but in all six regions of the province, regardless of the region initiating the review; and (4) the board's report is then available for public review before cabinet makes any decision on the matter. These amendments will ensure that people have good information on what is at stake and, more than that, that they get the information in a timely way. At the end of the day it is the public's capacity to participate, and some assurance that cabinet consider the information that they have to offer. . . . That is what the public process is intended to do. It is supposed to give cabinet the information that it requires to help make the best possible decision.

Now, the third key recommendation Dean Quayle made was to improve the provincial interest process by changing the balancing test -- the issues that cabinet values when it comes to deciding upon a matter. As I've already said, the provincial interest process is a recognition that there may in fact be rare cases where a matter involves interests that are important to the province as a whole and that concern things other than agriculture. The process is there to allow cabinet to take a closer look at the matter and consider whether or not those values -- other than agriculture -- should prevail in a particular case. However, we have to remember that the process takes place within a system that has as its primary objective the preservation of the scarce and valuable agricultural land in the province. These amendments are going to reflect that fact and will confirm that agriculture remains the primary priority whenever these sections are considered or invoked in the use of agricultural land.

The balancing test will apply the following values -- and I want to make it clear that I am expressing these values in order of priority: (1) the preservation of agricultural lands and

[ Page 13129 ]

[1435]

Regardless of what position you take on this debate, I hope all members are respectful and even, as I am, a little bit in awe of the fact that we in British Columbia have the oldest and best farmland protection system in the nation -- Canada -- and perhaps the most enviable system on this continent. We inherit from the people who worked here before us the incredible foresight that has protected the food-producing and wealth-producing capacity of the land that so many other jurisdictions elsewhere on this continent and in the world have lost.

In doing the things that we're doing today, I hope that all hon. members will share with me the perception that we are providing clarity here both for the farming community and for developers. What has worked for nobody is those parts of the province where the intentions of the reserve have been unclear -- whether or not those lands might some day be possibly used for development or whether in fact they are farmlands in the long term. In making these amendments, I believe that we are clarifying for developers as well as for the farm community the intentions of government forever to maintain, sustain and, if need be, periodically come back to this room and strengthen the provisions of the agricultural land reserve.

That concludes the technical content of what I have to say. That needs to be on the record so everybody understands what we're about to debate. But I have a few personal remarks which I would like to add.

Twenty-five years ago in this town, the people who worked here had the incredible foresight -- genius, I think -- to create the agricultural land reserve. But it was a contentious act, as contentious as it was brave. A perception was created at that time that created a myth. The myth was that the agricultural land reserve was imposed over the wishes of the agricultural community themselves -- not a recognition that it is zoning for work and protection for the farm community to make a living within the tiny little bit of land that is capable of growing food, but that it was imposed upon the farm community.

I came into this room last year and had some of the most unpleasant experiences of my life as members opposite accused me of being in conflict. I went to my party's convention and had some of the most unpleasant experiences of my life, as my party was torn up over the issues of Six Mile Ranch.

But standing here a year later I would like to say that what happened during the course of that year, I believe to be a wonderful thing. On January 27 of this year, some members opposite and I, members of the environmental community, members of agricultural support groups like Farm Folk-City Folk and representatives of the B.C. Agriculture Council went downstairs to the press gallery and announced together the changes that we are now debating in this Legislature. For the first time ever, hon. Speaker, I hope to bury the mythology that the agricultural land reserve is anything but supported by the leadership in the industry of agriculture.

[1440]

Another producer-leader in the farm community, Marcus Jensen, a hog producer from Abbotsford -- and again, a member of the B.C. Ag Council -- said the B.C. Agriculture Council supported the government's decisions, but reminded everyone that the key issue for farmers remains "being able to make a living farming," which brings me to my last comment.

In their press release welcoming the changes we're bringing into the Legislature today, the B.C. Agriculture Council pointed out that they "celebrate the zoning for agriculture that is the agricultural land reserve," and then reminded all of us in this building that it is "a two-part deal: the zoning for agriculture that is the ALR and the promotion and assistance and research work for agriculture and safety nets provided by government." They advised us that the work of the select standing committee this year to consider these issues in terms of the support for agriculture, was an absolute necessity to the farm community, in exchange for their support for the agricultural land reserve.

So I consider this, personally, the closing of the book on some real hard work for myself. I consider it -- for all people in British Columbia -- an opportunity to celebrate the ending of the previous 25 years, where it was perceived that the reserve was not embraced by the agricultural community -- because it's over now. But I also consider it to be a challenge. The farm community is saying to us: "Yes, protect the land. We do not want developers. . . . We do not want someone because they're richer than we are to develop the land that we need to farm on. We want this land protected. But we also want you, as legislators, to remember that you have another job" -- the job that the co-Chairs of the standing committee are engaged in this year in this province.

[ Page 13130 ]

I know that when we invoked the provincial interest, and David Perry went around and held hearings on what should happen at Six Mile Ranch, people who went to those hearings read into the record the words that had come out of the mouths of ministers and MLAs in the debates that created the agricultural land reserve and made the changes in 1993.

So I would like to charge all members who might stand up and speak, to speak not only for themselves and their party, but on the record for all the citizens for the next 25 years, because this is what they're going to look to, to understand what we intended when we made these changes.

[1445]

B. Barisoff: I take to heart the words from the hon. minister.

There are a number of issues that we are unable to cover in committee stage of Bill 70, as a significant portion of the recommendations in Moura Quayle's report, "Stakes in the Ground," were not addressed in this bill. Altogether, Moura Quayle put forth four major recommendations in her report: defining provincial interest in the act; protection of the agricultural lands is in the provincial interest; establishing an open, accountable decision-making process; and promoting integrated land management and agriculture innovation.

Under Moura Quayle's third major recommendation -- to establish an open, accountable decision-making process -- there were several smaller recommendations for improving informed decision-making. One was to establish the position of a provincial agrologist, similar to the provincial forester or provincial health officer. Another was to establish an environmental assessment board and to add the provincial agrologist to the board when dealing with provincial interest referral. Another one of Moura Quayle's recommendations under this heading for ensuring accountability was to hold landowners accountable for exclusions by requiring specialized contracts to make sure that the projects proceeded as promised.

In her report, Moura Quayle's fourth major recommendation is to promote integrated land management and agriculture innovation. She states: ". . .there is also the need to address the broader context of agriculture and its future. Preservation in isolation will not be enough." We need to move forward in support of agriculture and general resource management in the province.

In terms of promoting integrated land management, Ms. Quayle makes three recommendations: (1) "establish a B.C. lands trust with an umbrella trust for agriculture. . . "; (2) combine the ALC and the Forest Land Commission and generally broaden the commission's mandate to incorporate the management of resource lands generally, in order to improve integration of land-planning functions; (3) "request that the ALC and municipalities in B.C. initiate a review of. . .marginal agricultural lands -- classes 4 and 5 -- through first developing agricultural and open-space plans and then evaluating the potential changes on the basis of agricultural capability, no net loss and a no negative effects to adjacent agricultural lands."

In terms of promoting agriculture reparation and innovation, Ms. Quayle recommends a comprehensive agrifood policy that includes creating an agriculture infrastructure fund under the proposed B.C. lands trust. It will help provide a reasonable return on land investment and growth opportunities through the innovation of agriculture, support education and basic research partnerships and encourage the next generation of farmers with the possibility of land leases and capital loans through agriculture and infrastructure funds.

[1450]

Now, we've established a Select Standing Committee on Agriculture which hasn't sat in many years, and it's something that, I think, will move forward in a non-partisan fashion. I think the select standing committee can move the profile of agriculture to new levels. As the minister, in his flamboyant way, indicated last night when we were closing debate on the Agriculture estimates, normally agriculture doesn't get on in the afternoon session. Well, today we're here at ten to three in the afternoon, and agriculture is on the forefront of everybody's mind.

This weekend I had the opportunity to speak to an agriculture group in Prince George. From what I can see, the select standing committee and such non-partisan groups . . .what's taking place is bringing agriculture in this province to a new high. I hope, along with the minister, that we get opportunities to speak at 2:30 in the afternoon, when there are people watching and paying attention to what's happening. There are a number of things that we will be addressing on an individual basis -- individual sections of Bill 70. We'll be looking at those in committee stage and hoping that we get positive answers from the ministers in making this bill the best possible.

W. Hartley: It's a pleasure to stand in support of this legislation, and I know that the minister has worked hard to get us to this point today. He's done a number of things which I'll try to include in a short talk at this time.

It's important to me, as an individual MLA who represents an area -- Pitt Meadows -- which is some 85 percent agricultural. . . . We know that legislation that's good for agriculture is also good for the community of Pitt Meadows.

There's a lot of pressure on farmland in my constituency, and I've certainly had to live with trying to deal with that over the past several months. This type of legislation gives me some sense of confidence that the kinds of problems that we saw coming forward in the community are less likely to raise

[ Page 13131 ]

There have been residential developments that have put great amounts of pressure on the farming community -- not only in my community, but certainly throughout the lower mainland -- for several years. This legislation is going to make it possible not to fear large resort developments -- Disneyland-type developments -- going into agricultural areas. That just won't happen without the support of the farming community. What I've always looked for in my community, since we are 85 percent agricultural, is that any development that's good for the community also has to be good for agriculture.

The amendments that we see in this act clearly remove matters that are under the Agricultural Land Commission, or clearly ensure that those matters are dealt with by the Agricultural Land Commission, and that the public interest is purely what it says -- that all British Columbians will have a better and greater opportunity to ensure that they have an understanding of what is at stake in any development that might come forward, and also a means by which to voice their opinion, not only their personal opinion but an opinion that's based on facts and gathered evidence. That is built into the criteria for this process. That's what people want. They want to be able to come to public meetings and speak in a meaningful way, having the facts before them to consider, and then to give their opinion on that before it's just left to provincial cabinet to make some sort of a decision on the matter.

[1455]

The minister mentioned a lot of information in regard to how important agriculture is to the community or to the province. His obvious goal is to ensure that we can get the most agricultural value from our agricultural land. Essentially, we only farm half of our land in the agricultural land reserve and produce the equivalent of 50 percent of the total food purchased by the B.C. population. That means that we have 100 percent growth potential in both the land availability and in the domestic market potential.

It shows how important the agrifood industry is. It's certainly the most dynamic growth sector we have in the province, employing some 33,000 people directly. Farm cash receipts last year were about $1.7 billion. Food- and beverage-processing industry shipments totalled just over $4.6 billion. So the B.C. agrifood and beverage industry has a tremendous value to the province -- some $17 billion in total, employing altogether about 250,000 people. That's one in seven British Columbians.

The agricultural land reserve is, of course, the key factor in the continued growth of that industry. I believe, as the minister has said, that these changes are going to provide certainty and clarity for the farmers and the development community. The farmers obviously will know that the ALR is for agriculture and agricultural development. The developers will know that the ALR lands are not available for non-agricultural use. There is a new land commissioner that will be in place to work with those developers and with municipalities to find other land for that sort of development.

What we see from this is a strengthening of our ability to increase our economic development both inside and outside of that agricultural land reserve. We make sure that everyone understands that the agricultural land reserve is a way of planning their communities around agriculture and ensuring that the best land use zoning takes place in those areas.

[1500]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to join in this second reading debate of Bill 70, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I'm pleased to speak on this bill, and I'll say at the outset that I support it. However, there can be no doubt that this bill is a direct result of the political controversy surrounding the application by a developer to remove major portions of the Six Mile Ranch from the agricultural land reserve and use it for tourist, commercial and residential purposes.

On June 10, 1998, the Minister of Agriculture announced that under the provincial interest clause of the existing act, cabinet had decided to proceed on the developer's request to convert this land to non-agricultural uses. The deal is a complex one that includes consolidation of existing titles; it includes the swap of Crown land for water rights of questionable value, and it includes other government commitments, also of dubious merit. I don't think it was a happy time for the minister, as he struggled with the political pressures from the Premier's Office and his personal commitment to the maintenance of agricultural land for farming purposes.

Just prior to the June 10 announcement, the minister announced that he was asking Moura Quayle, the dean of agriculture at UBC, to review and report on the provincial interest clause in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The Six Mile application was the first test of this section of the legislation, which was part of the amendments introduced by the government in 1992. The public discussion generated by Moura Quayle's review served to provide a more positive outlet for all the political damage that was done to the government and to many individuals as a result of the Six Mile controversy. It also served, from a political perspective, to reinforce the notion that there must be a deficiency in the act and that's why the controversy surrounding Six Mile happened.

I just want to say, for the record, that all of the problems and controversy around the Six Mile Ranch situation were not

[ Page 13132 ]

Secondly, I want to proudly say that I am a supporter of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. I am a supporter of provincial legislation to ensure a stable, predictable and protected land base on which our diverse agricultural industry can flourish. I say that, knowing full well that there are many other legitimate uses for rural land. However, I believe that the Land Commission has on many occasions demonstrated appropriate sensitivity and flexibility to accommodate legitimate competitive interests in the use of rural land and ALR land.

I believe it is entirely fair to expect the commission to take into account local and regional interests and to do so in a way that varies from region to region as local concerns require. In doing so, I believe that the commission should be more active in publicly explaining its rationale, so that everyone has the opportunity for a fuller understanding of the reasons for the commission's decisions.

[1505]

I have reviewed the Quayle report and, like the minister, feel there were a lot of things in the report that I agreed with, and there were some things that I disagreed with. For example, there is no question that agriculture is in the provincial interest. It is a $2 billion-a-year industry at the farm gate for the province, but more importantly, it is also a mainstay in many local rural economies. It is a stabilizing influence in these local economies. Agriculture is there, running seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, feeding a local economy through its farming, marketing and service sectors.

I agree that the issue of what is a matter of provincial interest of sufficient significance to override the needs of agriculture could be and probably should be better defined. The Quayle report attempts to do that. Having said that, however, I was somewhat surprised when the minister tabled the bill without including a specific definition of provincial interest -- not Quayle's definition or any other definition -- even though on January 27 the government indicated that it would do so. I'm sure the minister will explain to us what considerations he made on this issue.

Also, the January 1999 press release indicated that a new commissioner of lands would be appointed to assist project proponents to identify alternative sites outside the ALR for non-agricultural development. Again, I'm sure the minister has considered this issue and possibly will introduce it outside of the legislation.

There is no question that the improvements in this bill, compared to the existing wording of the act, are under the general heading of openness and public accountability and in the involvement of the Agricultural Land Commission in the overall process. The specific features that I believe are constructive and helpful to an improved process are, firstly, that public hearings must be held in six locations in the province in order to reinforce the notion that only matters of a truly provincial interest should be able to override the commitment of farmland to agriculture. Secondly, the participation of the Agricultural Land Commission through the submission of their views at both the beginning and end of the process, before the report goes to cabinet, is also a distinct improvement. Thirdly, I support the clause that will allow a municipality or a regional district to request cabinet to consider an initiative under the provincial interest clause. This is a good improvement in that it does give local and regional governments more influence in the consideration of whether or not a non-agricultural project should be able to go ahead on agricultural land.

In the final analysis, given the history behind this bill, it is relevant to ask: will this amendment prevent another Six Mile debacle? My short answer to the question is no. If a cabinet -- any cabinet, be it an NDP cabinet, Liberal or something else -- is determined to override the legislation, they probably can do so by simply ignoring the provisions of the so-called balancing test.

While the provisions in the act are a reasonable effort to describe the appropriate test, I believe they are still subject to a wide range of interpretations. Creative politicians will find a way around it if they really want to do so, and maybe that is as it should be.

I believe this legislation will be an improvement. However, given the background to this bill, I would like to mention two current issues that involve agricultural land interests. And given the minister's strong commitment to agriculture, I ask that he address his attention to these two situations that are clear examples of the kind of political problems that this legislation is designed to address.

[1510]

Secondly, the Minister of Transportation and Highways is currently promoting a project to widen to four lanes the current two-lane section of the highway from Aspen Grove to Merritt -- I think it's Highway 97C. The documents show that this is not a road-widening project. It is, in fact, a new four-lane highway which will further alienate significant acreage of ALR land and cause further detrimental impacts to the ranches involved. I do not believe that the Highways minister's proposal stands up to proper scrutiny, and on behalf of agriculture -- and for many other reasons -- I believe it should not proceed.

In closing, this bill is no guarantee against the partisan aspirations of creative politicians, again, whether they be NDP

[ Page 13133 ]

B. Goodacre: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery we have some visiting students from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers, B.C., who have taken time out of their busy schedule to witness the activities of this House. I told them that the piece of legislation that is being debated is one of particular importance to the province of British Columbia, and they're looking forward to hearing the debate. Could you please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Thank you, and welcome to the young people who are here.

J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill 70. It is perhaps one of the bills, one of the amendments, that I will remember, when I leave this place, as being something that was extremely and personally important to me. I think all speakers have brought up some very important points. There's another point that I want to bring up. It's unusual, when we debate legislation in this House, that we have four members of the House, two from each side, stand up and collectively bring up the points that really do represent the complexity and the importance of this issue.

When you're dealing with a program that is 27 years old -- I hate to mention it, hon. Speaker, to all of us here -- we're talking about a whole new generation who don't remember what it was like in British Columbia before we had agricultural land preservation legislation. I perhaps have the longest personal history of involvement with this issue. That doesn't mean that I'm old today -- only that I was very young when I got involved in this issue. But as the minister said, in 1972, when British Columbia took the unprecedented action to zone agricultural land, it was a very courageous action. Land was disappearing at an alarming rate, and it was clear to everyone that without some action to ensure that farmers would have land to farm and food to produce for this and future generations, today, all of that land would be gone.

[1515]

I think mention has also been made, however, that over the years, with all of the ebbs and flows and controversies around the agricultural land reserve. . . . It now enjoys unprecedented support across this province. I know that there was a poll done a couple of years ago that suggested that fully 85 percent of British Columbians believe it should be very difficult to remove land from the agricultural land reserve. This is not only farmers -- who clearly have said that they need the reserve to protect the area on which they carry out their livelihood -- but certainly many local governments, who have understood that in order to plan better communities -- compact, complete communities that don't have the huge costs of urban sprawl. . . . The agricultural land reserve also supports their community goals. Many developers who have long since sold lands they owned in the ALR and begun to develop on slopes and non-agricultural lands have come to support the agricultural land reserve as a companion to livable and attractive communities that they are building on non-agricultural land.

I believe there are few other programs that our predecessors in this chamber brought in that have been so phenomenally successful through 27 years, despite a few sore thumbs along the way and despite the fact that perhaps every government since 1972 has made decisions that have perhaps been out of sync with the initial intent of this legislation. But Bill 70 is really only the most recent of the fine-tunings of the legislation to protect farmland. Certainly in 1975, changes were made that created the appeal to the elected arm, and through the next decade we saw a veritable superhighway of applications that bypassed the independent body called the Agricultural Land Commission and came to this chamber. Indeed, it was sort of household names, almost, like Gloucester and Spetifore that prompted this government, when it was elected in 1991, as one of its first acts, to remove and abolish the appeals to cabinet and instead put in place what we have come to know as the provincial interest clause.

In addition, because I think we all recognize that this is not an easy journey that we are on in terms of regarding agricultural land as a provincial resource, not only in the purview and interest of local governments, in 1994 this Legislature, our government, again brought in amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that actually did create further flexibility for the Land Commission to work with local governments and regional districts to meet community goals as well as provincial goals in terms of land use planning. I think those were extremely important amendments that we made to that act to try to address some of the issues that local governments face in terms of other demands on their farmland.

But, as has been mentioned, I think we all recognize that Bill 70 is here today because of our collective experience around the Six Mile Ranch issue. I want to reiterate some of the minister's comments that this was not a comfortable time for him or for me or for members on this side of the House. It was not a comfortable time for me to be at odds with the minister, who I know works extremely hard. We work very closely together on issues in support of agriculture.

[1520]

I won't actually go through again what is in the bill. I think members on both sides of the House have clarified it quite well. There will be set stages which all of us collectively -- communities, the Agricultural Land Commission and elected members of a government -- will need to go through in terms of considering another case under provincial interest. I

[ Page 13134 ]

I want to close with just a couple of comments, because certainly I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Okanagan-Boundary and the member for Abbotsford -- particularly the member for Abbotsford, who I know has been a longtime supporter of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

While I appreciate the members on the opposite side supporting this bill, I would have hoped to have heard perhaps the commitment from that side of the House on the larger question of where they stand on the provincial program, because I know that in the last election the official opposition had as one of their policies a much greater devolution to regional decision-making. I am hoping today that the vote on this bill and the comments of the two members opposite would clarify once and for all and put to rest where the official opposition stands on this issue. British Columbians need to know that the provincial program is safe, regardless of who sits on this side of the House, if we are to truly protect the limited amount of agricultural land we have left.

With that, I will conclude with just a short local comment. I, of course, represent an urban riding. Sometimes on this issue of agricultural land preservation there is perhaps a little bit of animosity between those who live in rural communities and those who live in urban communities. But I live in an urban community that recognizes very clearly that the places where we live, the places where we work and the places where we shop were once farmland. So we live in areas where that farmland has been lost.

Far from being a dividing point between those who continue to steward and farm the land in rural areas and those who live in urban areas, I believe that we have an opportunity through the select standing committee and through the agriculture and food policy process to marry those two interests and to deliver finally on the commitment that society, in protecting the agricultural land resource, is also prepared to ensure that farmers can make a living on that land and that we -- all of us British Columbians -- will support their effort to do that for the benefit of food security for this generation and for all future generations.

That is what this bill is about. It's about reaffirming our commitment that the foundation for growing food is the land base. Without it, we do not have that security of food production. With that, hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and support Bill 70.

[1525]

Hon. C. Evans: In closing debate here today. . . . I know we'll get to the committee stage later, but this is the part of the debate where people actually say the guts or the politics of what they think about an issue. I want to talk about what I think is happening here, outside this room, in the larger sense of public policy.

In the last 25 years, there have been something like 30,000 applications for exclusion from the agricultural land reserve. The job of the Agricultural Land Commission has been to sort through all of those applications and decide, based on soil type or planning sensibilities or regulatory regime, what pieces of property should come out.

I think that job is over now. We are deciding here today that the provincial interest is the agriculture interest. I don't think we need the Agricultural Land Commission to spend another 25 years sifting through another 30,000 applications and, one by one, in a sort of a one-at-a-time way, trying to figure out what is farmland. From now on, I think what is in, is in. And I think that in future what is added in or comes out should happen in consultation, in planning processes, between the Agricultural Land Commission and municipalities about what makes sense for agriculture. I think we can wind down the sort of one-off history of the agricultural land reserve. We can end here today the notion that the farmers don't like it.

The hon. member said that he was living on farmland when it was frozen. Me too, hon. member -- the land I live on, because I never move, is the land I was on then. It was brought into the agricultural land reserve, and it's the same for a whole lot of other people. But the hon. member and I are old. I submit that at least I am half a century old. When people come and stand before me and say, "Woe is me, my land is frozen," I notice that lots of them are 30 or 40 years old. They bought it frozen.

The time when we can talk about expropriated wealth or the nasty changes brought in by the NDP in 1973 is over. It's over -- the decades of support systems and ALDA and ARDSA and FII and all the programs that were put in place because the Minister of Agriculture of the day, in 1973, said: "We'll freeze your land, and for a while, there will be cost-of-production subsidies." We paid it for decades. It's over.

In just a couple of minutes this debate is going to be over. We're going to go and call the question. The room is going to fill up with people, and I submit, hon. Speaker, that I will be stunned if anybody in this room votes against this bill. I want to say that there's only a few people here -- God bless you. Thanks for coming. You are watching a moment in history. When this debate is over, the fight over the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia is also over. I think both parties in this House are going to sign on and say that from now on, it's the law. It will be there forever.

Developers, you want to build something? Go somewhere else. After all, there's only four million of us here. If we can't find empty land in British Columbia to build a factory on or a resort on or an airfield on, who else could? We have the emptiest province in the emptiest country on the globe. If we can't lead here today, what other society could we expect to live up to our ideals? The days when you have to pay for this zoning end today. The people who stand up and vote yes for the terms of the provincial interest sign on, for themselves and for their political party -- listen up, hon. members -- through the next election out on the hustings and for all time. If you want to work in here on this side of the House, you vote for this piece of legislation and you're signed on.

[1530]

[ Page 13135 ]

With that, and with real expectation of what these folks are going to get to watch happen in just a minute, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 70 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

[1535]

Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 69.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

[1540]

On section 1.

J. Weisbeck: I first of all want to thank the minister again. I think the second reading speech last night was very informative and probably answered a lot of our questions, but we do have just a couple of things that we'd like to ask.

I'm noticing here, under "Objects," that there basically is an addition of a new object of the society: ". . .to nurture and further the professional application of landscape architectural knowledge and technique as it relates to the planning, design, development, preservation, protection, restoration, reclamation, rehabilitation, enhancement and management of the environment." I just would like to know whether this is something that's internal -- something related to the society -- or if there is some other intent in this. For example, are we looking at, somewhere down the road, making it mandatory for landscape architecture having input into various projects?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The shorter answer is no. There's no intent that this become some sort of external requirement. This is simply an amendment reflecting the desire of the landscape architects to have the act reflect what they believe are the true objects of their society.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

G. Hogg: With respect to the Independent School Act, there is a modification in terms of process. I'm wondering whether the criteria in terms of the guidelines which are being developed have been developed, and if the criteria will remain the same for the independent school teacher certification or whether or not there will be a change in criteria.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The criteria will remain the same. They could, of course, change at some future time, but that is not the intent of this amendment.

G. Hogg: The independent school teacher certification committee will have set those criteria, or the criteria are already set as in guidelines. The process will now be that an application will be reviewed directly by the inspector. The inspector will give that approval, consistent with the guidelines set by the independent school teacher certification committee. Is that the correct process? Or is that the process as it will be followed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, you've summarized the process accurately. The only thing I would add is that after the inspector does the certification, that will then be ratified at the next meeting of the committee.

G. Hogg: That was the point I was looking at. So the standards will then be maintained by the committee, by having the process to review the actions as taken by the inspector.

Are there any options for the teachers challenging this certification process if they're not satisfied with it? I see the inclusion process with respect to the committee having the ability to check what the inspector may have determined, based on their criteria and approval of that. Does there exist or should there exist within the act some recourse for a teacher who may have applied for certification and been denied and is unhappy with that? What recourse would they have?

[1545]

G. Hogg: Thank you.

My final question would just be with respect to how we, as the state, are assured that the standards are going to be at particular levels within the independent schools. I'm assuming that we. . . . The agent for the state in this matter is the inspector. The inspector has, I'm assuming, some type of guidelines given to him or her, based on the standards which the state wishes to be maintained through all of the educational facilities which exist. So could you just advise me as to how those standards are maintained and therefore how the state is assured that, generally, independent schools have the quality of education necessary -- not just through their internal committee, not just through the actions as the inspector may put them forward, but how the state ensures those within a broader framework or a broader set of principles.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the appeal issue, we actually have located it. Section 5(4) of the Independent School Act provides that if a teacher has been refused certification, the teacher may appeal within 60 calendar days to the minister, whose decision is final. So there is an avenue of appeal.

[ Page 13136 ]

Teachers in independent schools have two avenues for obtaining certification. One is as public school teachers do through the College of Teachers, and the great majority of independent school teachers choose that avenue. They may also apply for certification under the provisions of the Independent School Act. The qualifications or the specifications are actually set out by the teacher certification committee, which is composed of people from the ministry and from the independent school community. Then those qualifications and guidelines are applied by the inspector and that committee under the provisions of the act which we're now modifying.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Weisbeck: In sub-subsection (i), "program advisory committees with substantial industry representation. . . ." I was wondering if you could just clarify that? It seems to be rather vague. Is there some sort of form that you might suggest to committees for representation from private business?

[1550]

I'm reluctant to say substantial means 30 percent, 50 percent or 70 percent. This is at the discretion of the board and BCIT to set that. But they did want to make sure that the principle that industry has a loud and clear voice on the committees advising the institution on program content was incorporated in the act.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Weisbeck: This particular section is, under the section of definitions, "post-secondary education." In this case, it has excluded public post-secondary institutions. Does this amendment make it easier for public post-secondary to move into training? In other words, does this complement the training accord?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just want to confirm my understanding with staff here. Right now, public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia that are established under provisions of legislation passed by this chamber are not required to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. So there's a clear division right now in the province. What this technical amendment does is extend that exclusion from the requirement to register to other Canadian public post-secondary institutions.

The example would be this. Technically, under the act as it now stands, Queen's might be required to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission if anybody in British Columbia was to register and take a course from Queen's through distance education or on the Net or some other way. This simply says no, if it's a public post-secondary institution established in Canada, whether it's B.C. or another province, funded in whole or in part by the government of Canada or of a province, it doesn't have to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. That's the sole intent of this amendment.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

[1555]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The significant part of this section is clause (d); I think the member has picked that up. The intent here is quite clear. Section 14(1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act requires -- and I want to emphasize that it requires -- that any person who has reason to believe that a child is being physically neglected or abused has to report his or her concerns to the director of child protection, at which point a file is opened under an investigation subsequent to that section.

What we're saying or doing by this amendment is saying: "Look, there's much that's in a student's record, but this stuff is not. Access to that material is covered not by the School Act but by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." That's what this amendment does.

G. Hogg: Would current records now include any provisions where the police may have been called to be involved in some activity at the school or an offence which would have taken place at the school? Do the current records now reflect that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The current provisions of the School Act would enable a broad variety of documents to be made part of a student's record, including perhaps, as the member hypothesizes, a report by police. There are a wide range of things that could be in a student's record aside from records of academic performance, participation in school activities and the like.

The specific concern of this one is that there is one set of information that we think should not be accessible under the provisions of the School Act, and that's the set of information that would relate to an investigation of an allegation of physical neglect or abuse under section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. It's my impression that, by and large,

[ Page 13137 ]

G. Hogg: Was there any consideration with respect to broadening this section to include things which may be under the Young Offenders Act, or may have some type of problems associated with that, which may be recorded in the record? So we're just broadening the sense of the protection. You're eliminating it at this point through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but there are other areas which could arguably be confidential or could arguably be to the detriment of a youth even finding out about them, as has been determined in a number of proceedings. I just wonder whether or not the line was drawn at one point in this and why that line was chosen.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a wide range of material that could be included in a student record. I think the member is right that this is an area that. . . . Frankly, it's often the topic of discussion among school counsellors, and others who are concerned about what goes into a record: what's really relevant to go in there, how to weed stuff out, what should be there and the like. Those are all good topics for discussion, but that's not really the topic of this amendment -- okay?

This amendment is really quite restricted. It says only that there are two routes, really, for getting information from a school board. One is through the School Act; one is through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. What this act says is -- unlike other information in a child's record in a school, which you can get through the School Act -- that if you want information from a record that relates to section 14(1) investigations, you've got to go through FOI. That provides a measure of confidentiality for those records beyond that which is afforded to other documents in a child's record under the School Act.

[1600]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is accurate.

G. Plant: Given what the minister expresses as the public policy rationale for the introduction of this new subparagraph (d), perhaps he could explain how it is that the amendment will create this additional level of comfort, given that the FOI route of access is still there. In other words, could the minister explain what it is about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that he sees as being, in a way, I suppose, less public than the processes that would have existed under the School Act before this amendment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The amendment here deals with a minor but significant issue. Let me try to give it just a bit more background. Under the School Act, student records are held fairly tightly. However, parents and the students themselves have an unfettered right of access to those records, and I feel that's appropriate. However, in the case of material that relates to an allegation of abuse or neglect, there is the additional safeguard under the freedom-of-information access provisions that if the safety of the child is an issue, the material may be withheld. So that is the additional protection that is being incorporated through this amendment.

[1605]

The other issue I want to pursue here in terms of the reach of this amendment has to do with a situation that the minister will recall. I haven't sat down to get all the facts back into my head, so I may get this story slightly wrong, but basically the minister will recall a situation where provincewide assessment exams recently included questions. . . . I think we're talking about exams that were or are taken by grades 4, 7 and 10 students for the purpose of assessing the curriculum, and there were questions that encouraged students to write rather personal essays. There was an indication in a number of cases that the contents of those essays had caused officials in the ministry alarm. Therefore there were reports made under section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act to Children and Families protection officers, and there was some public concern around different aspects of that process.

I think that as a result of that, the Ministry of Education has made some changes. As I recall, it may be in the kinds of questions that are going to be asked in these exams. But none of that would undercut the basic obligation which a teacher or any other education official still has under section 14 to report a child in need of protection. That now brings me to the amendment proposed here in section 11(d). I think I know the answer to the question, but I'll ask it nonetheless. Does anything in this proposed amendment take away from that obligation to report in circumstances where that obligation would now arise?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. The obligation remains as set out under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

G. Hogg: With respect to the process by which this can come about, allowing school calendars to apply to particular groups of students, as the minister referred to last night -- just different cohorts starting and having different cohorts within a school -- is there any anticipation of size of cohorts? Or is that strictly at the discretion of the school board and/or the school with respect to what size? I'm wondering whether or not there can be small groups that may choose to operate on a different calendar and whether they have discretion to do that or the school has discretion to make some decisions with respect to that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That matter would be left at the discretion of the school board, obviously in consultation with parents and staff at the school.

G. Hogg: I understand that it's more than just consultation. In fact, there has to be agreement. My understanding is

[ Page 13138 ]

I'm just wanting to get a grasp of what that agreement means. Does that mean there has to be 100 percent agreement from all of the parents? Or does there have to be. . . ? This is why I'm struggling with the definition of the cohorts. What does agreement mean? What is the size of a cohort?

So if a cohort is 30 students -- they're in a particular grade, and this is for the management of a district -- and the school board makes a determination, "This is the best use of our teaching staff and our facilities, and the best way that we can manage and provide services," yet we don't get agreement from the parents, for whatever that reason may be, what constitutes agreement amongst the BCTF, the parents and, indeed, the school board? I think the school board is fairly apparent, but the BCTF is not as apparent, and certainly agreement from the parents is far from apparent.

[1610]

I would think it very unlikely that a school board would impose this sort of year-round cohort-based calendar on a school where there was less than overwhelming parental support for the concept. In the areas where year-round schooling has now been put in -- I referenced the two we have operating in British Columbia last evening -- there has been strong parental support for moving in this direction.

G. Hogg: So what I hear you saying is that you don't think a school board will implement it without overwhelming support of the parents. Can I then interpret that to mean that the minister is delegating full authority and responsibility for this decision-making to the school board to make that decision? In fact, if a school board should make a decision with less than overwhelming support. . . . I'm trying to discern what in fact is the authority of a parent in this matter, and "less than overwhelming" in the school board doesn't help me discern what that might be. So I'm assuming. . . .

Let me test this. The school board has the authority to make the decision, and you will allow that to happen. If the school board should make a decision with less than overwhelming support -- maybe underwhelming support -- then that will be allowed to proceed, because they've been granted the discretion to make a decision with respect to this matter.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's questioning, but I must say again that we're straying far from what the actual amendment is. School calendars are now set by school boards, within the parameters established by the ministry. They choose when they want to have a professional development day or whatever and how they wish to structure the school days. They don't ask me or anybody for that authority. That's within their purview. This amendment says that if they wish to move to a year-round school calendar for a single cohort or multiple cohorts, they have the ability to do that. As with other provisions around school calendars, they are required to get the approval of parents and teachers in doing so.

G. Hogg: The practice which is currently in place with respect to decisions involving parents -- the precedent which has been set by that practice -- is the practice which will then be rolled over and employed in decisions in such matters as going to different calendar years or calendar months. Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll read the "School Calendar Regulation." It says: "A board must not make available a local school calendar. . .unless the local school calendar has been approved. . .by (a) the parents of the students enrolled in that school. and (b) the employees of the board assigned to that school, through their union, where applicable, or, in any other case, through the persons chosen by those employees as their representatives." Those provisions remain unchanged.

G. Plant: The short answer to my colleague's concern is that the legal constraints that currently apply in respect to school calendar decisions will continue to apply to the school calendar provisions that are being proposed in this amendment. Is that correct?

The Chair: Members, while we're waiting for the minister to respond, perhaps I could ask leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The Chair: It's appropriate that we're having this discussion about school calendars, because we have a group of some 50 young visitors -- grade 6 students -- five adults and their teacher, Mr. D. Mills, from Arrowhead Elementary School in Kenmore, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Our visitors might be shocked to learn that we're discussing whether schools should be in session year-round, with breaks at slightly different times than the summer vacation that they're soon going to be on. I don't think they would be quite as supportive as us on the floor.

[1615]

G. Plant: That would include, in addition to the examples the minister gives, the issues around the role of parents and other groups in making those decisions. They will be the same after these amendments, in respect of these issues, as they were before the amendments. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct.

J. Dalton: I just want to get on the record. Firstly, I applaud this initiative. As a parent, I'm certainly encouraged to see that the ministry is taking such initiatives. But my colleague pointed out, through the questioning, that the minister better be ready for perhaps a lot of parents knocking on the door and asking for the implementation of such initiatives. I'm thinking of the school uniform issue that is all over the front page of the paper as we speak.

[ Page 13139 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The technical answer to the member's question is that there is not an avenue of appeal. If the parents and staff in a school wanted to go to a year-round calendar and the board was not willing to move in that direction, that would be the end of the matter. There is the avenue of appeal, of course, of school board elections every three years.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

G. Hogg: I need some clarity with respect to the Francophone Education Authority and how you become a member of the authority and the votes that are granted to you as a result of that. I understand the votes will take place by way of a mail-in. I'd just like some clarity with respect to all of that process and how I qualify to become a voter within the confines of the Francophone Education Authority and how the vote process will take place, be enumerated and be announced.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I really don't want to revisit all our discussions we've had in this chamber in the past couple of years about the Francophone Education Authority, other than to say this. As I said last night, the reason for these amendments is that as of the fall of 1999, the Francophone Education Authority's geographic mandate will extend to the entire province. Therefore they'll be conducting elections pretty much the same way as the school boards do, in November of every third year, starting in 1999. Who gets to vote in a Francophone Education Authority election would be anyone with section 23 rights under the Constitution Act of Canada. That's the same group of people that have access to a francophone education or who would have access to a francophone education if they had children.

[1620]

Sections 21 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

G. Hogg: I just want to be sure that the provisions of this with respect to the Francophone Education Authority and the protection of records are analogous with those that we discussed previously in section 11 -- that it's just a matter of ensuring that the same types of protections are extended to the Francophone Education Authority, as we previously discussed and clarified in section 11, and that there are no differences and it is exactly consistent and analogous.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent is absolutely congruent with the intent of the previous amendment that we discussed. The goal here is to again work on ensuring safety -- whether it's the school board or the Francophone Education Authority is quite irrelevant -- and make sure that we have the power to ensure that we're not jeopardizing children in cases where allegations of abuse have been made.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

[1625]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 61.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

G. Plant: The minister explained the purposes of this act last night during second reading debate and did so with enough detail that it's not going to be necessary to go through too much of this. Of course, we could have a legal dialogue, but I think we're here to do public policy.

The bill before us amends the Consumer Protection Act. That is an act which encompasses a wide variety of consumer transactions, including mortgage transactions, negative-option offers and a variety of credit transactions. It also deals with direct sellers and direct-sales contracts and what are called executory contracts, which I think is a type of contract for future services. These amendments, as I understand it, deal primarily with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in relation to direct sales and executory contracts only. There is, of course, the one amendment to the tax that eliminates the provision because of federal statutes dealing with tax rebate discounting. But otherwise, in general terms, what we're on about here is changes to that part of the Consumer Protection Act that deals primarily with direct sales and contracts for future services. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Right.

G. Plant: One of the stated public policy objectives of the act is to achieve harmonization -- that is, a standardization

[ Page 13140 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct, and that's based on the agreement on internal trade.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. There is the general question of harmonizing standards -- for example, when we are talking about the right which a consumer has to rescind a direct sales contract. We're looking at the issue of a time period to be attached to that right. Should the consumer have a two-day cooling-off period, a seven-day cooling-off period or a ten-day cooling-off period? As I read this bill, the answer to that specific question here, in terms of the policy objective, is a ten-day rescission period. I assume that at the least, when British Columbia and the other provinces are attempting to harmonize, they are harmonizing standards. The additional step, though, is the question of whether the provinces have committed to use virtually the same language -- which is to say, to preclude arguments that, based on a strict interpretation of provisions, might ultimately lead to different interpretations in different provinces.

[1630]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the standards are uniform, but I think the devices that we use to arrive at those standards may not be. The definitions and the like obviously are devices. I haven't looked at the entire act, but it might be that in our act we may be covering something larger than they cover. Therefore we may have to have a definition that is more inclusive than other provinces.

G. Plant: The purpose of this exercise might therefore be described somewhat more narrowly. On a certain range of subjects, the provinces have agreed on a certain set of common standards. The way in which each province chooses to give effect to those standards will be a matter for each province to consider in the context of its own specific legislation. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the answer to the question is yes, because what we want to do is have the same cancellation periods and the like, and the same standard contacts and the like. I think that perhaps explains the position.

G. Plant: It's helpful. In fact, I think the last example is one that I do need to pick up on, because one of the things this bill does is permit regulations to be made, including regulations about the form of such contracts. There it does seem to me that one could argue, perhaps more strongly, that if harmonization is to be achieved in a way that will achieve some of the cost efficiencies for businesses that we spoke about in second reading debate, it would be useful for the forms of the contracts to be virtually the same. Can the minister say if that is the objective? Or are we still in this area where the basic issue is harmonization on substance rather than conformity to the details?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the answer would be virtually or exactly the same. The attempt would be made to be exactly the same, but they might be virtually the same.

G. Plant: With the objective in mind of allowing, for example, those businesses that do undertake direct sales business in more than one province to use the same form of agreement in each of the provinces in which they do business, rather than have to design new contracts in each province -- is that correct?

[1635]

G. Plant: I want to put on the record, I suppose, my admission that I am not as familiar with the provisions of the agreement on internal trade as I should be for the purpose of this debate.

I already pointed out, as did the minister in second reading debate, that section 12 of this bill deals with a different subject altogether; it deals with tax rebate discounting. Am I correct? Let me put it this way. I have been led to believe that all of the changes in this bill, with possibly the exception of section 12, are made under the rubric of this exercise in harmonization. That is, the government hasn't added some other things in here that we need to identify and pay special attention to. I ask the minister to confirm whether my understanding is correct.

The Chair: Members, while we're waiting for the Attorney General to respond, I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Visiting us today is a second group from Kenmore, Washington -- a number of grade 6 students and some adults. They're here with their teacher, Mr. D. Mills, from Arrowhead Elementary School. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct. Section 9 may be slightly different from the general thrust, but that is to cut red tape. The registrar can change the forms without the forms having to come to cabinet for change.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

I want to ask a relatively small question about the definition of "direct sale," which is in section 1. Perhaps I'll begin by pointing out that there is a new definition for the term "buyer." The explanatory notes in the copy of the bill that I've been provided with indicate that the new definition "provides

[ Page 13141 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is generally correct. The definition is amended to, of course, clarify and simplify the definition. The exemptions would now be provided in the regulations, but there might be more exemptions or fewer exemptions. That's the ability now in the regulations for us to provide that.

G. Plant: With respect to the definition of "trade-in allowance," the change there has the effect of giving the consumer the option of choosing whichever of the two calculations is most beneficial to them. I think that is a slightly different approach to that taken in the current act. Is that correct?

[1640]

G. Plant: I think my error, then, was in describing it as an option. There are really a couple of different calculations that could be performed. In some cases, if you chose only one calculation, the consumer might be better off not trading in. Here it seems to me that the net effect of the new definition is, if you will, to enhance the position of consumers. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: I guess what I want to do here is to not go through all of the details. But it looks to me like the first six subsections of the new section 11 deal with the buyer's right to cancel a direct-sales contract. Then, when we get down to subsection 7, we get the buyer's right to cancel a contract for future services. Those are distinct types of contracts, and the circumstances in which the right to cancel arises are different, but in each case the starting point, I suppose, is a ten-day right of cancellation. I guess that's not a completely accurate reading of the section, because then we get down to section 11 -- and 12 and 13, I suppose -- which apply to both types of contracts.

I'm trying to sort of unpack the way this relatively long provision works. It looks like the first part of it deals with direct-sales contracts and the various ways in which a direct-sale contract can be cancelled, and then the second part of it deals with the various way in which a contract for future services could be cancelled. Then at the end there are some provisions that are common to both types of contracts, which speak to the way in which someone is to give notice of cancellation. Is that a relatively accurate description?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: It's not perfectly straightforward to sort out the difference between the term "contract for future services" and the term "executory contract." I gather that the two terms are really interchangeable except in one limited situation, which is that a contract for future services also is a term that will include contracts for dance lessons or health studio services. But otherwise the terms are generally interchangeable, it appears.

[1645]

G. Plant: Something might be an executory contract, absent an express declaration one way or the other. It will arise more or less by operation of law and application of the definition. I think that makes some sense.

I thought that the question I was about to ask arose in one of these provisions. It may not. I'll ask it anyway. My recollection is that if not in this act at least in some statutes across Canada dealing with direct-sales contracts and contracts for future services, there's a minimum threshold -- a dollar value for the contract before some of the regulatory provisions kick in. It's a relatively low figure according to the textbooks I had a look at yesterday. Is there such a threshold in place in British Columbia? If so, what is it? And would it be changed not by just the act but by the regulations that will come into force in due course?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The threshold in British Columbia is $50, by regulation. There's no intention to change it at this time.

Sections 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 61, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 66.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

[ Page 13142 ]

[1650]

G. Plant: Section 1 of this act will amend the Court of Appeal Act by adding a section which will give judges of the Court of Appeal certain powers after leaving office. In general terms, I think that those powers are the power to continue with the hearing of a proceeding and the jurisdiction to give judgment as though the judge continued to hold office for a period of six months after a judge resigns or is appointed to another court or ceases to hold office under section 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Perhaps the Attorney General could just confirm my understanding that ceasing to hold office under section 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, means that the judge has turned 75.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: This amendment will give a single justice of the Court of Appeal the power to dismiss as abandoned the appeal of an appellant who fails to comply with an order made under section 18(1). My recollection is that orders under that subsection tend to be in relation to procedural and other matters relating to the appeal. My question is this: would an order of dismissal under this new subsection be subject to review by a panel of the Court of Appeal in the same way that other orders of a single judge of the court are subject to review?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's nothing in this that changes the understanding of the hon. member.

G. Plant: That's partly helpful. Is the Attorney General able to indicate whether in fact an order made under this subsection will be subject to review by a panel, in keeping with whatever rules the court has that regulate its ability or its process around those reviews?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: Section 3 re-enacts the provision of the Court of Appeal with respect to costs. I actually don't have the old provision in front of me, but when I looked at it and then I looked at this one, it occurred to me that the basic objective here was to try and say something a little more simply and clearly than the old section said. It also, though, occurred to me that the new provision may not be as clear as it should be about the costs of an application made when there ultimately is no appeal.

[1655]

There are provisions in the Court of Appeal Act, however, where someone may seek leave to appeal a decision of a Supreme Court of British Columbia judge, and that is an application made under the Court of Appeal Act. The application for leave to appeal may be refused, in which case one could argue there was no appeal. The question then arises whether this provision would give the successful applicant in such a case an entitlement to costs or whether there is some other provision in the Court of Appeal Act that would give such a person an entitlement to costs. I raise the point because when we're doing something that's supposed to make things simpler, I think we should also try to protect the interests of people to the extent that we can, and not make a change which incidentally might deprive people of a right.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that in that kind of situation anybody would be entitled to any costs, unless the court had ordered costs in the example that the hon. member mentions -- or any other applications. For instance, if there were ten applications before the appeal was heard. . . . If there had been no costs awarded either way and the appeal was never concluded, the appeal would be deemed to have been abandoned.

Or if there is a consent dismissal of the appeal, parties may argue about costs with each other and make a settlement or may go back to court and say: "We want to deal with the issue of costs, while we're abandoning the appeal." Those are issues that would be clear in the sense that the party would have to seek order with respect to costs each time they appear, just in case the appeal is never concluded. Or they might have to reapply to the court for an order if they can't reach an agreement.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney's answer; I don't know that it deals with the problem completely. But let me try it this way. I suppose at one level the question is whether section 23 -- this proposed new section 23 -- is a jurisdiction-conferring provision or whether it's a provision which takes the existence of the jurisdiction for granted and then purports to express how, in the ordinary case, the power will be exercised.

When we're talking about the Court of Appeal. . . . Well, the minister says it's the latter. That gets to my problem, because -- as I'm sure the minister knows -- when we're talking about the Court of Appeal as opposed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, my recollection, anyway, is that we're talking about a tribunal which is statutory in nature rather than having inherent jurisdiction. The consequence of that is that you have to find the authority in the Court of Appeal Act -- if this reasoning is correct -- for the Court of Appeal to have the authority to do something. That would extend, arguably, to the question of costs.

If the Attorney General says that this is the latter kind of provision -- that is, it's a provision that says that this is how the jurisdiction to award costs will generally be exercised -- then the question arises whether there is any other independent place where the jurisdiction exists that will ensure that someone who applies for leave to appeal, but is refused, will be able to say to the judge, in any of the ways that the

[ Page 13143 ]

[1700]

G. Plant: In effect, it's a default provision. I understand the argument. We're not going to resolve the potential question here. I did just want to repeat the point that the way this provision is worded, it speaks of "the party who is successful on an appeal. . . ." An appeal is not the same as an application made in the appeal. So the question arises: how would this provision apply in the case of an application for leave to appeal which was dismissed, which means that there was never any appeal? My understanding is that the Attorney General is comfortable that the jurisdiction exists in the court to make an award of costs in such a case, in which case the question I raise is, hopefully, answered.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the Attorney General's position.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General explain the rationale behind repealing section 47 of the Estate Administration Act, which is what we are being asked to do here? This is a provision which obliges the official administrator to keep accounts.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that section 47 essentially duplicates the requirement that all administrators and executors account to estate beneficiaries under section 99 of the Trustee Act. It is in fact a duplication, and therefore it's being repealed, because it's section 99 of the Trustee Act that people use.

G. Plant: So section 99 of the Trustee Act being the section that is used, there is therefore no need for the duplication in section 47, at least not today. There may have been at some point in the past when the position of official administrator was perhaps differently understood than it is now. So we have a simple question of duplication, and hence the repeal.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yeah, I'm tempted to ask the Clerk, who has been at the bar far longer than the Attorney General and I put together. But I'm sure the Attorney General can confirm that, again, this is simply a matter of pure duplication.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Mr. Clerk has been nodding with approval as we've talked about this, since he's much more of an expert. It is. . . . That's the understanding.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

G. Plant: There are some provisions in this act which change the identification of persons who are commissioners for taking affidavits. I have to admit at this point that I'm not certain which of the provisions leads to the question I have. But one of them has the effect, as I recall, of deleting government agents from the category of persons who would be commissioners for taking affidavits. I wonder -- if the Attorney General confirms that I've got that right -- if there is some rationale behind that, and. . . . Well, that's my question, and I'll certainly see if I can find the provision in question.

[1705]

G. Plant: I know we are at section 12, and I have not had an opportunity in the last few seconds to look at section 60(k) of the Evidence Act. I assume that that is not. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Perhaps the minister could help me. He was about to say something, and it might be helpful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to section 60(k) of the Evidence Act, that currently makes provincial constables, and municipal constables holding a rank of sergeant or higher, commissioners for taking affidavits because of their office or employment. The amendment eliminates the distinction of rank among constables for the purpose of taking affidavits and extends the power to all officers carrying out police duties. Therefore it makes it easier for police to conduct their business. That's all that I'm told it does.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

G. Plant: This provision makes two changes to section 11 of the Interpretation Act. The first one, according to the explanatory note, is intended to allow cross-reference descriptions to be added editorially so that British Columbia laws will be more understandable for readers. That is what will become section 11(2). I take it what the government intends here is that there might be a provision of the Municipal Act which makes reference to some other act, and the intention is to allow the authors of statutes to put something in italics in square brackets to help the reader of the statute find the other reference. Is that what the government has in mind here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I think that that would go a long way for those laypersons who don't regularly deal with laws and don't know how sometimes various laws interact and arrive at a different conclusion from the one that may be given

[ Page 13144 ]

G. Plant: Could the minister give a specific example of how this might work?

[1710]

G. Plant: I can imagine this could go a long way in maybe ultimately. . . . Almost too far. For instance, lots of statutes make provision for disclosure of information, and different statutes deal differently with provisions like that in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. It may be that, for example, in order to override the Freedom of Information Act you have to do so expressly, but that might be an invitation for someone drafting a statute that made provision for data-sharing agreements to put a little parenthetic, italicized statement that says: "This must be read subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." That would, it seems to me, require a pretty wholesale revision of the statutes. I take it that this is a much more confined idea.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's example would be an amendment, actually, to how the legislation should be read. What this is intended to do is just alert an individual that before you fully understand the meaning of this, maybe you should look at another piece of legislation that might have some impact on this area.

G. Plant: Subsection (3) is also to be added to section 11, which says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations amending an enactment for the purpose of changing a reference to a specific minister or ministry in a provision of the enactment. . . ." Are we talking about a subset of subsection (2)? Are we talking about giving cabinet, essentially, the power to rewrite statutes to change ministry assignments? An example is that the Attorney General Act contains some specific assignments of responsibility to the Ministry of Attorney General. I take it that this is not intended to change those.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think the regulations could override a specific piece of legislation, such as the Attorney General Act. This is simply intended to update a reference to a particular minister with respect to a particular responsibility. For instance, let's say that immigration matters are dealt with by the Minister Responsible for Immigration. But if a particular issue was to be dealt with by the Intergovernmental Relations minister, the reference would have to be changed through regulation. It doesn't have to be done by legislation.

G. Plant: When I read this, it looks like cabinet is getting the power to make regulations amending an enactment -- that is, regulations would amend the statute. I see a difference between a regulation which says, "For the purpose of section 4 of the Immigration Act, the minister shall be the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations," and a situation where the act itself specified the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I guess I'm concerned that this is doing exactly what the minister said, a minute ago, it wasn't doing.

[1715]

I am cognizant of the problem that the hon. member is worried about, but nobody is going to try and take the responsibilities of the Attorney General away by regulation. I think that would be a huge leap for anyone to make based on this amendment. This is, in a sense, sort of housekeeping, making it easier, so that you no longer have references to ministries that are obsolete, that don't exist.

G. Plant: Well, the Attorney General's reference to obsolete ministries leads me to this observation. There could be a public policy debate around whether or not cabinet responsibility should be assigned by statute as opposed to being assigned by order-in-council. I think, because cabinet responsibility is primarily one of those things that belongs to the executive branch of government, that it's the Premier's call who gets to do what and what it's called.

The way that this should be probably be dealt with over time is that, with one or two exceptions, the law should be written in a way that the term used in statutes is "the minister." I think, for the most part, that is what happens. If it's "the minister," then presumably the minister can be changed from time to time. I would say that the Ministry of Attorney General may well be an exception to that, and I think that the Attorney General would probably agree that there should at least be greater attention paid there.

I still have a concern with respect to the use of regulations to override enactments, but I understand that the Attorney General is of the view that this has a very limited application, that it is intended to do really no more than that which is already done in cases where the statute simply says "the minister" and everything is left to OIC. On that basis, unless the Attorney General says that I've got something completely wrong here, we can move on.

Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

G. Plant: All I need to impose on the minister is that here's where I have made the note "removes government agents." I gather, though, that the general question of the powers of the government agents to act as commissioners for taking affidavits remains as assigned by section 60 of the Evidence Act.

[ Page 13145 ]

On section 22.

G. Plant: I want to confirm on the record here my understanding that the Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act is being repealed because since 1989 the Competition Act of Canada has, virtually word for word, dealt with the same subject matter. And it's the view of the province that the Competition Act has broader application because it operates interprovincially and therefore there is no need for this provincial statute. From the government of B.C.'s perspective, it is sufficient to allow the federal legislation to operate in this field, and that is why this Multilevel Marketing Regulation Act -- which I think was first enacted in 1979 -- is now being repealed. Have I correctly stated the rationale for this?

[1720]

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

G. Plant: Section 25 repeals the Refugee Settlement Act. As I have been told by officials in the ministry, the rationale for doing this is that the 1998 immigrant settlement services agreement with the government of Canada essentially covers this field and does so in a way which is more suitable to the interests of the province of British Columbia, and therefore there is no need for this statute -- which again, I believe, may date back as long ago as 1979. I guess I want to be sure -- and the minister will have an opportunity to correct what I've just said if I've got the rationale wrong -- that there's nothing in what the government wants us to do here that is going to in any way compromise the position of refugees in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's caution is well taken, and I can assure the hon. member. . . . In fact, particularly in view of the recent arrival of refugees, we are much more conscious of those issues, and more work is being done, perhaps, than ever before. This will not compromise protection and serving of the refugees once they're here.

Sections 25 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 65.

LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

[1725]

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that this amendment is in fact consequential to similar changes in terminology which are being made to the Hairdressers Act under this bill. The member's quite right; it appears to be a curious construction.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Krueger: With regard to sections 3 through 8, I have some general questions that we'll bring up here. Then I think we'll be able to move along through the rest of the sections quite quickly.

Of course, section 3 sets out to add the words "or a talent agency" after "an employment agency" -- in other words, capturing this particular industry or practice within the Employment Standards Act. There's always a concern about potentially adding red tape to any industry that's creating jobs in British Columbia. The film industry is one that is always raised by all of us as a bright light in the economic picture, and we wouldn't want to do anything that slows it down. But obviously there have been problems, or we wouldn't be dealing with this in this act. I wonder if the minister could expound a bit on the things that have been going wrong that led to these changes.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. This bill -- or this piece of it -- is the product of some significant consultation. There is, alas, a very large corpus of material in terms of complaints about unscrupulous talent agents. Most of them came to the ministry's attention and the branch's attention through the Better Business Bureau. Essentially, what happened was simply that individuals who were acting as agents for particular actors -- most notably actors -- got paid by the person with whom the contract was, but then the actor, the person who was supposedly being represented, never got the money. That became, as I say, a fairly commonplace practice, thus the idea of changing the legislation.

Ultimately, what it's about is essentially defining talent agencies in the act, as I say, in order to be able to recover wages, and that involves distinguishing talent agencies from employment agencies. We think -- the member's quite right to point out -- that all of those sections should really be seen as a piece. But the intention is essentially to catch those unscrupulous players. We think we'll solve the problem. I'm happy to note that there was wide consultation. We certainly seem to have buy-in from the industry.

[ Page 13146 ]

We're always concerned about also capturing scrupulous players and saddling them with more expense and red tape. In order to deal with that concern that occurs across the spectrum in legislation, the government has announced its intention to apply what it calls the business lens approach to new legislation, new regulations. Was the business lens applied to these changes in advance of this legislation being tabled?

[1730]

The second is that, strictly speaking, no, it didn't go through a business lens process, simply because, as you know, that is a rather later development. This has been in the creation for some time. However, I think I can give the member some comfort on this. The consultation that I referred to dealt not only with the specific stakeholders but also with representatives of the small business community, like the Business Council. Nobody, as far as we know, has expressed concern about this being an undue and unnecessary layer of red tape.

K. Krueger: Could the minister give us an approximation of what, if any, additional cost he and his officials think would be faced by the scrupulous operators as a result of these changes -- licensing fees and the like?

Hon. D. Lovick: The only cost we can recognize is a licensing fee of some $100.

Sections 3 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

K. Krueger: In trying to accelerate this process, I may be going a little too fast.

Dealing with this general area of the act, there are some provisions with regard to individuals engaged in hairdressing or cosmetology studios being prohibited from also teaching those arts and crafts to students. I wonder if the minister could expound on that a little for the benefit of the House. Why is that a concern?

Hon. D. Lovick: As the member said, we're going rather quickly, and I'm not sure what section we're talking about. But in general, then. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay. In general terms, section 17, as the member knows, refers to the specific number of hours, in the act, required to get the training and the certification. It used to be 1,000 hours. It has been agreed now that it ought to be increased to 1,500. That is the prescription -- okay? That's the first part. That's what section 17 is about. I think the. . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, minister, I just want to clarify that we have passed sections 1 through 20. If you'd like to go back, we could.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm aware of that, Mr. Chairman, but the member opposite -- quite rightly, I think -- is saying that we are going very quickly, and perhaps some things haven't been clear. So with your indulgence, I'd. . . .

The Chair: Okay knowing that we're on section 21.

Hon. D. Lovick: Understood. We are indeed on section 21, I believe. Yet that isn't what the question is about, so I'm struggling a little.

[1735]

K. Krueger: Is there to be any provision for people who might be returning to the workforce, having been employed as cosmetologists in the past, without having to go to school again and get this certification or for people perhaps transferring in from out of province -- these sorts of situations?

Hon. D. Lovick: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I wish I had a particular section reference. I've read all this. Again, in generic terms, the term that your certification is good for is four years -- broadly. Second, we have an agreement with, I believe, all the western provinces and some others as well, in terms of recognizing one another's credentials. So there isn't, then. . . . If, for example, you go and live in Alberta for a while and then come back, you don't have to do an exam again. Rather, there's an equivalency.

I think the term of four years is considered to be necessary for the industry standard, simply because there are enough changes going on that somebody could theoretically be unqualified. However, we were advised by the association -- whatever it's called -- that the board of examiners is prepared to recognize that people may have kept up their trade and their skills even though they haven't been working and therefore have given us the assurance that they will examine these matters on a case-by-case basis -- again, not to be too onerous.

K. Krueger: I think the minister has probably just answered my next question, which was going to be: will there be a way for such people to challenge the examination or write a test without taking the requisite course?

[ Page 13147 ]

K. Krueger: Once again, there seems to be the risk here of costs and additional red tape to individuals who may not be that well moneyed. These occupations don't necessarily generate lucrative salaries -- perhaps to some. Is there any approximation of what the cost would be to a person such as we have been talking about, who's coming back into the profession, to requalify -- such as a licensing fee? What costs will be associated?

Hon. D. Lovick: The cost to renew a licence is $60.

K. Krueger: The warnings that are built in -- signs, actually; I take them to be warnings to potential customers that students are at work in these premises. . . . I think the minister already touched on this, but I understand those to be ensuring that fair warning is given to potential customers that they don't have a completely qualified person working on them. Is that the sole intent?

Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.

K. Krueger: One more. The minister referred to broad consultation, and I'm pleased to hear that that took place. Certainly it is likely that some of these provisions will be more onerous in small towns than they are in large cities. For example, when we say that you can't teach and practise in the same building. . . . In Vancouver and Victoria there are many buildings; in small towns that might not be the case. Did the consultations include industry representatives in small-town British Columbia as well?

[1740]

Second, I understand that most of the small communities that would be most directly impacted in the way the member suggests aren't big enough to sponsor a school. A school requires a reasonable population base, I guess, to function.

Third, as far as I can interpret from looking at the legislation, it's not a matter of saying that you can't have the two things in the same building, or anything like that. It's rather that there has to be a clear separation. Therefore we stipulate separate entrances, as I recall, as the differentiating point.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

K. Krueger: I request a clarification here. This looks like a red-tape reduction to us. Was the provision not deemed to be necessary, once practicality and reality set in?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think I'll accept the member's terminology, but the point is that yes, indeed, the provision that was in there was effectively redundant, and we believe that the problem that was meant to be solved by the legislation is solved by the other section. Therefore we don't need both sections.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

K. Krueger: I'd like to slow right down here for a moment and just canvass, if we could, what the minister contemplates with regard to the regulations and provisions that will flow as a result of the enactment of section 30. Specifically, authority is being given to the governors to determine, as I understand it, a new, acceptable maximum number and also to deal with the question of what documentation is required when a family loses a loved one through a workplace accident or an occupationally related disease. I'd like us to go on the record with a bit of a discussion about what is expected to flow from this.

Hon. D. Lovick: As I said in second reading debate -- and the member, I think, is well aware of this -- the existing amount stipulated for funeral services for workers killed on the job hasn't changed for a number of years. The existing amount, I believe, is about $3,800. I am advised that that doesn't buy you much service in today's marketplace. Therefore the need was obviously felt to make changes.

The Royal Commission on Workers Compensation, as I think the member knows, made some recommendations on this. It recommended that compensation for funeral expenses should be increased to $7,000, and they broke that down in terms of $5,000 for funeral expenses, $1,000 for additional expenses and $1,000 for transportation. The fallback position, essentially, is that by this legislation, the board is going to be given the authority to increase those expenses as time goes on, in the event that the consumer price index indicates that the cost has gone much beyond what was envisaged in that $7,000 figure.

So we assume that that will be sufficient, and I'm sure the member would agree with me. Most people are obviously not going to say: "Well, because somebody else is paying for it, we'll go for the most expensive" -- or something like that. The $7,000, we think, ought to fairly accommodate everybody, at least at this time. I understand that all that is required in terms of evidence is simply a copy of the death certificate. That's apparently all that's required.

[1745]

Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.

K. Krueger: Of course, these are terrible events when they occur. Although there has been considerable improvement in the numbers, I think the numbers are that in 1995, we lost 134 workers. In 1996, there were 152; in 1997, there were 164 -- then a dramatic drop to 125 in 1998. I'm aware that occupational disease played a part in some of those higher numbers from the previous years. It's obviously a time of great grief for families when these losses occur. One expects and believes that there is tremendous compassion on the part of the board, and I know there is from the members of this House, on both sides.

When the minister broke the numbers down to the $5,000, $1,000 and $1,000, is one of the $1,000 units meant to

[ Page 13148 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the important point to note is that we're talking here, essentially, about a royal commission recommendation, and the royal commission grappled with the very questions the member raises legitimately. How do you differentiate between one family that says, "This is an old Irish wake, and therefore we're going to have relatives and everybody here for three days, and it's going to cost us a bundle," and others who perhaps say their farewells to their loved ones in very different ways? The conclusion to all of that, I guess, was simply that it's better to simply give a flat rate and not create an extra burden of paperwork and administrative overlay and all of that. It's easier and probably better for all concerned to simply do a flat rate.

L. Reid: I would simply query the minister in terms of a flat rate being set. My understanding is that it will be set by the board of governors or, in this instance, the panel of administrators. Will that be in place for any kind of extended time line? Or will, indeed, every subsequent panel, every subsequent board of governors change that? We're looking for some kind of consistency, in terms of your response.

Hon. D. Lovick: There is deliberately no specific amount mentioned, simply because. . . . The assumption made is that we will have to change it as inflation occurs. I think it's safe to say, though, that the board or the panel would at this point be guided very much by the royal commission recommendations -- the five plus one plus one. I would think that although the board would obviously be committed to regularly reviewing it, there would have to be a significant increase. I mean, if the consumer price index goes up by 1 percent, I don't think that's worth suddenly saying: "Right, we're going to rewrite it and change the amounts."

[1750]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his response. He and I concur: the royal commission did suggest there should be a fixed sum of money. They didn't suggest how long that fixed sum of money would stay in place. My earlier concern was that any subsequent panel of administrators or, indeed, the next board of governors could dramatically increase -- or decrease -- the set amount. What is the minister's intention for how long the set amount will be in place?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member knows I can't give her an absolutely definitive answer on that. One can hypothesize, I suppose, and one can speculate a bit. I think the answer, though -- and the best way to deal with the question -- is to say that the panel is charged with the responsibility now of establishing guidelines. I suspect that, more or less in keeping with the panel's standard practice, they will go and talk to stakeholders and the industry and so forth and probably find out from them what the pattern of increased costs for funeral services is -- what's happened in the last decade, say. Accordingly, they would build a proposal and a policy around that that suggests that every one, two or three -- however many -- years we would review it, taking into account the following things. . . . That, I suspect, is the way they would approach it, and I think it's probably the most sensible way, because as the member and I both agree, laying out a particular sum of money merely means that we have to do this again every couple of years or five years or whatever.

L. Reid: The royal commission, as the minister has stated, was somewhere between $5,000 and $9,000. Today the minister is saying $5,000 plus $1,000 plus $1,000. Where was that decision recorded, in terms of moving to $7,000? Was that just finding a balance between $5,000 and $9,000, or did a particular recommendation flow to let us arrive at $7,000?

Hon. D. Lovick: My memory and my advice tell me that the royal commission recommendation was indeed $5,000 plus $1,000 plus $1,000. I think it was specifically that.

R. Neufeld: Just one quick question to the minister. I assume that this took place in the past, but I'm just wondering how the $7,000 is treated by the taxation department in the subsequent year for the surviving spouse? Would that be classified as income that the surviving spouse would have to pay tax on? I assume that as the number gets larger, as we get up to $7,000, it becomes a bit more onerous than at the previous $3,500. I'm not sure if the minister can answer about the taxation issue, but it's something that we should probably be thinking about also.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm pleased to report that I can answer the question. It's a very good one, and I'm glad that the member raises it for the record. The funeral expense category, if you like, will be treated the same way as a death benefit and as compensation under WCB; therefore, it's not taxable.

K. Krueger: Of course, it's always too recent to check the Hansard on the minister's answers, but members would like him to repeat once more the $5,000 plus $1,000 plus $1,000. What was the intent of the three different categories, please?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm pleased to do so. We are guided here by the royal commission's recommendation, and the figure we are using is $5,000 for funeral expenses, plus $1,000 for a category that I think was called incidental expenses, plus another $1,000 for travel expenses.

[1755]

[ Page 13149 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: What I can tell the member is that if it does become a policy, which is our intention, then by definition that will be part of a consultation process. That's how all of those policy decisions are indeed made.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

K. Krueger: I want to talk with the minister briefly about "Classification of industries." I mentioned in my second reading remarks that I was hoping for a bit finer breakdown of the categories. I do note that there is provision under subsection (2) for the board to create new classes and so on.

I have used the example of Highland Valley Copper, but there are many examples. You can be a very rough-and-ready mining operation, or you can be an extremely sophisticated mining operation that's very proud of its safety record, like Highland Valley Copper. It does seem unfair for those really fine operators to pay in the same category as those who haven't learned those management skills. Perhaps the minister could comment on the intent of the board in this regard.

Hon. D. Lovick: This section and the intention of talking about the classification system really provides a framework for the board to work in, which may indeed be further broken down. The classification system may be further broken down, so there will be more discrete classifications.

It's worth noting, I think -- and I know the member's familiar with this -- that the system is already based, to a degree, on an employer rating system, so that accident-free workplaces get some reward in tangible terms -- you know, what the employer pays into the system. That is obviously part of the logic and the rationale for the change in the classification system. We're confident that, in time, as this thing does get more sophisticated and more carefully designed, it will indeed be more responsive to the kinds of circumstances the member is talking about.

[1800]

K. Krueger: I know that the board is already working with an experience-rated assessment system to a degree. I understand that there are proposals under consideration to expand that, which I think is a good idea. I'm told that under consideration is a proposal to have an up-to-100-percent demerit system on experience rating and a 50 percent merit system -- meaning, for example, if you're working with a $6 rate, and you have an excellent record, you could have as low as a $3 rate. If you have a bad experience record, you could have a $12 rate. Is that what is currently contemplated?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's understanding is correct, and his numbers are correct. What it is, however, is a proposal that's being bruited at the moment and, indeed, is involved in consultation. The consultation isn't complete yet, but our hope is that it will be at some point, and then we may do that.

K. Krueger: Depending on how the loss experience is considered, there could be an unfairness that would arise. For example, if purely the costs to the WCB of the claims are considered, you might have an employer with a wonderful safety record who has one unfortunate loss with a tremendous cost to it. You may have another employer who takes all kinds of risks and has a terrible approach to safety and half a dozen claims, but they luck out, for lack of a better term, and the costs are not substantial. In the consultative process that the minister just referred to, I'm sure those risks are being discussed. I would just like his assurance that he's aware of that and that any such system will take into account the number of claims rather than just the costs for the overall claims.

The Chair: Minister -- noting the hour.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, my colleague across the way advises that we're almost done. I am willing, if he is, to carry on and complete this.

In that case, then, to answer the question, that is indeed part of the consultation process that is being discussed. One is hopeful that the kinds of concerns he has registered will be dealt with at that point. It's possible. . . . Well, I won't go beyond that, because that will take us into another realm of the discussion. But I think I can give the member assurance that those issues are being looked at.

K. Krueger: This will be my last question. Two other considerations, of course, that employers trust the board will be aware of when it's considering the experience-rated assessment system are claimants and. . . . There doubtless are a few who abuse the process and inflate the cost of their claims, and they don't want their assessments to rise because that happens -- or perhaps they have an inexperienced adjudicator who pays some things that he or she shouldn't. Again, I'm not saying that that's a common occurrence, but those are considerations that we hope will be part of the mix in the experience-rated assessment system. As with automobile claims and the claim-rated scale, I think there is an appetite for a perception of fairness when the experience that organizations such as the WCB and ICBC have with particular clients is reflected in the assessment system. The minister might care to comment. Otherwise, we'll leave it at that.

[1805]

Sections 31 to 34 inclusive approved.

[ Page 13150 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I would move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:40 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6:07 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Private Members' Statements

SHIPBUILDING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA --
PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

S. Orcherton: I want to thank the members on this side of the House for the encouragement. What I want to talk about this evening is the topic of shipbuilding in B.C. in the past, the present and the future -- a little bit of an overview on the past, into our future, and on our current situation in British Columbia.

The members should note and find it quite interesting, I hope, that the shipbuilding industry has had a long and proud history in British Columbia, dating back more than 200 years. B.C.'s first shipbuilding efforts took place in March of 1788. It was at that time that the English fur trader, John Meares, selected Friendly Cove on Nootka Sound as a site to build a new ship. A crude shipyard on Nootka Sound was put in place, and it was quickly established. Workers were brought in, and in September of that year, a 40-ton vessel named the Northwest America was ready to sail. It was not until the next century, with the discovery of gold in the Fraser River in 1858, that the first real boom occurred in B.C.'s shipbuilding industry. Miners, in desperate need of means with which to move themselves, their supplies and their equipment to their prospecting sites, called for an influx of vessels capable of such a task.

At first, ships were brought in from California, but they didn't work out. They were side-wheel vessels -- side-paddle vessels -- and they had to be refitted to sternwheelers in British Columbia shipyards, to be able to handle the rough seas off the coast of British Columbia. The first operation was initially located in Victoria, followed by shipyard operations in Nanaimo, New Westminster and Vancouver. As the nineteenth century drew to a close, B.C. shipbuilders experienced another boom -- this time spurred by the Klondike gold rush of 1898.

The next major catalyst for shipbuilding in British Columbia came after the Great War. At first, World War I had a limited impact on the industry, but eventually German submarines began to take their toll on shipping vessels, and Britain began to ask her friends and allies to provide replacements. This heightened demand placed on B.C. shipyards continued until the end of World War I and through into the early 1920s. That demand subsided, though, and as the wartime construction contracts gave way, many of B.C.'s shipbuilders disappeared.

WW II again reinvigorated B.C.'s shipbuilding yards for a while. After the war, the industry again began to experience drastic fluctuations in demand for its products. It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that a sudden demand for an offshore supply of vessels provided some optimism for the industry. That demand peaked, however, in the mid-1970s. For over the next decade, B.C.'s shipbuilding industry faltered. Indeed, in 1986 the mayor of Vancouver, now the Leader of the Official Opposition of this Legislature, flew to Ottawa to urge the federal government to award a contract to build icebreakers to a B.C. shipbuilder. He then stated that it would be the start to getting the shipbuilding industry back on its feet. Unfortunately, the Polar 8 project never came to fruition in terms of the federal government's contribution to B.C.'s shipbuilding industry.

I recall, in my prior capacity as the secretary-treasurer of the Victoria Labour Council, lobbying in 1989 for the superferries to indeed be built in British Columbia shipyards. I was successful, along with many others in the community in Victoria, to indeed have that occur. It offered a great economic boon to the shipbuilding industry in Victoria, and subsequent to that, the second superferry was built in British Columbia.

You know, we've had, over the last number of years, dribs and drabs of activity in the shipbuilding industry -- a refit here and there -- but nothing really of substance in terms of support from the federal government in getting the shipbuilding industry back on its feet. Rather, I know that many in this House will know that Minister David Anderson, our federal MP for Victoria, really did the opposite. He took steps to really bring the shipbuilding industry in Victoria to its knees, rather than put it back up on its feet. Some will recall that during the salmon dispute last year, he prohibited the work that was all scheduled to be done and on the books for the shipyards in the Victoria and Vancouver area in terms of repairing American fishing vessels. It was another blow, at that point, to the shipbuilding industry.

It is now that the government of British Columbia is doing all it can to get the B.C. shipbuilding industry back on its feet. The government is investing in B.C. high-speed aluminum ferries, a project that has created more than 600 direct shipbuilding jobs as well as 500 indirect jobs in supporting industries. This, coupled with the hard work that employees working in shipyards in British Columbia, along with their employers, when they've started to move to a ship repair structure in terms of shipbuilding -- a ship repair component to the shipyard industry in British Columbia -- has been a good start to getting the shipbuilding industry back on its feet.

[1850]

[ Page 13151 ]

With these leading-edge skills and the equipment and the significant worldwide demand for specialized vessels, B.C.'s shipbuilding and marine industry is now well positioned to compete in a number of niche markets, including car-carrying fast ferries, aluminum workboats, special purpose patrol vessels and berthing tugs.

I had the opportunity earlier this week to talk to people who work at Point Hope Shipyard, at Victoria Shipyards, at Ramsay Machine Works for the Ramsay Group and Nicholson Manufacturing. I would say that those people that work there are very positive, very upbeat, about what's going on in the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia -- equally as positive, I suspect, as those who were involved in the shipbuilding industry when the gold rush was going on and when shipbuilding was required in British Columbia during and at the end of World War II.

I see my time has ended. I just want to say that it is a time, once again, that we see a revitalized shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.

D. Symons: I appreciate the remarks made by the member for Victoria-Hillside, because indeed the history of shipbuilding in British Columbia is very interesting. It has certainly had, as the member has stated, its ups and downs over the years. I think that maybe the unfortunate thing with the history of shipbuilding in British Columbia -- the more recent history at least -- is that it's been so dependent upon governments, both federal and provincial -- whatever -- to keep it afloat, which is unfortunate, really. That part, I guess, is something that we may end up partly differing on, but the idea of a shipbuilding industry in British Columbia is good. I think the possibility of it continuing is good. However, I'm not too sure whether some of the ideas the government has on that are the way shipbuilding should go.

We have built all sorts of ships in British Columbia. Particularly during the Second World War in the Vancouver area, they were putting out a Liberty ship a week in that city -- putting them in the water regularly. And they basically had employment equity then that we're pushing for again. The riveters and what not were women, men, people of colour -- anybody at all they could get, because the men were off at the fronts, and they wanted anybody they could get to work there. The unfortunate thing, I think, in that aspect of it was that as soon as the war was over, many of the people retreated back to their normal position -- what I'll call normal at that time. That was the fact that the place for the woman was the home, and the man was the breadwinner. It's taken us 20 years, I think, to get back to the stage where we recognize that they can be just as effective in the workplace and that colour and gender and all the rest should not be an impediment.

During the war years, certainly, the women of this country showed that they were capable of doing anything that men can do, and in the shipbuilding industry particularly. I can remember seeing movies and the newsreels during wartime, where they showed these women workers catching the rivets and putting them in their guns and firing them into the sides of the ship in the North Van shipyards.

We've relied, as I said earlier, a great deal on governments to keep the shipbuilding industry afloat in the last short while. Over the ferry building program in the sixties and early seventies, that helped, although we had other ships we were building at that time. But as time has moved on, our shipbuilding industry either hasn't kept up with the world competition -- unfortunately, in some of the countries where they're building ships, the labour rates are much lower -- or has relied too much upon government to support it.

[1855]

The member mentioned also the fact that the federal minister for this area ended up stopping repairs to American fishboats. It's an interesting situation. We were basically blockading American fishboats in Prince Rupert and not repairing their fishboats here. I'm not sure if there would be a contradiction there if you ended up fixing up boats where you're blockading them from fishing in another area in the province.

He also mentioned Kvaerner Corp. He didn't mention it by name, but it's the company that now has transferred its technology to Vancouver Shipyards for the building of the three types of fast ferries they have. The reality is that Kvaerner is moving out of shipbuilding. What they've transferred are the plans and the designs, but they are no longer in the shipbuilding industry. They haven't found it profitable enough, I guess, for the minute. It's been a very dangerous situation, particularly in the building of fast ferries around the world. The company that built the HSS ferry that's on the way -- that's the largest car-carrying ferry in the world -- went out of business. One yard did. When they built that, they went bankrupt, and we're having troubles in B.C. with the initial ones here.

I'm hoping that the government, in saying that they're going to get the costs down to be competitive worldwide, will be able to do that. If they can, we will have our ferries, as the member was suggesting. I hope that it comes true that they can do it. These fast ferries are interesting ships. They've got technology in them. They're very attractive-looking ships. If we can build them at a competitive price and sell them around the world, I'll say all the more power to them.

But we can't depend upon the fact that government must always be there to pick up the chips. I think government should be there to encourage with every incentive they can, short of propping up an industry that has to learn to stand on its own feet. That's going to be, I think, the hard part in here. We're having difficulty competing in the world market in that

[ Page 13152 ]

S. Orcherton: I'd like to thank the member for his thoughtful comments. One thing I would just ask him to consider in future deliberations on these issues is the role of government in shipbuilding. Clearly the history in British Columbia is that the government has always had a role in shipbuilding. Through the First World War, through the Second World War, through the ferry programs that have been put in place in British Columbia, the government has always had a role in shipbuilding.

I'm pleased to say that what has changed in the last ten to 15 years is the focus of the workers who have come together to be more competitive in terms of dealing with shipbuilding in general, and the focus of the shipbuilding yards themselves and how they've turned things around. Rather than focus on building new ships, they've actually got into a very good market in ship repair.

The member should know that the Laurier refit is currently going on in Victoria. There's a Russian fishboat in Victoria being refitted. There's an American fishboat on refit right now. There's a barge in Victoria being refitted. On June 11, a cruise ship is coming in to Victoria to be refitted. These are all the endeavours of people in the shipbuilding industry who have a tremendously positive attitude about their future and about the future of shipbuilding. I think it's really a credit to those individuals, both on the employers' side and on the workers' side, that they've come together and carved out a niche in this type of market.

I want, just in passing, to make a comment. I was on the superferry last Friday for its inaugural ride -- at least for me -- off Ogden Point, and to a person I heard positive comments about that ferry. To a person, there was not one negative comment in terms of the people who were designing the ferry or in terms of the people who were at the convention looking at the opportunities to purchase this kind of technology and this kind of ferry. Indeed, Greg Ramsay from the Ramsay Group, who has done a lot of work -- a Victoria company, not necessarily a supporter of this side of the House -- was talking to me about how we have to be more positive about the work that British Columbians can do in the shipbuilding industry and in shipyards in British Columbia.

[1900]

There was a real sense of pride in what we in British Columbia can do when we put our minds to doing something in terms of shipbuilding. There was a tremendous sense of pride from everyone on that vessel. I think that pride translates right back, and we owe credit, really, to the tenacity, the resilience and the skills of B.C. shipyard workers and people who are employers in the B.C. shipyard industry. I hope members will take that away. We have to be positive about British Columbia, and we have to have pride in British Columbia shipyards.

ALCOHOL AND A MOTHER'S STORY

You see, parents worry about their children at grad time. They care; they fret. That's because they know their children are out there. I cannot emphasize enough to young people to be careful -- at this time of year and at all times of the year -- with alcohol. But I can't put it as well as a friend of mine, a mother who lost a daughter, in a letter she wrote to the editor of the Aldergrove Star. The letter goes like this:

"On the occasion of my daughter's nineteenth birthday, May 5, 1999, I have a message for the man who bought beer for a teenager.

"Heidi would have celebrated her nineteenth birthday, if it were not for one thing.

"On the early evening of September 12, 1997, a Friday night, you were just coming out of the Langley Hotel when a 16-year-old boy approached you and asked you if you would do him a favour. You see, he was going out to party with his buddies and, needing a case of beer, he asked if you would be so kind as to purchase some for him.

"Being the nice guy that you are, you probably thought: 'Sure, I'll help you out -- boys need to have fun, don't they?' You re-entered the beer store and selected a case for the lad and his friends. You know the brand -- we see it all the time, advertised on television with the same message aimed at boys and young men: you cannot have a good time hiking, playing ball, snowboarding, camping, dancing, playing street hockey and just partying unless you consume a vast quantity of this beer. Now you give the boy his beer and pat yourself on the back for helping him out, for being the good guy -- a man's man helping the kids have fun.

"Do you remember? Do you know what happened after the under-aged boys drank the beer you purchased for them? Let me tell you.

"Of the two boys who drank your beer, one of them drank much more than the other. He was also the driver. He thought he was in control, but at age 16 his inexperience did not allow him to correctly assess his lack of sobriety. As the evening progressed, he became more and more intoxicated.

"At 12:30, just past midnight, he was alone in his car, driving too fast, passing in and out of consciousness. He approached the area of south Langley and Surrey known as Stokes' Pit, where over 100 were gathered. Most teens were 17 or 18, just starting their grade 12 year at school, the big grad year and students from five or six Langley high schools were represented at this park. Some were drinking. Many were not.

[1905]

"The party was ending and they were gathered in groups on the side of the road, saying their goodbyes as they started getting into their cars to go home. The boy you 'helped out' this night then smashed his way, driving on and off the road, through this large group of teens. Bodies flew. At least 25 were taken to hospital with serious injuries. Ashley Reiber, 17, died instantly.

". . .Heidi Klompas, 17, died of her injuries three and a half torturous weeks later. Most of the teens were severely traumatized, and many have lifelong injuries which have forever changed the course of their lives. At least two boys I know of were qualifying for sports scholarships, but all hopes were dashed on account of their legs being broken at the start of their final and most important season. A few lost an entire year of education; some lost two. Many still need counselling to deal with the nightmares, depression, suicide attempts, pain and anger. Some are still needing more operations, surgeries and

[ Page 13153 ]

physiotherapy. The families of these 100 students have ridden the waves of terror and trauma with them. Some families have literally been torn apart. Can you even imagine having to bury your child?

"Please take a good look at Heidi's picture, clip it out, put it in your wallet, and show it to the next kid outside a liquor store asking you to 'help them out.' Do this one thing for Heidi.

"Happy Birthday, Heidi. Wish you were here.

"Love, Mom."

G. Janssen: I recognize that the member from Langley has a much greater degree of contact with this preventable crime and this attack on humanity than most of us in the House will ever have. It's sobering -- if I could use that word -- to stand and respond to his statement.

Hard-core drinking drivers cause the majority of road fatalities. The current benchmark to designate a hard-core drinking driver is a blood alcohol count of over 150 milligrams. There are still a significant number of fatal crashes that do not involve hard-core drinking drivers. It's a misconception to believe that impaired driving would greatly diminish by solely focusing on hard-core repeat offenders. It's a convenient argument, but there's a much more complex issue. Two in five alcohol-related crashes involve persons who are not hard-core.

Drinking-driving is one of the leading causes of death on British Columbia highways; 30 percent of all traffic fatalities can be attributed to it. According to figures from B.C. police, in 1997, alcohol-related crashes claimed the lives of 114 people and injured 3,629. Approximately 60 percent of all alcohol-related crashes occur on a weekend. More than 65 percent of alcohol-related fatal collisions occur on the weekends. In 1997, 21 young people, aged 16 to 20 -- like the young woman the member spoke about -- were killed in alcohol-related crashes. And 50 percent of the fatalities were passengers in the drinking driver's vehicle.

[1910]

The drinking-driving CounterAttack program was launched in 1977. Spring roadblock campaigns were implemented in 1984, and an enhanced CounterAttack summer and fall road check campaign began in 1995. In 1998, more than 5.2 million vehicles passed through over 8,000 road checks. Police spent some 110,000 hours operating those road checks, handing out 11,760 24-hour roadside suspensions and 1,074 Criminal Code impaired-driving charges -- far too many and, as the member will probably recognize, a completely avoidable way to spend officers' valuable time.

Drinking-driving penalties have increased to where a first offence will lose you your driver's licence for a year -- and to a fine of $2,000. As high as we make those penalties, this is preventable. I want to say to the family that lost that young person, their child, in that awful accident, that that accident and that life could have been saved. And others can be saved -- through school programs, through police road checks, through addressing to people the seriousness -- that a vehicle can be classified, and perhaps should be classified, as a weapon in the hands of a drunk driver. We have to impress upon our society that it is no longer acceptable to take into their hands a weapon that can take away the lives of people whose lives and careers have barely started. I thank the member for his remarks.

R. Coleman: In the past four years, three young people that I was close to died tragically due to alcohol. Each one of those incidents has torn apart a portion of my community. When the grads were coming out this year -- and the young people that I knew that were going to graduate -- I asked them to read this letter that was in this paper. I don't think that anybody can understand the pain that people go through, and I think it's important for the young people that are graduating, particularly at this time of year -- because it's always more of a charged atmosphere for a party -- that they recognize that there's somebody at home concerned and caring about them. I pray for these families every day, because I care about them. I care about what it's done to their lives. I know that because of the result of these types of incidents, even I have reassessed the way I do certain things in my life.

I think there's a time when we should all reassess, and the reassessment should be that we're careful, that we uphold the law and that we do not -- we do not -- make it easier for any young person to be exposed to this type of situation ever again. I believe that we can do that through proper education, by getting the story out there through forums like this and by ensuring that people recognize that this is not funny. This isn't something that could not happen to them. These young people, at their age, think that they're invincible. But I'm telling you this: they're not -- because I've been there, I've seen it, and even today I deal with friends of mine who have a daughter suffering from a disability as a result of an accident related to alcohol. I think the message has to be this to our young people: just don't drink and drive. And to the parents: don't make this easily accessible just because you think it's cool.

[1915]

PLEDGE TO A WATERSHED

I guess next to clean air, water especially is of particular concern to people during Environment Week. And that's why I want to highlight this very exciting initiative that is being developed in Burnaby called the watershed pledge program.

You know, Ben Franklin once said: "When the well's run dry, we know the worth of water." And I think that also

[ Page 13154 ]

Burnaby has been particularly fortunate in that previous councils declared that we would keep all of our waterways open. Some of our neighbouring municipalities have not been that fortunate. As a result, we still have the option in Burnaby to try and protect our waterways. In addition, we have been a very proactive community. The city of Burnaby, long before it was fashionable, perhaps in the late eighties, brought in storm sewer bylaws, established a state-of-the-environment report, did some mapping on environmentally sensitive areas around streams and, of course, has been very active in terms of enhancement of those streams.

Also, we are very fortunate in Burnaby that BCIT, through the Burnaby Lake systems project, has been doing tremendous work on coordinated watershed planning in Burnaby. Of course, as the MLA, I have been very pleased over several years to ensure that Burnaby has received funding under the urban salmon habitat program to support some of those efforts. The community as well -- school children, community groups -- has been very active in stewardship programs and salmon fry releases.

Why I mention that is because in spite of all of this, we still have toxic spills in our watershed in Burnaby. The most recent, of course, was Byrne Creek, in May of this year, where three days after some elementary school students in my constituency put 4,500 small salmon fry into the creek, a toxic spill happened, and many of them were killed. That is why the BCIT fish, wildlife and recreation program is working to develop what they call the watershed pledge program.

This program is modelled after a very successful one in Whatcom County. It will be the first one in British Columbia and in fact the first one in Canada. It will be piloted in the central valley portion of Burnaby. It's in an area that has about 13 creeks running into Deer Lake and Burnaby Lake, and it's about 90 percent urbanized.

So what are the components of a watershed pledge program? Well, the goal, of course, is to voluntarily engage, on a very structured basis, schools, individuals and businesses to undertake pledges for behavioural change and to make a personal commitment to carry out a change to protect the watershed. So in other words it is a massive program that in Burnaby will see the distribution of perhaps 8,000 pledge booklets to residences, to schools, to businesses -- each with the pledge forms. It will come with tremendous information as to what activities are dangerous to the watersheds. There will also be substantial follow-up to these pledge forms.

[1920]

This watershed pledge program is scheduled to be ready for a kickoff in September; I think they're trying to work around Rivers Day. The very substantial cost of $400,000 is already almost gathered. The partners will be the BCIT fish, wildlife and recreation program, the Vancouver Foundation -- the city of Burnaby is, I hope, just days away from coming on as a partner -- as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am very hopeful that through the provincial programs under urban salmon habitat, we will be able to support the watershed pledge. A major corporate sponsor will also be joining the team.

So I think the message that I want to leave today is that through very grass-roots community efforts, everyone cooperating together, we really can put in place in our communities the Environment Week message of thinking globally and acting locally. The most important thing of all, of course: we will all benefit from cleaner waterways, habitat that's preserved in our urban communities and green spaces that all of us can enjoy.

T. Nebbeling: I would like to share with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon in the joy of celebrating Environment Week and, if everybody stopped for a minute, what the environment really does to the quality of our life.

Since I came to Canada, I have lived in a watershed. It is the Tantalus Range. For 20 years I have been involved in discussions on how to protect the watershed, often discussions on where other resources were extracted from the areas and discussions that were focused on making sure or ensuring that the competing resources were handled and extracted in such a manner that they did not become a conflict against each other. In that period I learned a lot about how watersheds work, how watersheds must be protected and how watersheds can be protected.

So I was very intrigued by what the member opposite explained today as far as this watershed above Burnaby -- the impact that it has on the community of Burnaby and also how the community of Burnaby has been involved in protecting certain values related to that watershed. I was intrigued by a comment that the member opposite made -- that still from time to time the watershed or the water streams with the salmon habitat do face toxic spills.

I want to talk about another watershed, and that is the watershed above Britannia Creek and Furry Creek, two main streams providing -- or they used to -- water for the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor. This particular watershed is under a serious toxic threat. It is not the traditional problem that Britannia has faced as far as the acid rock drainage is concerned. But it is a threat by the Ministry of Environment and by the ministry responsible for waste disposal. An application has been made to have a contaminated landfill site on the mountain above Britannia Beach. . . . This contaminated soil will be deposited in an area called Jane Camp, an area that is known for landslides and very unstable rock formation.

[1925]

[ Page 13155 ]

The Fraser Basin Council has been involved in this project, trying to monitor the opinions of the communities. The communities, en masse, have spoken against this project. Again, it was totally ignored, to the point that when the representatives of the Ministry of Environment were asked -- during the process of getting the community voice heard -- how long this was going to take and why there was no environmental assessment, the response was that fast-tracking was actually considered for this project, that the environmental assessment was just not going to be happening and that the permit for this toxic landfill was likely to be issued by July of this year.

So when I hear the member opposite speaking about the values of the watershed, I share that with her. When I hear her speak about the value to natural species, I share these values with her. When she speaks about the value that this has achieved through a grass-roots community approach, I share that with her. When I see all these values being violated in another watershed for reasons that I just cannot fathom, I can only say that maybe the member can look into this issue a little bit clearer, as well, and get some answers, because the communities along the Sea to Sky have not been given the answers to these questions. I think that before anything happens there, they have the right to hear answers on how their water can become polluted through deposits of soils that will be brought in from all over British Columbia, according to the permit application.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to quickly respond to the member's points. I was triggered and changed my response because of the toxic spills that she has experienced in her watershed, or the watershed she highlighted tonight. I just want to emphasize that it will happen in another watershed as well.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for bringing that to everyone's attention. I recognize, with final remarks, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: I think that the comments that the hon. member across the way has made are really well taken. Regrettably, our understanding of watersheds -- how they work and the impacts of human activity on them -- is fairly recent. I certainly don't presume to know the hon. member's riding as well as he does, but I know that in many instances, some of the costs of yesterday's economic activities are now being transferred to the next generation in terms of having to clean up sites, dealing with contaminated waste and actually ensuring that the things that we do now do not exacerbate the problems of contaminated watersheds.

I understand the issue that the member has raised, and I think it is a very important issue to raise. I think it also highlights, though, that solutions to these issues of protecting watersheds need to be community solutions. The province can take leadership. . . . Indeed, we certainly have in the last couple of years, in terms of the Fish Protection Act that was passed, which has the objective of trying to protect and restore fish habitat and improve riparian production and enhancement. Also, providing local governments with extra powers to ensure that damage doesn't occur to watersheds will assist communities to do the right thing from here on. As well, Fisheries Renewal B.C., which spent $6 million in 1998-99 and will spend $8.5 million this year in terms of salmon habitat renewal, tries to deal with some of the problems that we have inherited in our watersheds.

[1930]

Also, the pledge program that will be happening in Burnaby. . . . We're not only doing it for ourselves, but we are hoping that this will be a model. We will have all of the distribution materials and the monitoring and the follow-up so that it can be replicated in any other community. I hope the hon. member across the way, in the fall, will be able to benefit from Burnaby's leadership in this and perhaps include a watershed pledge program in his constituency.

CLOUDS OF CHANGE

I suspect that the reason that we choose to name a day Clean Air Day is precisely because most people don't think about the air that they breathe very often. They don't take the time to appreciate the fact that we're able to breathe, for the most part, clean air very often, because it's something that we do so naturally without thinking, and it's invisible. Air is invisible. It's not something that we're confronted with or think about every minute of the day. But if you are someone who suffers from bronchitis or someone who suffers from asthma or some other respiratory disease, you probably think about air a lot. You probably think about how important it is to be able to breathe clean, uncontaminated, smog-free air quite a bit.

I remember very clearly that in the last election, when I was knocking on doors in Port Moody -- on the side of the mountain in Port Moody, where there's a real accumulation of smog -- I ran into a young mom who said that she had two kids, both of whom had asthma, both of whom were finding it much more difficult every year just to be able to breathe. I thought: what a disability that must be, and how lucky I am to not have to think about that all the time. We may not think about it every day. We do know, though, that when people are asked to put a little thought into it and to think about what air means to them or think about what's important to them, clean air and clean water -- which other members have spoken about today -- topped their list of concerns.

We know that, because when the GVRD did a poll about five years ago and asked people what were the most important things to them in the lower mainland, they said: "Clean water and clean air are the two most important things." And it's so important that we show some leadership at political levels to reflect the leadership that we've seen at the grass-roots level, which other members have talked about, to make sure that we preserve those values of clean air and clean water.

[ Page 13156 ]

Second, we need to recognize that air quality isn't just a provincial issue or a national issue. It's an international issue. Pollution doesn't recognize international borders. We saw recently that B.C. Hydro was entering into negotiations -- which they subsequently suspended -- to negotiate power from a power facility a mile and a half from the Canadian border, which would have effectively doubled the amount of pollution coming into the lower mainland from thermal power generating plants -- an astonishing admission from B.C. Hydro and not the direction that we need to go in.

[1935]

The third thing that the government can do to provide leadership on cleaner air is to recognize that its own Crown corporations are directly responsible for producing a great deal of that pollution. That, of course, is Burrard Thermal, which I've already alluded to. The Burrard Thermal generating plant produces more CO2. . . . It produces up to 5 percent of the carbon dioxide in the lower mainland and produces a huge amount of NOx. It produces all kinds of fine particulate matter which pollutes our air every single day.

The member for Port Coquitlam, when he was on city council in Port Coquitlam, stood and said he didn't think that Burrard Thermal should be allowed to expand so that it could pollute more. He showed leadership then. I hope that the members on the other side of the House will agree with all of us that we can all provide leadership on this issue if we remember that those three principles of government are what will keep our air clean for generations to come.

J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for raising this very important topic in this very important week, when we recognize the dependency that we all have on the environment. I'd also like to congratulate the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for her part in this discussion today, as well as her responder.

With regard to Burrard Thermal, which I know is an issue that the hon. member has raised on many occasions, saying, "Just get rid of it," I think it needs to be recognized that a number of initiatives have taken place in this province by this government. When the member calls for cooperation, I think this cooperation has to be over a very wide range.

Even the Liberal Party's own documents indicated that about five years ago, virtually 12 percent of the greenhouse gases came from Burrard Thermal. By her own admission, that's now down to about 5 percent. I would point out that in this House, the member for Saanich North and the Islands pointed out during estimates, with regard to Burrard Thermal. . . . He said: "The other one -- and we touched on it last year and, I think, the year before -- is Burrard Thermal. They have undertaken a number of initiatives to attempt to clean up the emissions." It's a recognition, a cooperative recognition, by the Environment critic of the opposition that initiatives are being taken through retrofitting and through improvements of that technology to downsize as much as possible the kinds of NOx and SOx coming out of that plant.

The hon. member, in referencing Burrard Thermal, would like to indicate that somehow that is a singular disconnected entity, and that simply is not the case. It is there to deal with peak times -- peak need. The hon. member is surely aware that we need to be able to provide hydro power to the kind of industry that's able to produce sustainable jobs. Therefore it is there for that need when that need is there. At the same time, she doesn't talk about the alternative, perhaps, of building another dam -- killing more fish, moving towards other kinds of approaches that obviously have their own attendant environmental problems. So that needs to be recognized.

[1940]

The Speaker: Hon. member. . . . I'd like to remind all members about the spirit and intent of private members' statements, which is not to reflect negatively on individuals in this chamber or groups. I would like to remind the hon. member, and all members, of that point.

J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I think that we need to recognize that there are a wide range of environmental initiatives that have been taken by this government. We do not hear, in that cooperative vein, the opposition recognizing those initiatives that are good initiatives which also need to be supported, such as the Fish Protection Act or the Forest Practices Code or the fact that we need to have regulation in order to ensure that mining is done properly. We often hear the opposite.

[ Page 13157 ]

With final closing remarks, I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The hon. member talked about mining regulation and forestry regulation. I suspect that perhaps this government's strategy is to turn B.C. back to the good old days, back to when B.C. was a vast, uninhabited wilderness where nobody was working, nobody was mining, nobody was doing any forestry. Then, of course, we wouldn't have to worry about any of the environmental effects of any of those industries. He's, of course, right about that, although I'm not sure that's the direction I'd like to see the province go in.

The member did talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that the government has taken. There is no question that we need to think about transportation, car use and all those other aspects of pollution. Certainly car use is a very significant contributor to all the pollution in the lower mainland; there's no question about that.

However, what I wanted to point out in my statement was that government isn't just there to tell other people the way they should behave and to regulate just other people's behaviour. The point of my statement was that government can also provide leadership itself and change its own behaviour and do something about the amount of pollution that its agencies contribute to the toxic smog in the lower mainland. That's what my presentation was about, because leadership is the way that we will deal with creating a real clean-air environment in British Columbia. Leadership is about stating your principles, making your commitments and sticking to them. That's the way that we will ensure that we will have clean air well into the next millennium for our children to enjoy as well.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their statements, and I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of B.C. Transit and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 60.

[1945]

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, just briefly, in sections 1 and 2 we talk about this: ". . .may issue medals for long service." Does that imply that there is actually a vetting process at the time that a firefighter would qualify either for bravery or for 25 years in service? Otherwise, I would have expected it to say: ". . .shall issue medals for long service."

Hon. J. Kwan: With the 25-years award, that's automatic and triggers it. But with the bravery award, it goes to a committee and is reviewed by the committee. When the committee deems the award to be appropriate, then it is awarded accordingly.

T. Nebbeling: Does that committee, then, consist of people in the firefighting business?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 60, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 62.

[1950]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Plant: Section 2 and section 3 amend the Estate Administration Act. Dealing first with section 2(a), one of the three provisions here deals with a situation where there is a minor or a mentally disordered person who may have entitlement under a will or intestacy. The first of the three provisions here says that in circumstances like that "a court must not grant or reseal letters of administration unless the applicant or the applicant's solicitor provides to the court the written comments of the Public Trustee in respect of the matter."

I gather that part of the intention here has to do with clarifying what is the practice in some cases, and is not the practice in some cases -- of ensuring that the public trustee is involved in decisions to grant or reseal letters of administration in circumstances where there is a beneficiary or someone entitled on an intestacy or someone entitled to apply under the Wills Variation Act who's a minor or a mentally disordered person. The primary intention here is to regularize the practice and to ensure that the public trustee has a role. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely.

G. Plant: I think that that is a reasonably good objective, at least insofar as I understand that the practice now in different registries may not be consistent. In circumstances where the public trustee's comments are not in fact made available to

[ Page 13158 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no time requirement. In most cases it's done within a week or so, in any event, at this time. But in case there is a problem, there is subsection (5.2) here that takes care of that.

[1955]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Done.

G. Plant: As the Attorney will appreciate, applications to the court can be expensive. In many cases, when we're dealing with relatively small estates, the expense may be prohibitive.

I understand the logic of the Attorney General's argument -- that if there is urgency, then (5.2) is a remedy. But I wonder if, for the vast majority of estates, where the expectation is that things are not going to become urgent -- but, nonetheless, people want to move along -- it wouldn't really rather be better to have a time limit. The Attorney General will see that there is in fact a time limit imposed on an executor or an administrator of the estate by what will become section 112(8.1). There's a 45-day time limit there. I understand that has a different purpose. That's to preserve limitation periods, or at least to preserve giving the public trustee an opportunity to take whatever action might be necessary -- if there were, say, a need to take action.

I understand the Attorney General's saying that (5.2) is an answer to the no-time-limit thing. But it does seem to me that if we are going to create a situation where the written comments of the public trustee now have to be on record, it's logical that there be some reasonable time limit within which those comments must be made. I invite the Attorney General to give further consideration to that point.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the Canadian Bar Association dealing with these issues did not particularly want a time limit, because that might in fact extend the time more than the usual time taken by the public trustee at this time. They were of the view that there is a remedy available in (5.2) and (5.3). At the end of the day, if they want to move, obviously, they simply give the public trustee a notice. Either the public trustee comes up with a statement or the court proceeds, obviously, since the notice has been given.

I think the other general argument might be that the public trustee does thousands of these things every year. To tie them into a time limit on each and every one of them -- some might be more complex than others; others might be more doable more quickly -- would be a very difficult and cumbersome thing to do. I think it may create more problems than it might solve.

G. Plant: I gather that in the first part of the Attorney General's answer, he was suggesting, at least by way of implication, that if the usual practice now is that the comments take a week or ten days and the statute provided for a 30- or 45-day time limit, then by some sort of natural law -- it probably has a name -- the public trustee's comments would start to magically appear the day before whatever day is the expiry of the time period. There's probably some truth in that. I don't intend to pursue the matter further. Obviously, if the public trustee falls behind in the discharge of the obligation to provide these comments, then there is going to be some stress and strain in the profession. We're going to have to either provide further resources to the public trustee or at least look at a time limit here.

[2000]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In most cases the hon. member's understanding is correct. It is done by the registrar as a desk order. It only ends up in court, to be spoken to, in complex and more serious cases.

G. Plant: Does the Attorney foresee that that general practice will change as a result of these amendments?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: Subsection (5.2), as we've already established, allows for an application to be made to court in circumstances where the proposed executor or administrator needs to have a partial grant in order to conduct some business of the estate. Subsection (5.3) says that an application for that sort of order requires that there be reasonable notice given to the public trustee. It would appear to me that an application under (5.2) would also require notice to any other beneficiary or potentially affected party. Is that the Attorney General's understanding of the matter?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there is any specific requirement to give notice to affected parties of this particular application to do away with the public trustee's consent. The assumption is that the court would make any order that it sees fit. The court obviously would take that into account at that point.

G. Plant: What is it that the court would take into account at that point?

[ Page 13159 ]

[2005]

G. Plant: I think what the Attorney General is imagining is the possibility that if an applicant for probate came to court asking for an order under (5.2), and the court was of the view that the application ought not to be heard unless other beneficiaries were notified, then the court would make that order. The matter would stand down until those other parties have been notified, and it would be dealt with then. Have I got the Attorney General's scenario right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Well, this is good. I look at all this, and I just see an opportunity for lots of court applications -- which, as a former litigation lawyer, I have to say is always an interesting thing. It is interesting to me that while there is a specific requirement to give notice of one of these kinds of applications to the public trustee for reasons which I understand, there is not some obligation upon an applicant to ensure that other beneficiaries are also notified. I suppose an answer might be that the applications contemplated by (5.2) are really limited to circumstances of urgency. These circumstances of urgency may themselves be reasons why the proposed administrators should not have to attempt to contact all of the beneficiaries. Is it the Attorney General's view that really this provision -- this special provision for a partial grant -- ought to be used only in circumstances of urgency?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, that's what it's intended for. This is obviously an extraordinary provision to provide for an application under special circumstances. Otherwise, under all the other circumstances, usually the public trustee's comments have to be taken into account by the court. This is one situation where the court can dispense with those comments under circumstances that the court deems might be appropriate for that to happen.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question which engages both subparagraph (c) of the section that we're looking at now and section 3. Section 3 does something interesting. Section 3 sets out what will become a replacement for part of the subsection (8.1) that sits immediately above it. At least that's the way I read it. The way this is put together is that there'll be a new subsection (8.1) added. The general intention there is that if the court grants or reseals probate or letters of administration under section 112, and there is an interested party who may be a minor or a person with a mental disorder or who has a committee, then the public trustee is going to get a copy of the grant or resealed grant within 45 days.

[2010]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I'm almost tempted to use the opportunity presented by section 3 to have a debate about what I suspect is the futility of the Attorney General's hope that the adult guardianship legislation will ever come into force. But. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Oh, the Attorney General assures us it is soon. Excellent.

There is a question, though, of some passing interest here. The idea of a representative is a new idea that will be created if the Representation Agreement Act comes into force. As I recall, a representative is someone who could be appointed by anyone who is not of diminished capacity -- that is, someone who just wants a little help with their affairs could appoint a representative. The question arises whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate to include a representative within the class of persons that trigger the involvement of the public trustee. I'm curious to know what the logic behind that inclusion is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Going back to the legislation that's unproclaimed, I understand that under that legislation, if parts of it are proclaimed -- which is what might happen -- a representative can be appointed when the person has the capacity to appoint a representative, and then that appointment isn't voided despite the fact that the person now may not have the capacity to appoint a representative or to reaffirm that representative. That's why that's been included in this.

G. Plant: So the inclusion of "representative" here, I suppose you could say, is done out of an abundance of caution to account for the possibility that while, in some cases, the person who has appointed a representative may be at full capacity, in some cases that person may no longer be. Therefore, from a public policy perspective, it is considered appropriate to ensure that the public trustee has some involvement in -- or is at least told about -- the administration of the estate.

I suppose we could leave for debate on another occasion whether the effect of that approach in some cases might be to undermine some of the flexibility created by the use of representation agreements, which I think was intended to avoid some of the bureaucracy that can potentially be engaged when the public trustee is involved. I do acknowledge the force of the observation that for some people there will be a representative and the person who made the appointment may no longer be at full capacity, and that there is perhaps some legitimate interest in ensuring that the public trustee at least is informed about what's happening with the estate.

[ Page 13160 ]

[2015]

On section 4.

G. Plant: This will change the Family Relations Act by striking out probation officers from the list of persons that the court may direct to investigate and make a report on a family matter. Am I correct in assuming that this amendment simply gives effect to the practice which has prevailed since the transfer of youth probation officers and responsibilities to the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct. The practice predates the separation. Because probation officers no longer do that kind of work, obviously this is required. But the practice predates the particular event that the hon. member mentioned.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Plant: Section 5 engages the interest of my colleague the House Leader. I understand that there is a discussion, an agreement, to stand it down. Is the minister's. . . ? So assuming we're going to stand it down. . . .

The Chair: On agreement, section 5 is stood down.

On section 6.

G. Plant: Well, not to disappoint those who have an interest in the subject, but I have no questions about section 6.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Whittred: It is my understanding from the ministry briefing that the purpose of this act is twofold: one is to allow the ministry to have a wider latitude in who it gives grants to, and the second is to ensure that the ministry's investment in those assets is protected. Do I understand that correctly?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

K. Whittred: I have one or two concerns about this. One of the things I discovered in researching this bill is that it is basically verbatim from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, which was amended last year and which further amended an older Lands, Parks and Housing Act. The purpose of that act, as near as I can tell, was to ensure that for dwellings where the government had invested money, the investment was protected and that at some point in time the society -- if in fact it was a society that controlled that property -- could not redevelop that property for a profit. Is that the essence of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, on which this is based -- in fact made? Am I correct in my statement?

[2020]

K. Whittred: I'm pleased that we agree that that appeared to be the reason for the bill. I'll try to explain the problem I've been having with this bill. If I may refer to the original bill that this is taken verbatim from, it deals with affordable housing. I can very well visualize affordable housing. Affordable housing is a structure; it's a dwelling. It has a use that I think most of us are very familiar with. What I believe has happened here is that the government has taken that model and has transposed it to this use, which is not nearly as clear. It is much more difficult to imagine how this is going to be applied to foster care. As we go through this, that is the background of my concern about this bill.

Now, going on with section 1. . . . Section 1 talks about the purpose of acquiring, developing or operating facilities. That is a departure from the template on which this was based. "Operating" to me means that you are paying for the operating expenses of a building. You're paying for the heat, or you're paying for the light. You're paying for the landscaping. You're paying for something that goes into the operating expenses of that building. I am unclear about why the ministry is including operating expenses in this bill. By the way, I think that is also a concern of the agencies.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is intended to provide government with some latitude in assisting the operators to pay or assist with their mortgage payments, not with other operating expenditures -- heat and light and the like. Obviously sometimes some operators can be in difficult circumstances. If government sees some value in assisting them by way of mortgage payments as an investment in that property so that the property could continue to be utilized for the purpose that it's being utilized, it's a good public policy. That's what that particular phrase implies -- not the regular, day-to-day running expenses.

K. Whittred: Well, I'm pleased to be told that, but I wonder if I can be assured where in the bill it says that, because I think that would not be a normal definition of an operating expense.

[2025]

Nobody can force the government to make an investment. It is this government's intention that perhaps with a

[ Page 13161 ]

K. Whittred: I wonder, then, if the minister could perhaps give me an illustration of how that precisely would work in a foster care situation. I can understand it if we're dealing with a building that is with a society. I'm not so clear on how this applies to a foster care situation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is asking me for an example. I understand that in practice that has not happened, in terms of a foster home where the mortgage may have been paid by government for a period of time to assist the foster care giver. But it is quite conceivable that if there is a good foster home and it's in need of repairs, government may lend them some money for renovations. Or they may be able to get a mortgage through a private financial institution to do the renovations, and at some point they may fall into arrears on the mortgage and come to government and say: "For six months or so, would you please assist us with that?" There are all kinds of various possibilities that happen in that field, where government may assist.

K. Whittred: I appreciate what the minister says, but the reason that I asked for an example is because this is new. I understand that the minister cannot give an example, because only by this amendment to the act does foster care fall into the program. This is the reason for my questioning. I'm having difficulty imagining exactly how the foster care section of it works. I quite understand the societal side of it or even the propriety side of it. I do not understand the foster care and the obligations on the foster family in terms of their contractual arrangement with the government.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is having some difficulty understanding this. Let me just give you an example. Let me go back to the example that I did give you and elaborate on it. Let's assume that there is a good foster home, and there are children and youths living there. The owner -- the caregiver -- has gone out and borrowed some money to renovate the place to make it livable for those children and youths that might be there, and is finding it difficult -- for the next six months or a year until he or she comes into some money that she is expecting from somewhere -- to meet the mortgage payments. I think it would be in the public interest to tide over that caregiver for that period. That would obviously be part of a negotiated arrangement where at some point, once you've paid that money, there would then be a lien that might crystallize on that property under certain circumstances for the amount of mortgage payments you may have made so that the caregiver could continue to provide that care and be in that home for those children and youths. It is not difficult to imagine. It hasn't happened, because we haven't had the authority or the latitude to do that.

[2030]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can't think of any situation where we've done that, but we may have. I mean, government is huge, and there are many practices in government that aren't known to me. So I can't give you an example, but obviously this is one where that might happen.

K. Whittred: Well, I think that perhaps I have made my point -- that I have concern about this section of the act. I will yield to my colleague for a moment.

G. Plant: Hon. Chair, like you, I'm sure, I too have enjoyed the discussion. The difficulty I've had, though, is tying it to the statute. We're not actually having a discussion about what the Ministry for Children and Families policy might be. We're not even having a discussion of what their practices might be. We're actually being asked to give the ministry the legal power. . . . In fact, we're actually being asked to give the minister of that ministry the power to make a grant for the purpose of operating a facility. I know the minister currently answering questions would like to read something about mortgage assistance into those two words "operating facilities," but I can't, for the life of me, read the word "mortgage" into those two words "operating facilities."

As a result of that, what I'm presented with is the following spectre: the minister will have the power to make a grant to someone operating a foster care home to allow them to buy groceries for a couple of months. And by virtue of the amendments which are before us, the minister will then place a lien on the home in question, and no one will be able to -- let me just make sure I get the words -- "transfer, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of" their interest in that house until they go to the trouble of getting the written consent of the minister -- and not just getting it, but actually getting it filed in the land title office.

Now, I'm the first one to acknowledge that when the government makes grants to allow someone to acquire a facility which will used for a public purpose -- like a residence for the care of children -- the government has some interest in ensuring that the person who receives the grant doesn't just walk off with the money or build a swimming pool in the back yard and someday try and sell the property without accounting to the government for the value of the grant.

I think my colleague and I would be quite happy with these amendments if they went that far. The problem is that in their language, they go further. I'm certainly not as well qualified as my colleague is to give examples, but the foster care home is a perfectly good example of how I think the statute that we're being asked to amend here is going to create a problem. The problem isn't created by the intention of the minister answering the questions. The problem isn't created by the intentions or the policies or the practices or the wishes of the Minister for Children and Families. The problem is created by the language of the section -- at least, as I read it. So I invite the minister to clarify that problem.

[2035]

[ Page 13162 ]

G. Plant: What we just talked about.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Exactly. So it provides a wide latitude to provide certain kinds of assistance. Now, if I understand, the hon. member's problem is that somehow government may get rights that it's not entitled to over someone's property. Well, when these arrangements are entered into, they would be entered into in writing and obviously not under duress -- voluntarily. It's important for people to recognize that what we're trying to facilitate here are facilities for the use of youth and children. If it's in the public interest to do that, then government ought to be able to make creative arrangements for those who provide that care to be able to continue to do that. I understand the hon. member's reservations, but I have no such reservations, because it's important for us to have that wide latitude so that we can find creative ways of making sure that assistance is provided.

The hon. member was asking me about liens. Now, I was assisted here. . . . I understand there are 172 different kinds of liens in British Columbia that are available to government to be placed on land. So this is not something unique. Obviously this is an important endeavour which the recipients of that assistance engage in. It's important to them, it's important to those that they care for, and it's important to government.

G. Plant: Well, I don't get any help from 2.1. The term "assistance" is defined expressly to require me to go back to section 1, which is section 8 of the bill, and that's where I get that phrase "operating facilities." I understand the minister is saying: "Well, all of these problems could be dealt with up front at that moment in time when the government or the minister or any agent of the government enters into what these provisions describe as a human resource facility agreement."

Presumably then -- I'm going to hypothesize for a moment -- we have a husband and wife who are willing to open up their home for the purposes of providing for the care of children and serving as foster parents. And the government, which is always our friend and always to be trusted, comes along and says: "We'd like to take you up on this offer, and we're going to enter into this human resource facility agreement. I apologize for the fact that it's 720 pages single-spaced, and I certainly hope you don't read the mortgage or the lien provisions on pages 360-80, and no, we are the government, so we're not going to pay for you to hire a lawyer. And if you don't happen to be people who are both willing and able foster parents and also highly qualified students in land law, you may actually not pick up on the fact that the moment we cut you a cheque, your house is on the hook."

I think really, again, the problem is not with the stated intent. The stated intent appears to me to be reasonable. The government has all kinds of opportunities for putting liens on properties. There's no doubt about that, and the government should be protected in respect of any funds that it offers to improve land so that someone can carry out public activities. But I do have serious reservations about the language that's being used here in what amounts to section 8.

Having made that point, if the minister has anything further to say I'd be delighted to hear it. Otherwise my colleague, I'm sure, has more questions.

[2040]

R. Coleman: I just have a question following up on my other colleagues, and that is in section 1, "Grants and other financial assistance." The definition of "other assistance" is open. My concern would be this: that somebody comes along after this legislation, because somebody doesn't understand it, and says that "other assistance" is actually the revenue we gave to the foster parent to care for those children in their home. Now we're going to come along and say: "Now we can put a lien on your house." If that were the interpretation that got out of this legislation back to the public, then we're going to have difficulty in the foster care field where people are going to feel that any revenues for government all of a sudden can be classified as other assistance, even if it's just paying for the care of an individual or two individual children in a foster home. I'd like the minister to tell me whether that could ever be classified as other assistance.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the hon. member's fears, but they're absolutely unfounded. If you have a contract for care and pursuant to that contract you pay for care, that's not assistance. Anybody would tell you that that's not assistance.

R. Coleman: That's not what this says. This doesn't say that. . . . This says "a residence or facility for the care of children." A foster home is a residence for the care of children, and assistance is a revenue given to the parent to take care of those children.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No it's not -- absolutely not.

R. Coleman: Well, if the definition. . . . If somebody decides to question it and somebody decides to make that move, then we're going to have difficulty. I don't know why we can't clarify this language to straighten out this concern.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's because that concern is only imaginary. It cannot ever be real that any moneys paid pursuant to a contract for care would be considered assistance and would then form a lien on someone's property, who's been providing services -- absolutely not.

K. Whittred: I have no more questions on section 8.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Whittred: I would like to refer, please, to the second definition under "Human resource facility agreements." It makes mention of "the minister or any agent of the government." Now, in practical terms, does the agent of the government mean B.C. Housing? Does it basically mean that B.C. Housing will be administering these contracts and that they will be the people who actually own the asset?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there is an agreement between the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Hous-

[ Page 13163 ]

K. Whittred: Second, with that definition is the phrase "who has received." I was told at the briefing that there was no retroactivity to this agreement. I'm wondering what is meant by that particular phrase and why it is in the definition -- ". . .a person who has received or is to receive. . . ." To receive is in the future; has received is in the past.

[2045]

K. Whittred: There may be no human resource facility agreements at the present time, but there are contracts, and there are certainly individuals who have received support in one form or another.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no retroactivity intended. Even if the government tried to do that, there's no obligation on the part of those who have received any of that assistance to enter into any agreements with the government. I just want to put those fears to rest. There is no retroactivity intended with this.

K. Whittred: Now, if we accept that there is no retroactivity intended -- we're being told that there are a lot of things that aren't intended in this bill. . . . If I may refer back to the original bill that this bill copies. . . . This bill copies another bill verbatim, word for word, and the intent of that bill was to protect government assets. Am I to assume, then, from the minister -- who says that there is no retroactivity intended -- that the government does not have an interest in protecting those properties where there is already a significant investment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think there is no retroactivity intended, in the sense that government is not going to go back and try and force people to enter into agreements on grants that they may have received. That's absolutely not the case and not the intention.

There may be a case, once this legislation is in place and is enacted, that in anticipation of arriving at an agreement, you start providing some assistance. By the time you arrive at an agreement, there may have been assistance received. Or it may be in the interests of a particular owner or operator of the facility to roll the previous two or three grants, or one grant, that he or she may have received with new moneys that they may receive and enter into an agreement.

So there are all kinds of possibilities, but they would have to be of their own accord. But there is no forcible retroactivity intended whatsoever.

K. Whittred: Well, the format of this discussion does not really allow me to address that issue, but I will in a moment when we get to the regulations, because in fact, I think, there is a compulsion on the part of the ministry which will leave people with no choices other than to enter into agreements. So although on the face of it we are assured that this agreement is voluntary, the people who are in fact entering into these agreements have a choice of either entering into the agreement or not continuing with the arrangement of either fostering children or running a group home, or whatever the case may be.

[2050]

Continuing with that same definition, it goes on to say: ". . .a person who has received or is to receive assistance from the government to acquire, develop or operate a human resource facility." Once again we find those words -- to "operate a human resource facility." So once again I ask the minister what the purpose of the word "operate" is in that phrase. Is the statement strengthened by it? I happen to believe it's weakened. It is made ambiguous.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I said earlier that assistance to operate cannot ever be interpreted to mean money paid pursuant to a contract for service of care for children. Assistance would have to be something distinct and separate from that. It would have to be with respect to the facility itself, not with respect to the care for children.

K. Whittred: All right, if it has to be specific to the care of the facility and not to children, what about the physical care of the facility in terms of staffing -- janitorial staff, landscaping staff? Would that be considered operating or not?

G. Plant: I notice there was a small pause.

I'm sure the Attorney General is as well aware as I am of the fact that there actually has been litigation about these issues. So when we look at these issues. . . . Actually, there has been a lawsuit about virtually this issue -- that is, what right does the government have in respect to its grants to a facility in circumstances where, for example, the facility changes its purpose?

I have this question, though. Is there any obligation written into the definition of human resource facility agreement for such an agreement to be in writing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think that's spelled out here. I would be surprised if government ever made these kinds of contracts orally. It's a different issue if one is talking about bigger issues, but these are issues that are important to people that deal with these issues. These kinds of agreements can't be oral or verbal agreements. They have to be in writing.

K. Whittred: Noting the time, I think I have no more questions on section 10.

Section 10 approved on division.

On section 11.

K. Whittred: We're now dealing with the regulations and the things that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may do in terms of regulations. Subsection (2)(a), "prescribing the terms and conditions on which and the manner in which assistance

[ Page 13164 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Forgive me. I didn't catch the question.

K. Whittred: I was referring to what appears to be the sweeping powers granted the minister under subsection (2)(a). The minister appears to have unlimited powers in terms of prescribing the terms, conditions and manner in which the assistance is defined, in addition to the powers which we sort of skipped over in the other section regarding placing liens on property. I'm wondering if I interpret those powers correctly.

[2055]

K. Whittred: We're being asked to take a great deal on faith in this very small act.

Under subsection (2)(d) there is the use of a word which I also had some problems with, and that is the word "program." Again I get back to the original analogy that I made -- that this act is copied from an act where I can visualize what it's dealing with. This act, on the other hand, talks about a program, "a specific facility or program. . . ." If you eliminate the word "facility," you're talking about a program -- which does not necessarily have to have a facility. I think that is another obvious weakness in the wording and the thought that has gone into this bill. I wonder if the minister can explain what is meant there by the word "program."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that this word has to be taken in the context of subsection (1), which talks about the facility and, taking from there, obviously goes on to the programs. But the programs have to be in the context of a facility.

K. Whittred: Well, once again I think this is simply an example. . . . This act is about the Human Resource Facility Act. It is about human resource facility agreements. We are told that all the way through it. We're told that we're to have faith that, yes, there are powers here that the government doesn't in fact intend to use.

Yet it talks about programs. A program, for example, might be a home-based program, where the person travels in a car from home to home delivering a program that is contracted by this ministry. I wonder how that fits into this definition.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would commend section 1 to the hon. member, which we dealt with. It talks about this: ". . .this minister may provide a grant or other assistance to a person for the purposes of acquiring, developing or operating facilities for one or more of the following purposes." The grants are to be made to the facilities for the following purposes. One of the purposes in 1(e) is "a special human resource facility or program," and that has to be in the context of a facility to which the grant is made.

K. Whittred: I will simply conclude by stating that I have grave concerns about that. If I look at this within the context of health care, for example. I look at something like home care, which is very much a delivered service on the part of that ministry. I think the distinct possibility exists that this service can be extended into this ministry. I think it's just one more example of how this act has not been really thoroughly thought out.

Noting the time, hon. Chair. . . .

Section 11 approved on division.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail 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 2:32 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head asked the minister about corporate services, and there was an adjustment of $1.2 million. The minister gave a couple of examples, or gave a list of where that money went: $225,000 went for capital amortization adjustments, $240,000 was transferred to the ministry initiatives from government services and $895,000 of it was transferred to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service. Can she tell me what that $895,000 is for?

[ Page 13165 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I should pursue a briefing on this area, but I've been looking for where the Ministry Responsible for the Public Service vote is in the estimates, and I don't see it. Maybe I just can't find it. I didn't start looking until moments ago. Is it the case that from this ministry, there is a. . . . Why would it be that that $895,000 wouldn't have come out of the Minister for the Public Service's vote? If that office had been transferred to that ministry, it would seem to me that that money would come out of that minister's vote -- if there is a vote -- as opposed to the Ministry of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a reconciling from last year's estimates. What I read out in the record was a reconciling from last year's estimates to this year's estimates -- what the changes were. That PSDO existed within the Ministry of Finance estimates vote and was then transferred in this year's estimates over to the Ministry Responsible for the Public Service, which is vote 54.

[1435]

Yesterday, we had a discussion towards the end of the day regarding the expenditures in CPCS -- Cupcakes -- and the minister declined to answer questions that related to the way time and work were allotted in that ministry, specifically around the deputy minister. Perhaps the minister can tell me, in a more general sense, what work is being done in Cupcakes to respond in an issue management way to the auditor general's report into the 1996 budget fiasco.

Hon. J. MacPhail: None.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find that difficult to accept. Let me put it this way. When the auditor general's report came out earlier this year, the assistant deputy minister, I think it was, in Cupcakes set up a press conference in an attempt to pre-empt the auditor general's report by a couple of hours. There were actually several studies that had been done, commissioned by somebody in government, to deal with that. Can the minister tell us who is commissioning those studies, and who is managing that issue? Certainly the assistant deputy minister for Cupcakes was there and was in fact driving the government's response that day from a staff level.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm happy to explore the response of the government to the auditor general's report, so certainly there's no evading going on of that question. But in the context of the reports to which I think the member refers, they were out of the previous fiscal year. We've had quite a concerted response to the auditor general's report led out of the Ministry of Finance, and I'd be happy to go through those details again. We did discuss it in my opening remarks and subsequently as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that the minister and the Ministry of Finance have been dealing with the first three chapters of the auditor general's report. I'm interested. I would expect that the first three chapters are being managed quite well, quite frankly, by the Ministry of Finance.

It's chapter 4 of the auditor general's report that I'm interested in. I don't understand how Cupcakes can go from managing that chapter 4 response on the day the report is released, to the point of having their assistant deputy minister set up a press conference releasing two studies that were prepared by the government of British Columbia in response to that, and then all of a sudden at the end of March the file disappears. I find it inconceivable that the Ministry of Finance and Cupcakes have released themselves from any sort of managing of chapter 4 -- the government's strategic response to chapter 4 of the auditor general's report. If the minister is telling me, and is telling the members of this House, that there is no work being done in CPCS in dealing with the auditor general's report in any way, shape or form in this fiscal year, I'd be very eager to hear that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. I believe that the assistant. . . . I'm not quite sure what assistant deputy minister the member's referring to. I assume it's the assistant deputy minister responsible for communications.

G. Farrell-Collins: Cupcakes -- whoever he is.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I just don't know who. I'm going to answer, on the basis of that question, that it's communications. There are often assistants. The assistant deputy minister for communications is responsible for communications across the government -- coordinating communications across the government.

Government has not responded to chapter 4. Our response is a concerted one through chapters 1 to 3, and we're very active in the pursuit of making sure that those recommendations are implemented. That -- the government response -- is the response of the Minister of Finance.

G. Farrell-Collins: So let me ask this, because I want to find out exactly what it is the minister is saying. I can't recall the name of the gentleman who was handling the auditor general's report. Pardon me?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Cohen?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: It may well have been. The minister says Cohen. I can't recall the gentleman's name. He was the one at the press conference that morning where the two reports were released in an attempt to pre-empt the auditor general's report around the way the budget numbers in '96 were manipulated. He was there. I recall seeing him on television, walking out of Cupcakes through that secure door they have, when the media were attempting to speak to the deputy minister responsible for Cupcakes. He was the one who was put forward. Does that individual work within Cupcakes? Is that where that individual works?

[1440]

[ Page 13166 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: So now we know that the assistant deputy minister of Cupcakes was the one -- we well knew that, and now we have the minister actually saying it -- who was the front person on the day, in the early morning before the auditor general's report came out, who was managing the issue for the government. Now, I find it difficult to believe that the deputy minister for Cupcakes had no involvement whatsoever in that. I would assume that he had involvement in that also. Is that correct -- as the deputy minister for communications for the government? If the assistant deputy minister was involved, one would assume that the deputy minister was also.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The question was about this fiscal year, hon. Chair. But it is important to us that the event to which the member refers occurred in the last fiscal year. The expenditures were made in the last fiscal year. But if I could also just advise, one of the responsibilities of CPCS is coordination of communications across government. The ADM responsible for communications often assists in ministry-specific government initiatives. This was another example.

I don't mind getting into the government's response to the auditor general's report. I'm happy to talk about that. The response and follow-up to the auditor general's report rests within the Ministry of Finance and was all announced. Our whole response was made public.

The Chair: The Chair does request that comments be relevant to this year's debates and estimates, and recognizes the member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you ever so much for the guidance. The point of the matter is that I asked the initial question about what was being done this year. The minister. . . . There seemed to be -- let me put it this way -- some disagreement, and I'm trying to find out what happened last year so that I can get some context for the question I'm asking about this fiscal year. The Ministry of Finance wasn't created on March 31 of this fiscal year, so it's virtually impossible to ask a question about this year based on the fact that there was no Ministry of Finance prior to that. So I'm going to ask some questions to enable me to flesh out and put a question to the minister that deals with this fiscal year.

I hope that the Chair will keep with the tradition of this House for decades: that members are permitted to have a discussion that frames the context for the questions in the upcoming fiscal year, because one can certainly not have a debate about this fiscal year without discussing in some form what's gone before it -- it would be totally irrelevant and out of context. In fact, there have been numerous times in this House. . . . The investigation of the Raiwind project is one example. There were, quite frankly, weeks of discussion in this very room around what occurred at B.C. Hydro in an attempt to find out what it was that Hydro was going to be doing with that in the next fiscal year.

I think that is well in order, and certainly that's the effort. One may have to ask a question about what happened in the past in order to provide the context for the question of what the government is planning to do in the year forward. I think that is exactly what I'm trying to do, so I'll continue with that line.

The minister has said that the assistant deputy minister of communications for the government was the one who attended that press conference in an attempt to pre-empt what the auditor general was going to say about the investigation into the 1996 budget fiasco. Can the minister tell us if it's common practice for the assistant deputy minister to attend press conferences? Are there plans for him to attend this year? I've never seen him at a press conference before; I had never met him before that. I found it unusual that he was the government spokesperson on that day, and I'm wondering if that's his role, if that's his responsibility, if we're going to see a lot more of him in the year ahead. Or was that just sort of a one-off occasion?

[1445]

I don't know whether the member is. . . . I don't mind answering the questions around the role of what communications does, but that's what they do. The approach that we take varies, depending on the announcement.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just found it remarkable that the assistant deputy minister would be put out to be the government spokesperson on that issue, and then to find out from the minister a month or two later -- now three months later, I guess; certainly just barely into the fiscal year later -- that the file's been dropped. That individual was the one who was the spokesperson, the front person, the one who was pushed out the door to answer the questions from the media, and we find that in this fiscal year, there is absolutely no work being done by Cupcakes at all in response to the auditor general's report.

I find that very difficult to believe and will pursue that through other means, to determine whether in fact that's the case. I'd be surprised if that was the case. The fact of the matter is that this file has been managed very carefully by the government in an effort to minimize the damage that results from it. I would be astounded if there was no involvement by Cupcakes in this file. As recently as a couple of weeks ago -- a month or so ago -- the deputy minister for Cupcakes was firing off letters to the editor, responding to comments in the media about the Cupcakes file.

I go back to my earlier question about this fiscal year. The minister says that the deputy ministers don't do their personal stuff on government time. How is it, then, that the deputy minister for communications from Cupcakes is writing letters to the editor as the deputy minister? The minister tells me that not a penny out of this year's budget is being allocated to managing that file and that nobody in Cupcakes, including the deputy minister, is involved in managing that file. How can you write letters to the editor on your letterhead as deputy minister and not be doing your job as deputy minister?

Clearly there's a problem there. On the one hand, we say that there's no involvement and no managing of the file. On

[ Page 13167 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe I've actually canvassed all of this thoroughly. I expect that the member is not satisfied with my answers. Nevertheless, I have answered the questions. I'll just reiterate them.

In the context of what's acceptable, if the member wants me to make it in the form of a point of order, I will. The member knows full well that personal matters relating to public servants is not proper debate for here. His asking to talk about personal matters is inappropriate here. If he's asking about the public duties of a public servant, I am quite comfortable with the duties that the public servant is carrying out, in a way that is appropriate for his office.

In the context of sending letters to the editor, if you want to say that that was cleanup work from. . . . That's absolutely fine; that's absolutely right. That is totally appropriate for a public servant to pursue in his course of duties, according to the public service policy, and I'd be happy to inform the member of it. The file for responding to the auditor general's report rests with the Minister of Finance. I personally am very diligent about the file and am very pleased with the response and the headway that we're making on this. So the full response and the file rest with the Minister of Finance.

[1450]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I don't think there has been any work done in this fiscal year, but we'll find out if the response, about which the member is extremely interested and which doesn't have anything to do with my ministry, was done in the previous fiscal. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: It's my recollection that the letter to the editor, that appeared in the newspaper in a couple places, in response to the auditor general's report, occurred since March 31. That's my recollection. I can certainly pursue them and see.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sure. We'll look into it too.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. Perhaps the minister can tell us if there's anyone else in the ministry who's helping to draft those letters of response to meeting with the. . . . Is there any sort of liaison between Cupcakes and the people that are managing the file in the Ministry of Finance? Are there any discussions, meetings back and forth? We know that the deputy minister for Cupcakes -- he used to be the deputy minister for the environment -- is fairly ubiquitous in his attendance at meetings in ministries that don't necessarily involve him. I'm just curious if the minister can tell me if he's engaged in any meetings whatsoever -- or if anyone in Cupcakes is engaged in any sort of strategy meetings or communications strategies -- dealing with the auditor general's report.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no work being done on issue management out of CPCS, and there's no liaison on the auditor general's report between CPCS and the Ministry of Finance. The work carried out by the deputy, in terms of reply to public comment, is completed. Well, there's no further work planned on that at this time.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that from time to time Cupcakes is called in to deal with a variety of issues, because they are the communications department of government. Is the minister then telling me that in this fiscal year, none of the meetings, none of the responses and none of the strategic planning dealing with the response to the auditor general's investigation of the government's 1996 budget fiasco is going to involve any sort of communications strategy whatsoever -- that Cupcakes will not be involved? I'm not clear how the minister can rule that out, given that she doesn't know what's going to happen in the next little while.

There's a court case that's ongoing about whether or not the government -- to use the terminology that's out there -- lied to the public about the 1996 budget. There's a court case that deals with that. I'm not going to get into the details of that court case, but certainly that's an issue that the government needs to continue to manage. Is she telling me that nobody in the Ministry of Finance or Cupcakes is dealing with any response to that legal challenge that's before the courts?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. That is not a matter of government. Government isn't involved in a response to that. So, sorry, there is no involvement of government in that case. I think the member is well aware of that. Secondly, there has been no public communications response -- other than my comments and the appointment of Mr. Enns and his panel -- but I plan on handling the future actions that may arise to the auditor general's report in the same way that I handle other communications initiatives. That is, if the ministry needs help, we'll seek it. At this point, we don't plan on. . . . There's nothing in the works. Does that mean that when Mr. Enns reports, I may have to make a reply? It may. If I need help, I'll seek it; but there's no initiative on the books at this point.

[1455]

I just find it inconceivable, and I think most British Columbians would also find it inconceivable, that after managing that file as carefully as that file's been managed since 1996 -- after putting up the government's tactical plan to oppose it, the tactical and strategic plan to deal with the auditor general's investigation, which ended up dragging it out for several years because of legal challenges, legal opinions, back-and-forth debate as to who was going to testify and who was not going to testify -- all of sudden, because that little calendar clicked over one more day, nobody at Cupcakes is involved in managing this file at all. The deputy minister has no interest in the file, doesn't manage it and doesn't talk to people in the Ministry of Finance about it. There's no money coming out of Cupcakes to deal with this. There may or may not be ongoing legal bills; the minister won't tell us about that.

All of a sudden nobody cares about this issue. I find that remarkable. I find it absolutely unbelievable and inconceiv-

[ Page 13168 ]

This is one of the most centralized governments for strategic planning that has ever existed in this province. Issue management is done out of one office, for the most part, with a few people. That's clearly known. That's known around the precincts and around the corridors of government -- no matter which ministry. In fact, ministries bridle at the fact that everything has to be cleared through Cupcakes, it seems -- any initiative. Cupcakes streamlines; Cupcakes prioritizes. It's the department where all these decisions are made. All of a sudden, one of the biggest political liabilities for the government. . . . After consuming vast quantities of time, money and resources in the communications branch, all of a sudden it's gone -- poof. The file isn't there anymore. Nobody talks about it; nobody deals with it. The deputy minister doesn't write letters, really. There are no lawyers involved. It's all done. It's all this wonderful response of changing the estimates that's being managed by the Ministry of Finance. There's no political analysis being done. There's no issue management being done within the government. It's just simply unbelievable. To see the way the government has engineered and managed this file from day one is ridiculous.

I want to get this on the record from the minister. I want to get it once and for all, and then we'll go back and we'll find out for sure. Can the minister tell us whether in this fiscal year there has been or will be any use of resources from Cupcakes at all in managing this file -- in managing the response to the auditor general, whether it's chapter 1, 2, 3 or 4? Can she tell me that there is absolutely no work being done, that the staff of Cupcakes are not participating in any meetings, are not involved in any discussions on the management of this file whatsoever? Let's get it once and for all.

[1500]

I am responsible -- the Minister of Finance is responsible -- for ensuring that the auditor general's recommendations are implemented and that the public input around what changes should occur is done through the panel headed up by Mr. Doug Enns. That is the government's response to the auditor general's report. I expect that will be our response from now until we've done everything we possibly can to implement the auditor general's report.

I also know that the member knows full well that I can't possibly commit myself to the future in terms of what may or may not occur. Frankly, that's really not appropriate for any government to do. If circumstances change, the government's response will change. However, I don't anticipate a change in our response. We've dealt with chapter 4 through the Premier's comments, and the Minister of Finance is leading the response to chapters 1 to 3. That's the work that's being done, and the work is being done in the Ministry of Finance.

G. Farrell-Collins: Then can the minister tell me how many letters the Deputy Minister of Finance wrote?

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the member is canvassing this in the course of what the duties are of the deputy minister responsible for CPCS and wishes to explore what his work is, I'm fine to answer that question, because the work that I will describe is the work in the course of his public duties. I think there were two letters written -- a couple of paragraphs or something.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can she tell us to whom they were written?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Times Colonist and the Vancouver Sun.

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the minister make copies of those letters available?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'll get the news clippings. They were published. But sure, I can do that research for the member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us how many letters were written by the lawyers on this same topic?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I don't think we need to explore those details here.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm surprised the minister wouldn't want to. I thought she was prepared to talk about the government's response to the auditor general's report -- that she was proud to talk about the government's response to the auditor general's report. It appears she's only proud to talk about certain parts of the government's response to the auditor general's report.

The fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Finance, according to the minister, is responsible for the government's response. I'm asking about the government's response and the response of the government in the official capacity of the deputy minister of Cupcakes. Letters were written by lawyers to media outlets that were part, and form part, of the government's response to this issue. That's the reality, and that's part of it. So the minister says she's proud to talk about that response. What I'd like to know is: how many letters were written by the lawyers to various media outlets in response to the coverage of this issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Really, I don't know why the member keeps on having to use Hansard to put words in my mouth. Please, don't do that. I have given full responses. The letters were written. . . . The letters to the editor have been made public. They were written in the last fiscal year -- unless there's some evidence to the contrary, but my recollection is, fully, that they were written last fiscal. I've made it available -- correspondence involving a legal matter. I doubt that the members opposite would make their own correspondence

[ Page 13169 ]

[1505]

The minister said that she was proud to talk about the government's response to the auditor general's report, and I'm asking her to talk about that part. That's part of it. The fact that the deputy minister for government communications would have a lawyer sending letters to media outlets trying to threaten them with lawsuits if they don't change their story or didn't retract some of the commentary they made is part of the government's response to the auditor general's report.

It's part of the tactical and strategic response of the government, and I just don't buy the minister's argument that the deputy minister isn't involved in this in any way, shape or form. He has to be. I think everybody believes he is. For the minister to say that he has no involvement whatsoever is just beyond belief. So if the minister doesn't want to make that information, which can cause no harm to the province, available to the people of the province of British Columbia, then that's something that's nice to see on the record, and we'll pursue it in other ways.

The fact of the matter is that this government is painfully unwilling to explain its actions around the 1996 budget and their response to the auditor general's report and their management of that over the last number of years. Questions that have been raised in question period have not been answered; they've been deflected. Questions that were raised here today and yesterday were clearly deflected. There is clearly a strategy to deal with this issue and to try and micromanage it to death, and for the minister now to tell us that there is no involvement from the communications department of government around this issue is simply beyond belief. I'll rack it up there with some of the other things that we've been told over the years about how the government works, and people will make their judgments accordingly.

But the reality is that people are going to continue to pursue this. We'll continue to pursue it by whatever means are available, and I think, eventually, the people of British Columbia are going to find out exactly how despicable the government has been in managing this issue and what a discredit and a disservice they've done to the public service, the province of British Columbia and the people of this province.

The Chair: The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head on vote 28.

I. Chong: I am hopeful the minister is willing to answer some questions that have arisen as a result of questions that were posed to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The response that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs gave was essentially to canvass them here. They have to do with, I understand, Treasury Board's contingency fund. I wonder if the minister can advise us as to the amount of the contingency fund for the 1999-2000 year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe it's $110 million. I'll look it up for you, though.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, it's vote 48 on page 216 -- $110 million.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise what criteria are used to access those funds? Is there a set of guidelines used? As we understand it. . . . Certainly the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs wasn't aware of how this came about. In questions that were posed to him by our Aboriginal Affairs critic about where an additional $4 million was gained to spend on the Nisga'a communications or advertising plan, he simply was informed by his staff that this money came from the contingency fund. So I'm curious about what criteria have been established as to how those funds are accessed by other ministries.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll read the vote description:

"This vote provides additional funding for items budgeted in other votes to accommodate the financial consequences of unanticipated and contingent events. Unanticipated events include developments during the year that could not be reasonably anticipated when the budget was prepared. Contingent events include developments that could be anticipated but not with enough certainty to make a reasonable estimate of budget costs, or where final costs are dependent on a pending decision by government or another party.

"This vote also provides for unanticipated events not budgeted in other votes, but which are consistent with the general purposes of those votes. This includes natural disasters, emergency relief and assistance for those in need. Ex gratia payments are also provided for. In addition, this vote provides of funding for new government programs."

[1510]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This year we budgeted with greater prudence, both on the revenue side -- forecasting lower revenues -- and on the contingency side. That's what we did this year, and that's why it's larger this year.

I. Chong: That would still mean that there are $110 million in expenditures which are expected to possibly be required, and I would expect that those should properly belong to the ministries. I see the minister shaking her head, and that's fine. But, hon. Chair, you don't generally increase your contingency fund like that and to great magnitude. What

[ Page 13170 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get that information for her for past years.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's efforts to provide that information.

Can the minister then provide us with information and clarification on what expenditures and liabilities we may be looking at this year for which this $110 million has been budgeted? As I say, it is a budget, and you've increased it substantially. Therefore there must be input from all the ministries as to what further amounts may be required for this 1999-2000 fiscal year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the first time we actually put the risks to the budget -- the expenditure side -- in the budget document, and we'll find that for you, both on the expenditure and revenue sides. But on the expenditure side, there's risk proposed, and we'll find it in the budget document for you.

It's certainly been my experience in working with companies in the private sector -- not me working with the companies; I don't, but in working as a government member with companies -- that contingencies are a must in terms of business plans. And every government has always. . . . It would be, I'm sure, a point of high criticism if a proper contingency fund were not allocated and then, for the first time ever, we put the risks to expenditure in the budget as well. I'll get you that citation.

[1515]

The Chair: Through the Chair.

R. Thorpe: Of course, through the Chair to the minister: are you booking amounts against that contingency on a monthly running basis?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

I. Chong: Then can the minister advise, after last year's contingency fund, the results of the '98-99 year? What amount of the contingency fund was utilized? Were there any excess funds, I suppose, returned to general revenues?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The books will close probably at the end of this month. So we'll know then, and I'll report out on that. But as of May 31 -- and I'm sure the member is aware that bills for last fiscal continue to come in. . . . Bills come in and are booked as expenditures made, but they come in in months 13 and 14. So as of May 31, there were . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, page 34 in the book: $63 million of contingencies were allocated as of May 31, but the final books will close later this month, at which time all of this will be reported.

I. Chong: I will appreciate that when it's reported up. We'll have the details on that and, as the minister offered earlier, perhaps on the past five years, as well, if she has that information.

But for the current year, '99-2000. . . . We are two months into this fiscal year. Have there been any requests or any money spent at this point for the current-year contingency fund?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

I. Chong: I'd like to go back to a comment that the minister made about the contingency fund. Certainly I am aware, working with the private sector, that many businesses do set up contingency funds. But generally they're relatively consistent, I would say, from year to year. So it is rather amazing that there has been such a large increase. I'll certainly be interested to see how we moved toward that over the past few years, if in fact those funds have been used each and every year, and whether or not the minister reviews that as well as a result of providing that request to me, whether or not -- if the minister reviews that, as well, as a result of providing that request to me -- in the future there would be more pressure placed on the ministries to actually include those expenditures, which perhaps come up from certain ministries on a consistent basis, so that we're not looking at huge contingency funds.

They do show a lack of planning. I know that there are sometimes contingencies you can't account for, and I can appreciate that. Things like forest fires and if there was a major earthquake come to mind. I realize that there are requirements for contingency. At the same time, if we see year in and year out that the same ministries are coming to this fund for expenditures over and above their budget, it's not placing very much pressure on the ministers to be fiscally responsible. I'll just leave that with the minister. Would she consider that as a future budgetary measure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just last year I think 13 of the 19 ministries came in on or under budget. There are statutorily funded pressures in the area of health care, and there are statutory pressures in other areas as well. But 13 of the 19 ministries did come in on or under budget. I appreciate the member's point.

I. Chong: Just a final note, then. It is gratifying to know that 13 out of 19 ministries came in under budget, which would imply that six of the other 19 didn't. Again, to see whether those same six ministries are having difficulty managing their budgets on a consistent basis. . . . Certainly the minister, as part of the A team, could speak to those ministers to provide that extra fiscal prudence. I'm sure she would agree.

[1520]

[ Page 13171 ]

I was told by suppliers that they were asked, after they bid on the supply of a good or service to government, to add 1 percent to that and to pay that 1 percent, which the ministry -- for example, the Ministry of Health -- would then forward to the Purchasing Commission, rather than have the Ministry of Health take 1 percent out of the bid dollar figure and forward it. It appeared to me to be. . . . I was very uncomfortable with it, because it was an attempt to force those suppliers to squeeze down on that 1 percent and, in many cases, eat that 1 percent. In effect, they were being charged to do business with government. At that time there was a commitment made by the minister that she would look into it. I think the director -- or whoever the person was; I can't recall -- went off and committed to do that. I'm wondering what the status is on that. Has that policy been rescinded? If so, when?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't want to prolong debate, but I didn't see any place there where I could say yes.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, I'll be encouraging, anyway -- positive. The problem, actually, will disappear very shortly with our implementation of the corporate accounting system, where the suppliers will no longer be required to collect at all; we'll do it. As I said in my opening remarks, we're in the process of implementing the corporate accounting system. Currently, the only people who are. . . . MSOs exist for information technology products. No one else is having to do it. There are no plans to expand that, and we're in the process of converting it so no one has to do it because of the CAS.

G. Farrell-Collins: So for the last year, the process that was in place a year ago has continued, whereby people supplying that service -- the ISO or. . . . What was it? The technology branch, anyway, I think is what she said. People supplying those services or goods were required to bid, and once they got the successful bid, they were required to add 1 percent to it and send that in. So the minister is telling me that nothing in that regard has changed in the last year, but that there's a process in place or being developed that will stop that process, and the 1 percent will be collected directly from the ministry as opposed to from the supplier.

Hon. J. MacPhail: What has occurred in the meantime is participation into the CAS to eliminate the need whatsoever. The ministries pay the 1 percent and forward it to us. There were ongoing discussions with businesses. Our view is that the problem is one that's managed, and the complaints have stopped and will disappear when the CAS is in place. During the course of the year, the commission actually spent quite a bit of time with businesses, encouraging them to show the user fee as a separate item, and that did occur. From that flowed the ability for ministries to be accounted for, to submit the 1 percent themselves. Suppliers were encouraged -- strenuously -- not to absorb the fee themselves. That occurred over the last year.

[1525]

My last question. . . . Well, I don't know if it's my last question. I hope it's my last question. I hope the Chair will indulge me for a moment, because I think we end up with a bit of a conflict in that Bill 62, which deals with the trading of commodity derivatives, is going to be before the House in the other chamber later this afternoon for committee-stage discussion. While that bill rests in the hands of the Attorney General -- it's a miscellaneous statutes bill -- I think it's important that we get advice from the Ministry of Finance and perhaps through the Minister of Finance -- whichever she sees. . . . If the minister can assure me that I'll be able to get answers to questions about those sections of that bill in the other House -- probably not through her, because she'll be in Transit estimates, but certainly through the Attorney General and ministry staff -- then I don't need to canvass that whole area here. I can do it perhaps better, in a more focused way, under the legislation. Otherwise, we'll have to do it here.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I assume I won't be there, but if I'm not here, I'll be there. Secondly, the staff that will be staffing me will be in the chamber as well, or you can. . . . I know the member has had a minor briefing on it, but feel free, between now and committee stage of Bill 62, to get your questions before staff. We'll make sure that they're answered.

G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate that offer. I think we've sort of done the technical stuff. I think we understand what's there, and I think we're aware of what the ministry is doing. We're now at the policy discussion level, so that will probably have to take place either here or there.

I would like to pass on to my colleague the critic for B.C. Transit the opportunity to engage in some questions with the minister. I will reserve my place, though, if the answers from the Attorney General -- because it's not his area -- are not sufficient. I may wish to come back here before you've finished up your estimates to ask those questions. I hope we can do it in the other House.

The Chair: I'll just remind all members that any legislation that is being put forward is debated in Committee B. Legislation -- prior legislation, current legislation or future legislation -- is not debated in Committee A.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have no intention of debating the legislation. I may want to discuss how the ministry intends to manage the new policy that they're implementing, which I think would certainly be in order for discussion in the ministry's estimates. I don't see a problem with that. One way or the other, we'll be able to explore this area and make sure that public accountability is protected.

[ Page 13172 ]

[1530]

Hon. J. MacPhail: One vote, you mean, just on the management of public debt?

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just withdraw your motion for Finance, move the motion for Transit, and then when we're done Transit, you can move them both. However you want to do it. . . .

By agreement, then, we're going to move into Transit and have a discussion about B.C. Transit.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm one person. I'll either do it here or in there. All I'm saying to you is: why don't I just go into the chamber and do it there?

G. Farrell-Collins: Because it'll take longer than you think, maybe -- I don't know. That's all. . . .

The Chair: Members. Just to clarify for all members, perhaps I'll read. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members, order. I'll just clarify standing order 61 again. Under standing order 61, 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. Hopefully, that will clarify the discussion or the debate that is made in the little House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Committee A will stand recessed until after the division in Committee B.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is there a vote I have to. . . .

An Hon. Member: Thirty-two?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Whatever. I mean, you wouldn't let us vote on the last one. So we can't. . . . There's still a vote before the. . . .

D. Symons: Do you want to put it on the floor, at least?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's still a vote on the floor.

D. Symons: Oh -- okay.

The Chair: Order, members. It's under the general vote.

[1545]

D. Symons: We're now dealing with the issue of B.C. Transit and related topics. I do want to spend the first time, and probably a fair amount of time during this discussion, dealing with the Rapid Transit Project 2000. There's been a vast change in my critic role -- and also in the minister's role -- from last year to this year in that we've now had a fair chunk of the problems and the issues of Transit severed from the ministry's responsibility and given over to the greater Vancouver regional district under the GVTA bill that was passed recently. So it's going to change things a little bit. You did keep one portion of Transit in Vancouver for yourselves, and that was the Rapid Transit Project. So we do have some chance to look at that.

I do want to do -- for a few minutes, if we can -- a little bit of history on that particular project, because it has an interesting history. One of the things I'll start with is a booklet called "In Transit: People Moving People. A Ten-Year Development Plan for B.C. Transit," which came out in 1995 -- I might note, just prior to the last provincial election. In this we find, related to the Rapid Transit Project. . . . It refers to a Vancouver region. I'm reading from page 8:

"[1.] Development of West Coast Express commuter rail between Mission, Coquitlam and downtown Vancouver;

"[2.] development of a light rail transit (LRT) system in the Broadway-Lougheed-Coquitlam corridor by 2005. The predominantly at-grade line will connect central Broadway, (Vancouver) with the Brentwood, Lougheed, Port Moody and Coquitlam town centres;

"[3.] Subsequent extension of LRT from Lougheed town centre to New Westminster (SkyTrain) by 2008;

"[4.] expansion of the SkyTrain (ALRT) fleet from 130 to 190 cars by 2006."

They give us a fuller explanation further on in the booklet:

"B.C. Transit considered providing advanced light rail rapid transit -- SkyTrain -- along the three corridors. The capital costs are, however, much higher than those for other forms of rapid transit. Therefore the transit plan does not recommend any new SkyTrain lines during the next ten years" -- other than what they're saying at the moment -- "Still, 16 new cars will be added to the existing SkyTrain fleet to handle increasing demand in the Vancouver-Burnaby-New Westminster-Surrey corridor.

[ Page 13173 ]

"The decision to develop the first phase LRT-line in the Broadway-Lougheed corridor and the Lougheed-Coquitlam section of the Coquitlam-New Westminster corridor was based on high ridership and customer service benefits, as well as the significant support the line offers for compact urban development in the Burrard peninsula.

"Following the completion of the line from Broadway to Granville to the Coquitlam town centre, development will begin on a link between the Lougheed town centre and New Westminster. This link, which will be completed after the ten-year plan, will provide a connection between the northeast sector town centres and the town centres on the SkyTrain line."

What we're getting there, I think, is a pretty good indication that the government, in 1995, entered into negotiations with the greater Vancouver regional district for control of transit decisions with the concept of building a light rail transit, which would have been along the Broadway corridor -- on grade, for the most part. That's what they were sort of deciding.

If we jump ahead to November 1997, we find that the spokesperson, Mr. Lester, was making some comments about this particular project. Mr. Lester said in 1994 that he hoped ". . .construction will begin in 1999, with completion of the Coquitlam-Broadway line by 2005. A link between Lougheed Mall and SkyTrain in New Westminster would be finished by 2008." So they seemed to be saying in 1997 precisely the same thing they were saying in 1995. After the election this project was still talked about in that manner. He said: "Let's be pleased that the estimate is conservative enough -- $1.1 billion -- to incorporate contingencies like tunnels and elevated sections on Broadway."

Then there's a whole series of sort of time lines, I guess, for this to be done and the cost and so forth again. "The LRT will operate in one- to three-car trains, each carrying 150 to 175 people in cars 25-30 metres in length. Estimated travel time is 49 minutes from Coquitlam Centre to Broadway and Granville, 26 minutes from Coquitlam Centre to New Westminster."

So we get these figures that seem to be fairly comparable to, if not even better than, what they're now saying SkyTrain is going to do.

So we have some questions again on what the government is currently doing and what the government has indicated in the past that they would be doing. Certainly by 1997 the government had entered into negotiations with the GVRD over the passing of transportation authority to the GVRD under the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, which we discussed in this House a year ago.

[1550]

What I'm getting is "proposed by the authority" -- the "authority" being the Transportation Authority, not the government. That's for other major projects, actually. But then we also have, right after it, section 33(1):

"Rapid Transit Project. The government may plan, acquire and construct the Rapid Transit Project."

"(2) Subject to subsection (3), the government must contribute funding for 60 percent of the capital costs of the Rapid Transit Project, and the authority must contribute funding for 40 percent of the capital costs of the project if (a) the government plans the acquisition and construction of the project, and (b) the authority and the government agree on the design, scope and cost of the project."

The Chair: Hon. member, that is previous legislation, and that has already been debated in the House. As per standing orders, the standing order states that. . .

D. Symons: I'm not debating the legislation.

The Chair: . . .no reference is to be made to legislation that has already been debated in the House. So if the member would like to ask a question on the administrative responsibilities. . .

D. Symons: I'm leading up to it.

The Chair: . . .then please do so.

D. Symons: The legislation that is in place certainly is the thing that's going to determine what we're discussing here. I'm not debating the legislation whatsoever; it's passed and it's done.

The Chair: I'll just inform the hon. member that the rules and procedures of the House state that previous legislation cannot be read or discussed. So if you'd like to redirect your question, that would be great.

D. Symons: I'll redirect, but we're getting to the question in a moment. I'll redirect it in the sense that it was stated in the past by the government in some documents that the Rapid Transit Project involved light rapid rail from the vicinity of Granville Avenue and Broadway in Vancouver, along the Broadway corridor to Lougheed Mall, carrying on to Coquitlam. And it tied in a second little thing at the tail end of that: that they were going to be doing a connection into New Westminster.

After all that lead-in, my first question basically is. . . . That's what was talked about; that was everybody's understanding, including the wording in the bill -- which I can't mention -- up to a few months after that bill was passed. Well, at the time it was passed, actually; I beg your pardon. Actually, you changed when this was before the House, when it comes down to it -- while that unmentionable bill was before the House. But we had, going through. . . . The documents had been signed, the agreement between the two organizations, well in advance of this sudden change.

So I'm wondering if the minister can, say, give us again, as she did last year, a little bit of explanation. Certainly it seems that everybody was led to believe one thing, and before the ink was dry, something else was before them. That's going to be the gist of much more to come.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member's quite correct. We did canvass this thoroughly in estimates last year, and we did

[ Page 13174 ]

[1555]

The use of technology has been decided and agreed upon. There are several reasons for that change and why it has been widely accepted by the public and has now been accepted by the municipalities as well. Let me just give the member a comparison of what an LRT system would deliver versus an automated light rapid transit system. I expect that this is not unlike comparing new trucks that may come on the market -- maybe natural gas engines versus diesel engines -- or a new technology that comes on the market to deliver education services, versus a teacher versus the Internet. Changes occur, and therefore governments keep apace in a way that makes the most sense for the bang for the dollar. In fact, we did have a move -- not within my lifetime and, I certainly expect, not within the lifetime of members opposite -- from a horse to a car. I don't think it was in the lifetime of the members opposite. Nevertheless, that was a change in technology. And this is another step forward on that same development.

Ridership. The ALRT, SkyTrain, has double the number of new riders over LRT -- that's for Broadway-Lougheed. For New Westminster-Coquitlam, SkyTrain has more than four times the new riders over light rail transit. Those ridership numbers have been developed independently as recently as April of this year, or March. I'd be happy to provide. . . . We did release them publicly, but in case the members opposite didn't get them, I'd be more than happy to provide those.

The travel time savings on the Broadway-Lougheed corridor is ten minutes, or 30 percent -- ALRT over LRT. I must actually say that the Broadway corridor goes though my riding. I don't know whether the member opposite was familiar with the debate around increased transit and fewer parking spaces along Granville, going from Richmond to downtown Granville. It was hugely controversial. And I can guarantee that same controversy would occur along Broadway as well. I'm not sure that these numbers are accurate -- they may be theoretically accurate -- but I would suggest that if you use LRT along the Broadway corridor, there would be no riders. There would be no riders because it would never get done, because the LRT would have to remove 1,800 parking spaces from along Broadway.

Reduced auto emissions are a very important initiative on Clean Air Day, which is today. SkyTrain has almost double the reduced auto emissions -- 91 percent greater auto emissions reductions with ALRT over LRT.

Contribution to regional land use goals. . . . The contribution for ALRT is medium to high -- versus medium with LRT -- along the Broadway-Lougheed corridor, and it's high with ALRT versus medium to high with light rapid transit.

Flexibility and adjusting capacity are the same in both systems. The ease of integration into the transit system -- they're good with ALRT versus poor with LRT on the Broadway-Lougheed corridor, and they're good with ALRT versus poor with LRT on the New Westminster-Coquitlam corridor. The net financial costs along the Broadway-Lougheed corridor and the New Westminster-Coquitlam corridor. . . . The total cost is 8 percent higher on capital construction. On operation and maintenance, there will be savings.

[1600]

One of the things that really contributes, I think, to all of the problems with this is that we get a pile of nonsense like you just gave us now. It is total nonsense to compare what ALRT and LRT are doing and to tell me what the ridership will be, when you have neither of them in place on that route. You are estimating figures that you'd like to estimate. The carrying capacity of an LRT is very similar to an ALRT. You can carry 150 passengers per vehicle. You proved the opposite.

The other thing is that you talked about the emission savings of ALRT over LRT. My goodness, does the minister not know they both operate on electricity? There are no emissions from the LRT either. So how are you saving those emissions? You're going to say: "Oh, we're taking more cars off the road." But if you put the number of vehicles on; you can have the headway between the cars the same or arrange them so the carrying capacity will be the same on either route. So I don't know that that's adding to it. But that wasn't my point, anyway.

It's funny that the government's own documents prior to 1994-95 indicated that LRT was preferable to ALRT and that it was cheaper. But when it suits the government -- because one looks classier than the other or whatever -- they seem to have changed. . . .

The other thing I think the minister is giving us total nonsense on is that she makes it sound, when she talks about horses and carts and so forth, as if the streetcar is still what we're talking about, and we're talking about LRT. It has changed over the years. As a matter of fact, you'll find that the LRT has probably had more new innovations in the last ten years than our SkyTrain system has. It's changed considerably over the last decade, and it's got 50 years of history and proof behind it. And you look around the world, and what do you see people are putting in? Hundreds of LRT systems are going in around the world. We've got -- what? -- four. I've got to

[ Page 13175 ]

The point is that you set up a local decision-making organization, the GVTA, and as soon as you set it up, you basically pulled the rug out from under them by saying: "Oh, what we were talking about before -- that's not it. Today we're changing to SkyTrain." Now, I think there might have been ample reason, and you're suggesting there are marvellous reasons we could change to SkyTrain. Then why on earth did you not discuss it with them beforehand and come to a mutual decision that we're going to go to SkyTrain?

If you'd done that, that would have saved us the whole year of arguments back and forth between the GVTA and the government over funding, and that would have saved the rapid transit office a lot of problems that are coming in over the issue of who's paying for what and who's really deciding where stations and all the rest are going. It's a case of consultation. So why did you not take them into consideration when you found out that one was going to be the preference over the other? I don't care what the reason is, but for some reason one is preferred over the other. Why didn't you discuss it with them and hope they would see the light, as you apparently did, and come to the same conclusion, rather than blind-siding them with the announcement: "Oh, today we've changed our minds. It's going to be SkyTrain"?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with estimates at all. But I'll answer the question once. The money we're talking about here is a commitment for 100 percent of phase one. So there's no. . . . If the member wishes to challenge us paying 100 percent, so be it. That would be appropriate for estimates.

We have been discussing a rapid transit route for ten years now, I believe. Those discussions have been as much led by the lower mainland municipalities, that very much need a rapid transit line in order to deliver on their Livable Region strategy. . . . The question of whether these negotiations would have gone more smoothly if we had stuck to light rapid transit is moot as well, but I would like to predict that they wouldn't have gone any more smoothly, because, indeed, the questions the municipalities are coping with right now around alignment are based on the alignment of the original LRT. The additional costs, over and above what we have committed to, requested by the municipalities involve additions to what was planned in 1995.

[1605]

So the problem with the negotiations is not with the provincial government. You know what? The proof is in the pudding for the taxpayer. There is 90 percent support for SkyTrain. The taxpayer wants it built efficiently and on budget, or below budget, and they want it built as quickly as possible. I'm one of those taxpayers. There's one taxpayer. They want it built, and they want it built now. We're going to build it. I am very hopeful that the GVTA will see that the greatest benefit in terms of future development will come from within the communities of their own members. Perhaps they will see their way clear to actually making a commitment to their own constituents -- but we're getting on with building it.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I was asking about consultation, and she didn't get around too much to that. If you're so committed and believe that's so great, it's interesting that you. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

D. Symons: . . .wouldn't have consulted through them -- through the Chair. Just reading from a Vancouver Sun editorial of June 25, 1998, it says: "SkyTrain is a fine system. As Mr. Puil points out, the contract has been radically changed without consultation, and that's a concern." And at the end it says. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: But they haven't paid a cent.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Symons: I'm not talking about the money.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes you are.

The Chair: Order, members.

D. Symons: I will be shortly. But more striking is the realization that before the first metre of track is laid, we already may have been taken for a ride. Now, we'll get onto the money a little later on, if I can. I appreciate the minister's comments about the fact that they haven't paid a cent, but what you are discussing -- and you're paying your $1.9 billion for -- is somewhat radically different from what people thought they were going to be discussing when the GVTA bill was passed, when discussions went on. It's not quite the same project anymore; so there are a lot of things that are different and there are a lot of other issues that have to be discussed, I guess, when we get around to the money later on.

One of the areas also of concern is the direction which the SkyTrain project is taking. Initially, when it was introduced, there were many people that believed -- and the GVTA is arguing right now -- that the first section that should be built was the Coquitlam-New Westminster section. It said it would fit in more. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: Who said that?

D. Symons: The GVTA has been arguing, I believe, that Coquitlam to New Westminster would be the favourable section to build as a first phase, rather than the phase you're currently building. So I'm wondering why -- if they've sug-

[ Page 13176 ]

Again, it's consultation. If you've given the authority to GVTA for decision-making in transportation -- and SkyTrain is only one portion of that transportation system, and certainly it's going to be very important that the buses and all of the other things that the GVTA are responsible for are going to be rejigged to feed the SkyTrain lines -- it's very important that you put in the system that the people who are going to inherit it are going to be comfortable with. By that, I mean the GVTA as the operators of this system. If they want a New Westminster to Coquitlam section first, why insist that we're going to put in the Broadway section first? Does it make that much difference to the government? If the local authorities want one section, why are you doing the other?

[1610]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'd be more than happy to do that. I'd be more than happy for the GVTA to decide on a route between New Westminster and Coquitlam. In fact, we're asking them to do that. There is no agreement.

I know that the member gets his research from the news media, and because a mayor stands up and says, "We want to have the route from New Westminster to Coquitlam first," the member may accept that. But if he'd actually go to the constituents and to the city council meetings, he'd find out that there is no agreement on a route. It's a very controversial topic. We have said, through the project offices: "Please decide on a route. Then we'll get the environmental assessment going, and then we'll get it built." So that's our commitment; that's my public commitment. That's the commitment through the staff of the Rapid Transit Project office. We want to get on with it as well. But to date, there has been no agreement on a route -- and let's be clear on that.

Secondly, the documents from GVRD, as recently as February of this year, say: "The recently announced project" -- referring to the ALRT -- "is consistent within this priority." They were referring to what order to build the rapid transit line in to shape regional growth. There's a reason for that. That is because the growth that's to occur in Coquitlam will occur in the future. It has not occurred yet.

Here's what the ridership numbers would be. The Broadway-Lougheed corridor will provide for 36.2 million riders per year. The New Westminster-Coquitlam corridor -- because the land shaping and the development have not yet occurred -- will provide an additional 14.8 million riders per year.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that's additional over the current system. So Broadway-Lougheed will add 36.2 million riders, because the land development has occurred. The New Westminster-Coquitlam corridor will provide 14.8 million -- less than half. Phase 1 of the line. . . . By 2006 the total ridership will be 100 million -- 30 million additional from the line that's being built first, and then an additional 9.5 million from the Coquitlam line. That's by 2006.

I have to say -- and I make this offer every day -- tell us where you want it built. Get approval for it, build it within budget, and we'll get on with it.

D. Symons: I think there have been indications where they want it built. I mentioned that earlier. The minister is differing with me on it.

I think part of the reason that you can get up and say, "Well, they want this one first" -- that's what you're saying -- is because you have said that you'll pay for the one route and give nothing to the other route. Basically, you're saying: "You must pay. . . ." When you're saying the 1.9 or 1.2 or whatever figure, you're deciding you're going to do the route that you've now decided to build. You say: "We'll pay for this." All the rest of it, that was considered when we were talking about a project that was going to cost $1.2 billion and that was going to be 33 kilometres long. . . . You're now saying: "We're going to put in a portion of that -- 21 kilometres. The rest of it is up to you." And the rest of it will add up to considerably more than what they thought they were paying: 40 percent of $1.5 billion, which was the figure the government gave when they changed from light rail to SkyTrain. They are willing to pay $600 million, and they said: "That's the cap, because that's what we did all our figuring on when we were discussing this with you for the GVTA agreement. We agreed to the concept of some things: it was going to be SkyTrain, it was going to be 33 kilometres long and cost $1.5 billion."

That's what they were told. Now you're saying: "Oh no, that's off the board." You said that earlier. You said: "We're going to pay" -- I think you said -- "$1.9 billion." That's all government money, not shared. You're paying $1.9 billion, but that is for just one portion of that 33 kilometres. Is that not correct?

[1615]

I will tell you that for the member to stand up and say we've not committed anything, or, "Isn't this awful, isn't this hypocritical" -- that we're saying we're forcing the GVTA into a system, that there should have been consultation and that we're not committing enough money to it -- is dead wrong.

Let me just say it once again: the GVTA hasn't committed a cent. So I expect the member to stand up and say next -- I hope he does, it is his job as a provincial MLA: "How in the heck, provincial government, can you afford to pay for the whole system?" I'm hoping that will be his next question, because that would be what it's his job to do, rather than to shill for the GVTA and take a change from his position of last year.

This government has committed $1.9 billion, which will build from New Westminster to Lougheed to VCC and from Lougheed to Coquitlam. That will build that line.

[ Page 13177 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, the provincial government has committed $1.9 billion to build all of that.

Now, there is a problem beyond Vancouver Community College, and we agree that there is a problem. We agree because Broadway. . . . I don't expect that there will be easy constituency buy-in along Broadway to do what is necessary. We're in discussions with the city of Vancouver. I understand the city of Vancouver discussions are going extremely well. We've said that when the city of Vancouver decides what they would wish to happen beyond Vancouver Community College, and if it's light rapid transit that we're going to build, then we'll sit down and we'll work out the cost-sharing arrangements then.

D. Symons: It's interesting. We're getting a little hot under the collar and also giving out, I think, some wrong information again. I will clarify a little bit.

If you want to know where I stood on the GVTA bill last year, I was against it. You said that, and I agree with you. But for all the other reasons that you've said. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

D. Symons: . . .regarding the reason why -- through the Chair -- the answer was no. . . . It wasn't what you were saying. It had to do with the funding formula, and that was the only reason. I was thinking that the GVTA was getting the short end of the stick on the funding formula when they're getting bridges. That's why I voted against it: because the funding formula was such that you're throwing bridges, ferries and roads in, along with the transit system, and the change of funding source you were giving was somewhat. . . . It was about equal to what you were contributing as subsidies to B.C. Transit in Vancouver area, but there were a lot more responsibilities they had.

That's the reason I voted against it. I did not vote against it because of the particular technology on one side or the other or because I was for or against -- I happen to be for the concept of some form of rapid transit in Vancouver.

The minister did say, in her thing, something new to me. By the way, if the minister is saying that I'm being a shill for the GVTA, then she must be saying that what I've been saying is more or less their particular point of view. If that's the case, then I'm pleased to be speaking on behalf of the community where I live in the GVTA area. If I'm being a shill for them in this issue, then so be it. I would prefer to do that than be a shill for the government on this issue.

But you did say one thing that's different from what I understood, and I just want clarification on that. I am going to get to funding later on, after I do a few other topics; we'll get there. That is the fact that you said that you're going to pay $1.9 billion -- that is all B.C. government money, and that will be from Clark Drive roughly out to Coquitlam, and the connector down to New Westminster. Is that what I heard the minister say -- that they're paying for all that? I understood -- up until you made that comment -- that it was to Lougheed Mall, then to New Westminster, leaving out the Coquitlam connection. So you are -- the government is -- now funding that portion fully, 100 percent?

[1620]

The latest offer that we've made. . . . First of all, let me be clear. The revenue sources that we transferred to GVTA -- provincial dedicated revenue sources -- included servicing of. . . . How many millions on the SkyTrain? It included debt servicing, gasoline tax revenue -- which we turned over to them. They get all the growth out of it. It was unprecedented. It was for a total of $867 million, which included a capital investment in upgrading the current line and $600 million of financing for investing into the new line.

That's revenue. . . . Prior to us turning over that money, the GVTA had contributed zero. After us turning over that provincial revenue source, the GVTA had contributed zero of their own money. So there's $867 million of money financed by the provincial government. Then on top of that, we said we'll build the entire L-line -- $1.2 billion. So that's the commitment we've made so far. That's enough money to upgrade the current line, add the capacity, add the cars that are necessary for the capacity increase and build the line as described. And so far, the GVTA, of their own money, have contributed zero.

D. Symons: Now, if everything is just as the minister said, I will congratulate the minister, because I think this is very good. And I would expect the GVTA to put some of their money into it. I'm wondering, however. . . . If we go back to what I understood the case to be a little while ago, it was $1.2 billion that the government was going to put into it, and that was going to leave out the Coquitlam one. Building the L-line was basically going to be conditional upon the GVTA picking up and building the remainder of it and putting in a few stations that had been dropped out and parking lots and a few other things that go with it. That would have come out to more than the $600 million that they had considered the ceiling of what they were going to pay.

When the minister says we are now building the whole T-line, which she did a moment ago, and we're putting $1.9 billion, the cost of that line -- a substantial amount of money -- in there, are we leaving the full amount of money that was transferred through the GVTA bill in the hands of the GVTA? Are we now going to claw some back because we're saying: "Oh, you're not carrying through with the provisions that we made when we were going to put in the SkyTrain"? Is there a clawback involved there, or do they keep all the money? If that's the case, I think you're getting shorted in this thing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly agree. I doubt that any British Columbian -- especially one who lives in your constituency or mine -- would say: "My gosh! Oh well, if you want to build a city hall with that money, that's fine, or if you want to invest in" -- I don't know -- "a theatre, that's fine." The money is for building SkyTrain. I don't want to make any idle threats to the GVTA. The money is there, legally committed, for them to build SkyTrain. But I have to tell you that if they don't build SkyTrain, I will be going to my colleagues and into the Legislature to say: "This was the commitment. This money is dedicated to building rapid transit, and they're not doing it. What is your wish?" -- and give them several options.

[ Page 13178 ]

[1625]

Nowhere in that GVTA bill, and nowhere in the memorandum of understanding, have I read. . . . Nowhere in there did I see anything that said that that amount of money transferred through the bill was conditional upon building any portion at all of a SkyTrain route. It was mentioned in section 33 what rapid transit was, but there was no mention that the funding portion there for operating the transit system and for the GVTA responsibilities was contingent upon carrying out that particular project.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm at a loss what this has to do with estimates, but I don't. . . .

D. Symons: The $1.9 billion.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm at a loss to know what this has to do with estimates, because the transfer of those revenues occurred already. That was a revenue transfer through the tax legislation. But let me just say it again. The negotiations that took place, of which I was very proud at the time. . . . I must say that I had hoped for better in championing the transfer of public transit to a regional authority.

Believe you me, I did champion it amongst our government. It was unbelievably difficult to go to my cabinet and caucus colleagues in a time when there were declining revenues in the province and say: "You know what? It makes sense to transfer substantial amounts of provincial revenue to the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority, because they're going to be able to do the job in a way that makes sense." Indeed, it would have been just as easy to keep that money and perhaps have a better bottom line -- which the Liberals are incredibly interested in. But no, the cabinet and caucus agreed that building rapid transit was important, and more important was the concept of regional control of transit. So we did it.

If you go and talk to any one of the negotiators or the politicians involved in those negotiations, every single one who will be forthright with you and show their working documents will tell you that a portion of that transfer of revenue was specifically to build SkyTrain -- to build light rapid transit. And if any single negotiator or politician is suggesting otherwise, then that means that they were saying: "Oh, maybe we can build City Hall. Maybe we can build some fancy-geschmantzy bridge." Never was that discussed, written down or contemplated.

What was contemplated was a dedicated revenue source equal to funding what they at the time committed to -- $600 million on the new system and a further $287 million to upgrade and expand the capital on the current system. That's what that was committed for, and I'll tell you something: if indeed the GVTA is now going to suggest that they have the ability to build whatever they see fit with that money, I will be happy to campaign on that against the GVTA.

The Chair: I will once again remind all members to please direct their comments and questions to the Chair and also to refer to parties opposite as member or minister.

D. Symons: Again, my thoughts to the minister. We're having a lively discussion here on GVTA and so forth. I think it's a valuable discussion, because it's also a discussion that's going on, I think, through the member organizations of the GVTA, and their concerns about exactly what's happening. There is confusion among the various mayors in the lower mainland as to what's going on, and there is certainly confusion within the GVTA. People in there seem not to be sure, because there didn't quite seem to be an understanding when they were entering into all of these negotiations. First, it was going to be SkyTrain, but we've dealt with that already. Second, the moneys that were being transferred to them were contingent upon them completing a given section of it, because, indeed, they were agreeing to a 40-60 split of a project that they were told was going to cost $1.5 billion.

It seems that all of those funding things have changed. The project seemed to have changed at one time, and now the minister's telling me that Coquitlam's back in. But certainly it was out for a while. Their own documents on projects seem to imply that that was the case.

[1630]

I'll just read the next one, to be fair to the minister here. It says that RTP 2000 is working closely with the city of Vancouver on the Vancouver West study, which is scheduled for completion and public review in January 2000. So indeed, they are working on that. But certainly we will find many documents that talk about the importance. . . . And quite often documents that we find include Coquitlam in the first phase of the project.

Again, the idea of this transfer of authority through the Vancouver area said that we were going to talk about the scope, the cost, design. These were things that were to be agreed upon. It seems that they don't agree on the cost; they're not agreeing on the scope; and apparently for a while there was some disagreement on the design, but I think that is now taken care of. So we still have the scope and the cost areas.

The minister is saying, "Well, some of that scope thing has been cleared up now," so we're really left with the cost factor, where there seems to still be some confusion between the fact. . . . The minister said a moment ago: "$600 million -- the GVTA. . . ." They were willing to put that on the table, from everything I can gather. They said that's their cap. But somehow you added in another $280 million that I don't think they were quite aware they were committing themselves to. I know they were committing themselves to advancing the bus fleet; there are a lot of replacements that need doing there. But they're afraid that if they go beyond the cap of $600 million that they said, they will not be able to do all the other things they're going to do with the funding that you have contributed to them.

We'll admit to that; you've passed over funding that initially went to them. But at the same time, we must also remember that when you transferred the gas tax and other things over to give them a funding stream -- the hospital fees

[ Page 13179 ]

Now, maybe if we drink a lot of gasoline in the lower mainland, so they use a lot more gas, they'll get more funding from that dedicated gasoline tax. Of course, that'll go counterproductive to what you're saying: "We're putting SkyTrain in to save the environment." But you're basically encouraging people to drive their cars to fund the darn system. So I'm just curious here. We have this business of the "not certain about it." You've made it sound as if suddenly you've given a great gift to the Vancouver area in tax money. You have given them dedicated money, but you've taken out some subsidies that pretty well balance off. They say, too, that $600 million is about the cap they can do and still not have to increase much in the way of taxes. There's still some difference and concern between what you're saying and what they understand the situation to be.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've gone through it. The member can get the Blues out when they're published, and we can debate again about what I said then.

Hon. Chair, the reason why I'm so disappointed in the GVTA -- I'll be frank -- is because this is an unprecedented agreement, anywhere in North America, reached between a senior level of government and a regional authority. That was an admission of the chair, George Puil, at the inauguration.

Quite frankly, because of politics -- either intermunicipal politics or partisan politics, with the GVTA wanting to not do anything to offend the Liberal opposition, because, of course, the Liberal opposition has threatened not to build SkyTrain. . . . In fact, they haven't threatened; they've said they won't complete SkyTrain. So maybe it's a matter of bullying; they're being bullied into fear by the Liberal opposition. Of course, the Liberal opposition leader said: "We won't cancel contracts, but SkyTrain ain't anywhere on our agenda."

[1635]

The issue on the line to Coquitlam is this: we are committed to it. The reason why we're doing feasibility studies is because there are three choices, and nobody has agreed on a choice yet. That's what a feasibility study is: to see which line is feasible. In fact, a year later, after the announcement. . . . Here we are a year later, and you -- through the Chair -- want consultation? We've had a year of consultation, and we're nowhere closer to a line to Coquitlam. We're waiting for them to decide on the route to Coquitlam, and then we can get going on the environmental assessment. We can get those approvals done, make the changes that are needed to get environmental approval, and then we'll build it.

D. Symons: I'm just reading again from a document -- greater Vancouver regional district, June 23, 1998 -- addressed to the minister from Mr. Puil. He said:

"I would like to confirm the following points that we made at our meeting with you:

"[1.] Under the agreement to establish the GVTA, the province is obliged to construct the entire 'T' LRT-line;

"[2.] In the negotiations with the province and the process involving member municipalities and the public that led to the ratification of the GVTA agreement by the GVRD board, financial projections provided by the province were used in which the capital cost of the T-line was estimated to be $1.15 billion in 1994 dollars. The GVTA was found by various analyses to be financially capable of paying its 40 percent share of this capital cost. Any escalation in the estimated capital cost of the T-line would jeopardize the GVTA's ability to deliver other needed transportation services. This, in turn, would necessitate reconsideration by the GVRD and its members of their participation in the project; and

"[3.] Any decision to utilize SkyTrain technology as an alternative to LRT for all or part of the T-line must be based upon a full and comparative study of capital and operating costs of both, including the financial and scheduling implications for the full T-line and other transportation services to be provided by the GVTA."

Hon. J. MacPhail: I fail to see what this has to do with estimates. It has nothing to do with estimates, as a matter of fact -- absolutely nothing.

The Chair: Member, on the vote.

D. Symons: I take that as a no, the study hasn't been done. So we can move on, then, to the next one.

I have an administrative report from the city of Vancouver done just recently, March 15 of this year, to go to council on March 23. They talk about collaborative planning with the province. Their interest in this case on the extension the minister mentioned earlier is really the western part, from Commercial Drive over to Granville. Or, carrying on to a better terminus, it would be Arbutus, I believe. They make a comment on this particular portion of it:

"The information particularly as to ridership and costs available from the Rapid Transit Project office is insufficient to allow the city to properly advise the province on the proposed SkyTrain extension underground from Vancouver City College to Arbutus. Building SkyTrain to Vancouver City College may constrain the options for the Broadway corridor from Commercial Drive west. Moreover, terminating the SkyTrain line at VCC does not make sense."

[ Page 13180 ]

[1640]

D. Symons: The reason for the question is, I think, obvious: the B-Line is likely to be one of the sources of people who are going to move off of the bus and onto the rapid transit you're putting in. That certainly turned out to be the case when they put SkyTrain in. They talked about taking cars off the road and everything else when they put it along the Kingsway route to New Westminster.

The studies that were performed after and the results I got from the person that's now Premier of the province tell me that what really happened is that we took people off the buses and put them on rapid transit. It got them downtown much quicker, and that's great, but it didn't take as many cars off the road as people estimated. Much of the ridership actually came from previous transit users. I think we'll find that what will happen along Broadway. . . . You put in the B-Line, which is a really good bus -- a nice express bus along there -- but I think you'll find that you'll take people off the B-Line, because there won't be any need for it once we have rapid transit along there. You will also take people off the current buses, I suspect. Much of your ridership will probably come from current transit ridership. That's why I was asking for that figure, because I think the ridership we have currently along that route is going to be necessary, particularly when you get SkyTrain in there -- to determine whether indeed that is the case.

We talked about finances earlier, and the minister went on quite heavily about the amount of money that the government is putting into it and how miserly the GVTA is in putting nothing into it. But it wasn't totally a gift, the total amount of yours that I said, because you took back something as well. In the process of giving them a funding stream, you took back a funding stream that the government had given directly to them, rather than the dedicated funding you've now given them.

I'm reading from Hansard, 1989. Again, you might think that this is irrelevant, but it is definitely relevant. The person here says: "I think the question of money and who pays for the LRT now is really the key. I would like, Madam Minister, to put forward a modest proposal: reconsider the patchwork financing formula that the previous minister, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain" -- Ms. McCarthy back then -- "developed of 50-50 sharing of the capital cost of LRT. See the unfairness of that, compared to the 100 percent financing that's available for freeways." The member speaking was Mr. Harcourt, the previous Premier of the province. He's basically saying: "Well, look, if you have to build a highway, the government is going to pay all of it." Well, they've devolved a lot of highways now, and they might not do that. But there is some precedent for that particular fact -- that when we build highways, we pay for it through government generally, but when we put transit systems in, the local people put something into it. You're saying right now that maybe the locals aren't putting enough into it. I think that if everything I'm being told is correct. . . .

But the minister again did not quite answer my question of quite a bit earlier. The minister did not answer the question as to whether, if you put in the T-line -- a full T-line, as you said -- there's going to be any clawback on the funding that you gave them. I think you sort of indicated that likelihood. Is that what you've explained to the people in negotiations with the GVTA?

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I did answer that. I don't contemplate doing that, because I expect the GVTA to live up to their agreement. That's outlined in your letter, actually. The member said earlier that there was no evidence that the GVTA had agreed to commit to $600 million to build rapid transit. Well, actually, in the June 23 letter of Mr. Puil -- the section he read out -- that outlines their commitment to it, right there in the letter. So, gee, I'm glad we got that resolved. But I have to tell you, if they plan on doing something other than contributing that money to building the rapid transit line, then they're in violation of the legislation that transferred the revenue source to them. I will take that violation to my cabinet and caucus colleagues with several options of how we rectify that violation. I'm not making any threats, and I'm not landing on any option. I fully expect the GVTA to live up to their commitment to that money going to building rapid transit. God forbid that they actually commit beyond it.

[1645]

The Chair: Through the Chair.

D. Symons: The minister is saying that we're doing 100 percent on one thing and zero on the rest. But if the minister is saying that we are going to go back and maybe reconsider that funding formula, then there must be something in the minister's mind as to what they are to do in order that that funding won't be taken back. So maybe we'll ask what it is that the minister is insisting they do, since the minister has said: "We're putting in the full T-line." What is the minister expecting that they are going to do with their $600 million? How are they going to invest it in the remainder?

Does she want them to build a line from Vancouver Community College to Arbutus or Granville? Is that what's expected, since the minister says they're paying for the rest of the project? Is that what they're doing, or are they putting in some of the stations that have been dropped, or are they putting in the park-and-ride facilities? What exactly is the minister expecting them to put in with their $600 million, so that they won't face what sounds very much like a bit of a threat: "If you don't do something we want you to do -- put your shekels into this basket along with ours -- we may come back to cabinet here and talk about it again." If the minister can explain exactly what she wants them to do. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no threat, and I would ask the member to stop putting words in my mouth. There is no threat; I don't deal in threats. I have worked very hard to have a congenial, cooperative relationship and have championed GVTA. But the fact of the matter is that there was a debated legislative commitment of transfer of provincial revenues to

[ Page 13181 ]

Would the member suggest that the government should sit back idly and let them go ahead and build a city hall with money that's meant for public transit, build swimming pools with money that's meant for public transit or enhance their own salaries with money that's meant for public transit? I think not. But if that is the position of the Liberal opposition, then we'll have that debate at the time that they violate the legislation.

Here is the situation, and this is the set of negotiations. They're no more complex than this: it costs $1.9 billion to build the line from Vancouver Community College to Lougheed Mall to Coquitlam and from Lougheed Mall to New Westminster. The provincial government has committed, either through transfer of provincial revenue sources or through direct capital investment, $1.9 billion for the new system. A better way to put it would be: $2.87 billion to upgrade the old system and build the new system. And all of that can be done for the total amount of money that the provincial government has committed.

I don't know what the GVTA's problem in reaching an agreement is. I have no idea what their problem is.

D. Symons: In spite of the fact that I think the minister thinks we've gone nowhere, I think we have, because I've now seen something else in her last answer. You said the $1.9 billion seems to include the moneys that have been transferred to the GVTA.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

D. Symons: So you are using some of the moneys -- or assuming that you're going to be using some of the money, one way or the other -- that have been given through the GVTA bill as a funding dedication to the city.

[1650]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair -- my gosh -- I fail to see what this has to do with estimates; I really do.

The system costs $1.9 billion to build. And so far, prior to April -- well, at any time -- with sources that are from the GVTA, there's been zero committed. Zero committed -- okay? So all of the money that's been committed to build the entire system comes from provincial sources. If you actually take what. . . . Even if you. . . .

Hon. member, I'll wait for you to actually hear this. I don't mind. I mean, this isn't a criticism. I'll just wait.

T. Nebbeling: I can listen and speak.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, I'm talking about the other member. Your skills are unprecedented.

I'd actually love a blackboard. The system costs $1.9 billion to build. And prior to the government making a commitment, either through transfer of provincial resources or through actually committing on capital, the GVTA has nothing in the pot -- zero, nada. Everywhere else in the province, actually, there's a proportion of residential property taxes that goes to public transit. The GVTA communities? Nothing. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they commit residential property taxes. The source of property tax -- the hospital commitment to property tax, which went to the province -- has been transferred. We took up all of that cost, and they now dedicate that to public transit -- I think. I don't know. If they say they're not going to contribute the $600 million, I don't know what they're doing with that. So the project costs $1.9 billion. GVTA has not had to commit one iota of money to it, so we're actually paying 100 percent of the costs -- okay?

But if you were going to say that in the negotiations, they got an agreement from the provincial government absolutely that we would fund the $600 million and that the $600 million is now their money to dedicate to public transit -- if you allow for that -- then they're paying $600 million. . . . Well, they're not agreeing to this. What they're not agreeing to do is pay $600 million of $1.9 billion, which I think is around 35 percent, which is less than 40 percent. That's what they're not agreeing to do.

D. Symons: We're certainly agreeing on that point. They're not agreeing to going beyond the $600 million. Rather than carry on too much, I think we can move on a little bit in here, but we certainly are going to touch on this topic over and over again as the afternoon wears on.

I gather that a lot of this becomes sort of mixed in with what we've been discussing. I wonder if the minister can give me a rough idea of what the extension from VCC to Clark Drive may be. You're saying you're in discussions with Vancouver and so forth, but there must be some rough estimate. I gather one solution to the problem, you're saying, is a bored tunnel, which is very expensive. If you can give me an idea, maybe I'll wait for. . . .

Hon. J. MacPhail: You said VCC to Clark Drive. That is. . . .

D. Symons: Oh, sorry. I beg your pardon.

Hon. J. MacPhail: To Cambie?

D. Symons: No, to Granville.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

[1655]

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're having those discussions with the city right now. That's what the study. . . . The member

[ Page 13182 ]

D. Symons: There's no ballpark figure or parameter -- that it's likely to be between $700 million and $1 billion or something of that sort. No? Well, maybe there was an answer coming. No?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there's no ballpark figure. But rest assured that once we decide, I'll make that information public for sure.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me the capital costs of SkyTrain. Would you have anybody here that could answer questions on that? I want to compare the costs of that to the current SkyTrain. I'll pass these questions on to the minister after, and we'll deal with those. If you could, through some source, find the answers for me, I'd appreciate that.

Again, these are some quotes from the Premier, who basically, back in '92-93, made comments about the horrendous capital costs of SkyTrain and how much that really pulled down the ability of Transit to do other projects. The minister mentioned -- and I think she was being facetious in mentioning it -- that they would build a city hall or a swimming pool, or whatever, with this money that they're gleaning from the government's transfers. I'm sure there are enough transit issues around the lower mainland that they could use up most of that. They need 600 buses almost immediately, and there are many other projects there that they'd certainly like to get into. So I don't think they are going to rip the system off, as the minister might suggest, by putting in zilch, as she said, and then using the money for some other, totally irrelevant to transit, program.

Last year I asked the minister: what is the cost recovery rate projected for the SkyTrain expansion? The answer she gave me at that time was that it hasn't been done yet. We've had one year from then to now, so I'm wondering if you might be able to give me that figure.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I assume the member means: what are the revenue projections for the expansion? Cost recovery -- I don't understand. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Revenue projections. Okay. The total cost per boarded passenger currently is -- well, for '97-98 -- $4.37. With the addition of the L-line and then the T-line, the revenues are forecast to be. . . . The total cost per boarded passenger is forecast to fall to $3.64 per passenger by the year 2003 and $3.04 per passenger by the year 2007 -- so from $4.37 down to $3.04 per boarded passenger.

[1700]

I am concerned a little bit when I hear these projections, because I do remember something called the West Coast Express where we had riderships of 9,000 to 11,000 per day projected. After a year and a half, I think, they said they would have that -- and that was, again, the minister responsible for Transit. And you know, those numbers have not yet been achieved, so I wish you luck on these. Has there been a business plan done for the SkyTrain project?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

D. Symons: Of course, the next question is. . . . I would like a copy of it, if that's possible. I assume that would be possible.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It was released publicly, but I'll make sure that you get it.

D. Symons: I'm not sure how I managed to miss that, but I don't believe I have it. I have so much paper on SkyTrain that I may indeed, but I'll go through it and let the minister know then.

We have been asking for some things. Here is one thing we asked for back in April of this year. We asked for a copy of all documents which examine ways of reducing the costs of the planned expansion of the SkyTrain through the communities of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Moody and New Westminster, and those studies that might have been done from June 1998 to date. We were advised that "the Rapid Transit Project office does not have any records that pertain to your request." I'm surprised that you haven't been looking at some sort of way of keeping costs down and haven't done some studies on lowering costs. Have there been no studies done maybe by somebody other than the rapid transit office -- or commissioned by somebody else?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, the major source of pressure on additional costs is coming from the municipalities -- just so the member knows. In fact, I think hundreds of millions of dollars of increased requests to add costs to the SkyTrain line are coming from municipalities, and we have resisted them. The public consultation process was based on staying within budget and developing cost efficiencies even within that budget.

I'm curious to know what the member would. . . . Please give examples of how reducing costs. . . . This is an extremely efficient, cost-effective system that's being built. In fact, that's one of the complaints of the municipalities. They want more bells and whistles, and they want a more luxurious system.

[ Page 13183 ]

D. Symons: I was just asking whether you had. . . . Obviously you're saying that they haven't been doing any particular costs other than you hoped that you had everything down to the minimum cost to begin with. I would assume that is what the minister was saying.

You may indeed be building a world-class system. Indeed, we may have some world-class fast ferries -- except those world-class fast ferries are costing roughly 100 percent more than we were told they were going to cost. So I think we have the problem that just saying we have a world-class system isn't the only thing we have to consider. We have to consider what things are going to cost.

[1705]

Hon. J. MacPhail: My understanding -- and certainly this is how I'm doing it -- is that you plan a project within budget and you deliver within budget. And that's what we're doing: we'll deliver on time and within budget. We have adjusted the schedule to make sure that the environmental approval is done; we wanted to make sure that there was a proper environmental assessment done. So we're within budget, and we remain within budget. We're awarding fixed-price contracts.

Just so the member knows, the way the planning and design was done for the original project was what's called value engineering studies. They're underway now, but you can't do the value-engineering studies until you've done the original design. Then you impose the value-engineering studies on the design and the plans to make sure that they're most effective, and you make alterations if necessary.

D. Symons: I understand the minister's answer, and I understand, certainly on the Island Highway when it was being built. . . . Certain phases of that highway project cost more -- property acquisition and so forth. What you were able to do then was change interchanges into intersections and save a considerable amount of money in that way -- or make four lanes into two lanes. There are ways of adjusting the project in order that you end up meeting the ends of keeping it within the framework of a certain budget. I'm not too sure, with something like the SkyTrain project, whether you can cheapen on the building of the guideway or something of that sort. You can't, and I'm not indicating that you would even consider it. I just think there's very little latitude in what you can change in the project in order to keep costs down if there are some pressures put on costs, either because there's been a delay in it or. . . .

The other side I want to ask is: has the Rapid Transit Project or anyone else done a study on the costs that may increase because of the fact that you're fast-tracking this? Have you done a study on whether, if it had been done on a normal time line compared to fast-tracking, there are any increased costs because you're doing it in a much shorter time frame?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm just trying to figure out why the member would think that there would be additional costs, because there are cost savings. You build quicker. It's the same amount of cost, but you're building it quicker, and it's going into revenue more quickly. The interest costs are actually lower, doing it over a shorter period of time, than when amortized over a longer period of time. So there are savings.

D. Symons: It's interesting. When the project was going to be a light rail project, in that 1995 pre-election document that the government put out, they had a phase 1 for the project. It was going to be corridor and technology evaluation. That had been completed, apparently. Phase 2, '96-'97, was detailed planning, preliminary design and engineering; phase 3, '97-98, was detailed design and engineering; phase 4, 1998-2000, was engineering and construction. You can see that there was quite a long period of time in there. Phases 1, 2 and 3 didn't seem to get done between '95 and '98. That was supposed to be there, so in '98 we were supposed to begin construction.

That project sort of disappeared off the map sometime after the election took place. You would think that maybe some of those things had been done. You would think that because the corridor is essentially the same, you would have already, back in '95 or '96, for instance, entered into doing the environmental assessment. The corridor is the same. Rather than finding a way of avoiding doing an environmental assessment and primarily doing a review of other studies and doing PR sort of public forums on social issues around SkyTrain. . . . There wasn't that much done on the ground and in geotechnical studies. It seems that the project that was planned before was over a fairly long period of time. The detailed planning and what not was beginning in '96. It wasn't going to be completed till 2008.

[1710]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not going to comment on the original plan for why it was going to take till 2005 and 2008, why it was going to take ten years to. . . . Wasn't that what we announced in 1995? I'm not going to comment on those time lines except to say that they weren't acceptable to the public.

Here's how we save money. Oh, first of all, the first SkyTrain line was built in a substantially smaller amount of time than what we're proposing to build this in -- 36 months as opposed to the 42 months for building this project.

But what's also different, what's enhanced this project, is that the people who are building this built the first three lines. There's a huge amount of expertise. They also built the line in Kuala Lumpur. The budget has incorporated into it the experience of these experts. I might add that in British Columbia there is no expertise in construction of light rapid transit -- none. So there are certainly enhancements to be had on behalf of the taxpayer for staying with the same technology.

[ Page 13184 ]

D. Symons: I think that if the minister looks back at SkyTrain 1, I'll call it, the portion from Vancouver to New Westminster maybe took the time you said. But the portion you're planning on building in about a two-year time frame. . . . From what I hear the government has spoken of doing, that's going to be done in roughly a 24-month period. You're doing roughly the same length when you go from Vancouver Community College down to New Westminster. So I don't think, when you're saying you're doing something in 36 months, that it's a great deal different than was done by the previous government. There were cost overruns on that particular project. The NDP members of the House of the day read those things into it. It cost more, apparently, than had originally been budgeted for.

Just carrying on with some of the other concerns, this is of March 21 of this year. So I'm getting closer to the current date; I've been reading things from a year or so back. This is the district of North Vancouver. They're considering a SkyTrain injunction. That shows the degree to which they are concerned about what's going on here. They've sent a letter to the auditor general of the province, where they're saying there are five areas of concern. It says: ". . .there is no publicly available information establishing that the SkyTrain extension project has been subjected to a proper financial approval process."

I'm not sure if the minister would like to talk about that. Do you want to go through these seriatim? Or do you want to take the whole pile of them?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Go ahead.

D. Symons: The second comment they made is: ". . .the size of the total financial commitment has not been disclosed, even in approximate terms." The minister is now saying that's not true. They've got the $1.9 billion there, so we've got a figure on that one.

The next one is: ". . .there is no confirmation of which minister is legally accountable for the SkyTrain extension project." I'm not sure what that means; maybe the minister will know what that means. Fourth: ". . .there is no realistic plan for the completion of the SkyTrain extension project on time and on budget." The fifth one is: ". . .the SkyTrain extension project does not provide 'value for money.' "

If you might comment on some or all of those, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We released a PricewaterhouseCoopers study that answers all of those questions. I can make that copy available to the member.

I don't think I'll respond to a city council that wishes to stop the projects. They can make allegations all they wish. We haven't heard from the auditor general, but we welcome the auditor general if he wishes to take up their questions. We'll participate and cooperate fully.

[1715]

So they talk about contracts being signed, and we're going to get to the meat of this in a moment. We carry on to a further one. Section 3.8 talks about major contracts. It says:

"The B.C. Transit, B.C. Rapid Transit Co. Ltd. and West Coast Express Ltd. will advise the region in a timely manner of any major contracts, agreements or other commitments that they are considering or propose to consider that involve or significantly affect the assets or responsibilities that may be subsequently transferred to the GVTA. . . ."

"At the request of the region, after notification of a decision on a major contract, agreement or commitment is made by the board of B.C. Transit, B.C. Rapid Transit Co. Ltd. or West Coast Express Ltd., the decision, other than a decision regarding the renewal of a collective agreement, or a decision to meet regulatory or other legal requirements, will be referred back to the relevant board for reconsideration. . . . Any decision that is challenged with this process will not be implemented until the dispute resolution process has been concluded."

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

D. Symons: Do I understand the minister, then -- that there is no agreement with Bombardier relating to the operation and maintenance of either the old or the new SkyTrain project?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Correct.

D. Symons: Then that brings us to an added problem, because article 11 of the contract signed by the government with Bombardier setting up the plant here -- the centre for advanced transit systems and so forth -- has some particular parts that talk about operating and maintenance contracts and the obligation of the government basically to carry out giving those contracts to Bombardier. We have: "[Rapid Transit Project] 2000 wishes to support and promote the establishment of Bombardier's centre for advanced transit systems as follows. . ." -- and I'll skip down to -- (d) "by entering or causing to enter into a long term contract -- the operations and maintenance contract -- with Bombardier to operate and maintain the new SkyTrain system and existing SkyTrain system in the Greater Vancouver area. . . ."

They obviously want to be involved in that. We find later on that basically -- I'll skip on to other sections here. . . .

[ Page 13185 ]

So I'm wondering if the minister might indicate then, since you haven't entered into a contract -- that's really, I think, the GVTA's responsibility as an operating and maintenance aspect of the project, not a capital one -- how you're going to be dealing with Bombardier and the agreement that you seem to have made through a memorandum of understanding that that would be part of the deal in entering into building a production plant here.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We haven't commenced negotiations yet. We will, in the fall, and the GVTA will be involved.

[1720]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We are entering into negotiations for the operations and maintenance contract. The GVTA will be involved. Of course, in my view it makes eminent sense that the owner of the proprietary technology take the risk on the operations and maintenance. In fact, it makes such eminent sense that that's what happened on the first round of SkyTrain and proved to extremely effective. I'm sure we'll conclude a contract and that the GVTA will see that it makes eminent sense as well.

There is a clause in the MOU that says that Bombardier does have the right to sell to the province -- it's a standard business contract -- but that's only if we don't complete our obligations under the memorandum of understanding, which requires us to make our best effort to conclude an operations and maintenance agreement. I happen to think that common sense will prevail on behalf of the taxpayers and that it will make sense that the owner of the technology take the risk in operations and maintenance. That's common sense.

Bombardier has said clearly and publicly that it has no intention of abandoning British Columbia. There is much more to their commitment to British Columbia than simply the building of our SkyTrain cars and our operations and maintenance. They're here as the gateway centre to the Asia-Pacific rim. This is a major investment in and commitment to British Columbia in the areas of public transit and high technology. It's exactly the kind of industry that British Columbians want, and it's a huge commitment by Bombardier. They have said that there's no chance that they'll be abandoning the centre. But in the absolutely remote and unlikely event that this clause has to be exercised, the price would be at Bombardier's depreciated cost, not the market value. If that occurs, then the province will have a valuable asset at a much depreciated cost.

I'm always amazed at how members opposite can claim to be so wishing to assist British Columbia's economy and have investment here, and then slam an investment like Bombardier with such disdain. It really is reprehensible. Last year Bombardier was a $9 billion international company operating in 14 countries. They have 47,000 employees, and they've never shut down a plant anywhere.

D. Symons: I missed -- when I was "slamming" Bombardier. . . . I was asking questions about a contract, which the government said. . . . Anyway, I would appreciate the minister giving me that so that I'll be up to date on it.

One thing that interests me, though, is that you're going to Bombardier. We do seem to have people here who have been working for the past decade now on the maintenance and operations of a SkyTrain system. We already have trained staff in that particular field, and so I'm wondering why you're basically outsourcing something when you already have the expertise to do that. You're saying: "Well, because they're building it." We have a SkyTrain system here that works very well, and we have people who've operated it for a decade.

[1725]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The current operations will stay, with all of the expertise. It'll grow under Bombardier and under the new system. Frankly, when I was in Kuala Lumpur looking at the new system, employees that had been trained and had been operating our system were in Kuala Lumpur. That's exactly what Bombardier plans to do. It's a world-class centre for research, development and training as well. That's what they're going to do. It's extremely exciting. They're going to take the expertise that we've got now, they're going to grow it, and they're going to ship it worldwide.

D. Symons: I guess what the minister's saying, then, is that as part of our contribution to this advanced technology, basically we're giving, in a sense. . . . Our operations centre is a training facility, in a sense. We could have done it, you're saying, but we're not doing it because we're assisting Bombardier in its expansion of its particular role in that matter in the world. I'm just wondering, if we've sent people from our SkyTrain technology to Kuala Lumpur to operate there, why we aren't the ones doing it, rather than Bombardier, or why the GVTA isn't going to be given the opportunity to be the ones doing it, rather than Bombardier. Maybe this is a business we should be getting into, rather than giving it to a Quebec firm.

Hon. J. MacPhail: An interesting approach: more public sector involvement at the expense of the private sector. It's perhaps a new business platform of the Liberal opposition. That's the first I've heard of it -- public sector, not private

[ Page 13186 ]

We're not in the business of setting up a private sector manufacturing plant. That's what Bombardier is doing. They're bringing investment. They've made a $175 million commitment under a procurement agreement -- how do you say it? -- a facilities agreement. They're bringing $175 million to British Columbia to invest in British Columbia companies through the centre for advanced transit systems.

The original SkyTrain operation was managed by the company of the day, UTDC. It was operated and maintained by that for three years. With the new system, the risk is taken by the owner of the proprietary technology. That's what it's all about. That's exactly what we're doing in this case as well. We have the expertise, but we don't have a training centre. Bombardier contracted these employees, took these employees that were operating the SkyTrain system. Bombardier were the ones that took them to Kuala Lumpur and set up the training operation there. But now these employees are available to us as well. Bombardier is going to set up a training centre that will be worldwide. At a minimum, there are going to be 165 new jobs at the centre for advanced transit systems. It's wonderful news.

D. Symons: The minister did clear up a little bit there. Before, she said "we" had sent somebody to Kuala Lumpur. Naturally I assumed that "we" would have been our particular people here, rather than Bombardier's. The minister did clear that up and said that it was Bombardier's people that went to Kuala Lumpur. So that maybe will change a little bit the gist of what I understood her to say before.

On another topic, for a moment here. . . . There have been some studies done -- I believe one by the Treasury Board. . . . I'm not quite sure if they did it. The Pacific Liaicon company and Henry Wakabayashi did a study. I'm wondering whether that study. . . . It was basically done on the SkyTrain project. I think it is a recent one done by him. He also did some studies, I believe -- and is an expert in this field -- on the original SkyTrain. I'm wondering if you have a study by Mr. Wakabayashi, and if that study is available.

[1730]

D. Symons: Good. I'll ask the Chair if I may have a copy of Mr. Wakabayashi's report, then, since the minister has a connection to Treasury Board. I would prefer to have the original rather than the one where excerpts have been taken or have been used in some way in the other study that the minister's referring to. If I could have a copy of that.

I also understand that Wendell Cox did a study in 1992. He was a specialist in Chicago. He did a report for the Crown corporations secretariat on rapid transit. So I'm wondering if I might also ask whether I might get a copy of that report as well. I think those two reports might be enlightening.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are FOI rules around Treasury Board information. We'll certainly comply with the FOI requests. I'm unaware of this other study, but I can certainly help to try to find the study in the archives. We did turn over all that information to the GVTA, but I'll certainly assist the member in trying to find that study.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me an idea of what the amount of money is that's budgeted for this year -- through the government side, that is -- for the SkyTrain project.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The budget for cash flow for the project this fiscal year is $463 million.

D. Symons: If we use the government's figure of $1.9 billion for the total project and take $600 million away, which is what the minister is saying that the other side should be putting into this. . . . They've put zilch in so far, but they sort of said: "Well, there's a cap of $1.6 billion." I think it's $1.2 billion. You then have roughly somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700 million that you're going to pump into it in the year following, if you're going to have this thing up and running by the year 2001.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fiscal '98-99, $131 million was spent. I've just given you the budget for 1999-2000. The estimated budget for 2000-01 is $316.9 million. The budget for 2001-02 is $254.2 million, for a total of $1.166 billion on phase 1. The final costs and how we allocate those costs for phase 2, to Coquitlam, can't be determined until the route is decided. So that's the cash flow for phase 1.

D. Symons: Phase 1 is $1.66 billion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $1.16 billion.

D. Symons: Okay. That makes a big difference. Thank you. You had me considerably agitated there for a moment, because I misheard you and put something down incorrectly. Okay. That's better. Anyway, it's $1.16 billion for phase 1, and phase 2 is not factored into that.

I gather phase 2 is somewhere in the $700 million range, which puts us, then, up to your figure of $1.9 billion. I have trouble with that word "billion" as well. It's something that I think most of us, in money, can't comprehend -- let alone millions, certainly.

I asked earlier about ridership. Apparently you're going to get me those numbers, so I can put that away. You estimated the cost, then. If it's $1.16 billion, what is the distance for that particular one, and how much will it work out to per kilometre, then? Twenty one kilometres. How much is that working out to per kilometre, if you divide it, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's approximately $57 million per kilometre.

[1735]

I'm noticing that our friends at Bombardier have got a contract for Kennedy airport in New York. If you convert the figures into Canadian dollars, the figure comes out to $88

[ Page 13187 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea of the scope of the project. Scope has a huge impact on what your cost is. If you have to tunnel kilometres and kilometres, then that costs more than elevated. But also it is a credit to the negotiators of the project team that, first of all, all contracts are with Bombardier in Canadian dollars, so any change in the value of the Canadian dollar doesn't affect our project, which is great news. Also, it's Canadian technology. We've got a great deal.

D. Symons: It sounds that way -- and I hope, because right now all your cost projections are basically that: they're projections, until you have signed contracts on the guideway and all the rest. You might give me, then, a rough feeling for the approximate amount of the cost of this that goes toward labour and what part will be materials, because these two things are going to be the factors that are going to drive the final cost of the project.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The current estimate for the total project labour cost is $170 million.

D. Symons: On a project that's going to be $1.16 billion, you're saying labour is a very small portion of that. So labour will not be a factor, then, if there are cost overruns. It's certainly not going to be in the labour; it's going to be on the material side. I think the labour is the dangerous one. So you should have a rough idea on the material side; that's good.

I wonder if we can take a look at the report that the minister referred to a little earlier. The new SkyTrain guideway construction contract is awarded. . . independent review. It says: ". . .project business system in place. . . ."

I noticed that this dealt primarily with how you're going to manage. . . . I think that for your system here you're using the Oriole system of managing the finances and the money of this. It doesn't really evaluate all the SkyTrain project per se. It's the way you've set the business part up. I assume, then, that this would indicate that you have a management plan. You told me earlier that you had a business plan. Have you got an engineering study with a cost analysis done for the project?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and it's available on our web site.

D. Symons: Speaking of your web site, I noticed recently that it's changed dramatically. I'm wondering how much it cost to make that change to your web site. And while we're at it, if you might give me an idea of why there's no mention of the T-line to Coquitlam. There's no mention of the Coquitlam part on it. Whereas before it was a T-line, now it's only an L-line on your web site.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of the staff costs incorporated into the project. There were no extra costs. The L-line is committed physically, budget-wise, etc. We're politically committed to building the T-line. But you can't put anything on the web site until the route is decided. I want them to decide the route; I can hardly wait for them to decide the route. Then we'll get it all up and running.

[1740]

If I could mention. . . . Before, I didn't respond to the minister on something. She made a comment about the Liberals moving away from the free enterprise system into public ownership.

What I think the Liberals believe in is looking for the most cost-effective way of having things done, and my suggestion was that you have a system there. If it's working and you can expand it, fine. If the private sector can do a better job at a better price, I would be all for it. So I guess the minister's saying that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector's been doing of operating and maintaining the SkyTrain cars. That seems to be the minister's viewpoint on that. We're a pragmatic party. We'll do what works and what's going to work for the taxpayer and get the job done. I'm glad to see that the minister is agreeing with me here, because she's now discovered that obviously the private sector can do a better job than the public sector. That's good that we're agreeing with you.

One of the situations -- and we're running out of time, I see. I'll just finish this one. One of the things that I think drove the costs up on the fast ferry program seemed to be the fact that they were doing the designing and the building roughly at the same time. At times, the design plans were coming into the builder's hands, and they were almost building as the design was coming. But the whole thing hadn't been designed, and then often they had to go back and make some changes, because the designers would find: "Whoops. We made a little mistake last week. We have to correct that, but my gosh the workers have already built part of that." So there had to be some changes made in that respect.

I'm looking at the activity program here for the SkyTrain project, and I find that in designing the New Westminster underground section and then constructing the New Westminster underground section, there's a fair amount of overlapping between the design and the construction. So I'm just wishing and hoping that you can maybe confirm that this is going to be done in such a way that there won't be any of the glitches in there that seem to have been one of the reasons for the cost overruns of the fast ferry program.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not going to accept the member's comments about the fast ferry project. The fast ferry project is dealing with unknown technology. This is known technology with lots of experience, and the people who are building it have built it four times now. The contracts are fixed-price contracts that include labour, so there will be no. . . . The labour costs are fixed. Everything about this project is fixed-price. The design-build concept contributes to a less costly

[ Page 13188 ]

If I could just get a sense from the member about how much more time. . . ? Can he give me a sense? I'm not pushing him; I'm just asking for a sense. I just have to give direction to staff. That's all I was asking. Okay.

I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

The committee met at 7:49 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

D. Symons: Getting back to our SkyTrain discussion, a report came out by Peter Boothroyd from UBC, and I think Tammin Raad put the report together. It basically, I guess, renewed the concerns over the costs of the SkyTrain program. I think one of the problems that's been going on with this whole issue is that we're getting different information from different areas. Mr. Boothroyd comes with some degree of credibility because of his position. I'm wondering why there's such wide diversity in the costs. They're coming from an anti-SkyTrain position. I suspect that's the case. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a wide diversity in the figures that people are putting out, and that tends to fuel this controversy.

[1950]

D. Symons: I will be the first to congratulate you if everything works out well in this program.

I was reading from an article just a short while back. It's says: "Bombardier has won contracts worth $80 million for the supply of 88 tram cars and trailers in the cities of. . . " -- and it names four cities in Germany. These are light rail tram cars. So certainly there seems to be a difference, because that's less than $1 million -- that's in Canadian dollars by the way. . . . That's quite a difference in price per vehicle that has somewhere around the same per-vehicle carrying capacity as the SkyTrain cars. What I was told earlier was that the frequency with which you can have them go on a grade, compared to a SkyTrain, makes a difference as far as capacity for the line goes. But there's a huge saving there as far as the vehicle costs go. So I'm curious why we're paying $3 million a car, or close to that, when these tram cars are running for around a little less than $1 million each.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I can't comment on the newspaper article, nor on the accuracy of it. But I can tell you of the very diligent shopping we did for cars -- both LRT and SkyTrain -- prior to choosing the system. All of the contracts at the time of our deciding to go with SkyTrain for LRT vehicles were about $3.5 million (U.S.) per car. That's what they were being sold for in the market at the time. I have no idea of the accuracy of the comparison.

D. Symons: Fine. It'll be interesting to see if it's accurate, and how that may compare -- that the prices seem so wide; there is so much variance there. . . . One of the areas that's very much in contention, as far as the route the SkyTrain's going to take -- and this is particularly for the part going to Coquitlam, through Port Moody. . . . This is an area where I certainly suspect the minister has had a lot of information supplied to her, or concern supplied to her, as I'm sure the Rapid Transit Project office has. They are suggesting that the best, and theoretically the cheapest, route would be to go around the eastern side, following the Lougheed Highway more or less, avoiding going along Clark Drive and then -- I think it's a tunnel effort toward the end there -- into Port Moody itself. Are their cost prices roughly correct when they say the cost of the tunnel and going that route would be more than going around the other way? What are the pros and cons of one versus the other?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Both the GVRD and the project office discarded that route for several reasons. The primary one is that it didn't support the Livable Region strategy. Therefore the ridership would be absolutely minimal, because there was no development that would occur along that line.

D. Symons: I suspect some of the people are concerned about the area in which the tunnel will emerge on the Port Moody side. I just have a suggestion. I've got a book here that came out recently. I'll find the title on the front page first. It's "Planning and Designing Rapid Transit for the Broadway Corridor" and it was presented by the Vancouver city planning commission and the Simon Fraser University city program not that long ago. They had a gentleman up from Portland, Oregon, who works with Tri-Met there. He was commenting on how they dealt with putting in their rapid transit system -- their light rail system.

He made a couple of comments. One is on conflict resolution. He said that for the most part, the communities played by the rules. He mentions here that only one community, who admittedly were the most severely impacted, could not agree on its wish list. The ward alderman took the dispute back to city council. Council added an additional $0.7 million to let them complete their list of goodies, including a two-storey parking garage to replace on-street parking displaced by LRT. So, in one sense, there seemed to be some give-and-take with these communities, in order to give them something back for what they were losing.

[1955]

[ Page 13189 ]

"We proposed a gutsy move for residents on 9A Street, getting council to agree upon what we deemed a money-back guarantee. Residents on that street were encouraged to sign up for a house appraisal prior to the line's construction. If they weren't satisfied with their lot in life one year after the completion of the project, the city would buy their residence for that agreed upon price. Very few sold. The houses, of those who sold because they didn't want to live adjacent to rapid transit were quickly snapped up by those who did, and the result was a near wash, dollar-wise."

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm very interested. I'll take the member's comments under advisement and certainly pass them on to people who are working with the communities. I appreciate that very much.

D. Symons: I thought it was rather interesting -- sort of unique, I suspect. It may set a trend, certainly if people feel they are having the opportunity to get out of something after they've experienced it for a while. Often it seems to be the fear rather than the reality of what may happen that bothers people. So it might be an interesting thing to explore a bit further.

The other issue I want to get into for a little while. . . . Again, I recognize that I suggested that maybe we would need all your staff here. So if there's something I ask and the person involved with that particular aspect isn't here, just say so, and I'll get the answer at a later date. This deals with the environmental review. I want to know if the minister could tell me: was there funding built into the budget for the SkyTrain program for an environmental review, or was it pretty well decided at the beginning that we weren't going through a full environmental assessment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it was budgeted for.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might give me an idea of how much money was set aside for the Special Commission on SkyTrain Extension Review to review the project and environmental concerns.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry -- I'll get that information for him, hon. Chair.

D. Symons: At the same time, then, how much did she spend on it?

I'm wondering if you might tell me or get the information on how much money was budgeted for any and all reviews necessary under the federal environmental assessment legislation. I'm wondering: did we pay for that, or did the feds do it as part of their responsibility for looking after the environment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's about $2 million allocated within the budget for environmental studies, reviews, applications and consultations. That doesn't include mitigation that may have to occur as a result.

D. Symons: I'm gathering from the answer that that covers any expense that the feds may have in this as well. Thank you.

I'm wondering if you might give us an idea. . . . Certainly the project time line that was put out when the change was made to SkyTrain was quite a bit tighter than currently. The environmental process has dragged out somewhat. Could the minister give us an idea of how close we are to getting a final response from the federal government and maybe what the main sticking points are that have kept it this long?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The working relationship between the project office and the federal review has been very good. I don't want to commit them. . . . I can't commit them, but we do anticipate an approval by either the end of June or early July -- very early July.

D. Symons: I note that awhile back the minister indicated that, you know, we didn't want to do a provincial environmental assessment because it would delay the project. At the time, she was making a comment that the full review, if done under our environmental assessment laws in British Columbia, would take anywhere from nine months up to two years. We've now pretty well passed the one-year point. If we had gone into an environmental assessment, indeed you might have had that one finished and have followed our own provincial rules, rather than, basically, setting an example where the government sets very stringent environmental rules and then, when it suits itself, sort of sidesteps them and does a review instead.

[2000]

D. Symons: I note that the environmental assessment report that came out was very heavy on what I'll call the social side -- the bio-environmental side -- but not that much on the geotechnical side. There weren't that many of actual tests or reviews of tests done on soil samples, as was done around the Expo site when that was sold, to find out what's in the soil. If you look along the Lougheed Highway route, there have been a lot of industries there over the years. We have close to 100 years of industry along there and along the Fraser foreshore in New Westminster, and we don't know what's in the soil there. It doesn't seem that there's really been any tests on that to follow that through.

What I do find, when we look at one of these. . . . One of them was "Fraser River Foreshore -- Front Street to Columbia Street," a study done by EnviroWest on December 21, 1998. They make some comments in here, such as. . . . "This gentleman, in giving the report, talked about "threatened, endangered and vulnerable species of wildlife." He went on to discuss, on about a page of this, the Vancouver Island marmot, the snowshoe hare, wolverines and grizzly bears. After he looked at all of those particular species of wildlife, he ended up saying that they're likely not to live on this piece of foreshore." A lot of the stuff in here seems to be almost padding in the report -- if you're going to talk about the Vancouver Island marmot on the foreshore of the Fraser River

[ Page 13190 ]

There also was one on Stoney Creek Crossing done by Triton Environmental. We've got copies of most of these, thanks to the Rapid Transit Project office which supplied them at our request. Pages 17, 18 and 20 were missing out of that particular one. It's the December 21, 1998, Triton Environmental review on Stoney Creek Crossing. I'd appreciate it if I could have those pages. The minister won't have to respond to that; that's been duly noted.

Lastly, on that particular topic, I note in the report that the special commissioner put out that he made a suggestion about a SkyTrain legacy program and suggested that there might be $18.5 million spent in neighbourhoods affected by the expansion. I'm just wondering what the minister's response to that suggestion might be at this stage.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we're certainly thankful for the report. We're certainly examining all the recommendations he makes and discussing them with the municipalities, of course, who would be responsible for a portion of it as well.

D. Symons: I think the first question I have regarding the portion of B.C. Transit that's left. . . . I think about 50 percent of the cost of B.C. Transit has gone -- and maybe 80 percent of the problems, or more than that -- into the GVTA. But right toward the very end, before that actual turnover took place, there was a sale of the Orion II buses that were bought a few years earlier at a price of, I think, in the neighbourhood of $50,000. That sale of them two years later was for roughly half that price, $241,000. So I'm wondering if you might be able to give me some idea. . . . We buy buses for something and two years later, because there seemed to be some problems with them, we sold them for half the price. Could we just discuss what happened in that situation?

[2005]

D. Symons: I notice that you did some modifications and changes on them to about $125,000 worth of work, and 71 percent of that, apparently, was covered under warranty. So the manufacturer did semi-stand behind their vehicle, anyway. I gather there were some problems at the beginning with manifolds leaking, but I think those have been fixed.

So the minister is saying more that it was the way the buses handled and so forth for the routes that they had to operate on. Would that indicate, then, that maybe proper due diligence hadn't been done beforehand in choosing that particular bus for the service it was going to be put into, because it proved to be unsatisfactory in the way the minister expressed it a moment ago? You would think there might have been a little more trial with a single bus rather than buying a fleet of 19 of them in order to end up with the problem we did end up with. Do you do due diligence on purchasing buses, in the sense that you are darn sure when you buy them that they are suitable for the purpose for which they were bought?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've had a longstanding relationship with Orion buses and have purchased other Orion buses that have worked out very well. Due diligence was done, but this was the first of its kind, and it just wasn't suitable. I'm not sure. . . . If the member's asking: can we guarantee 100 percent success of public use vehicles, I'd love to be able to set that standard as well, but it wasn't possible in this case.

D. Symons: Keep trying for the 100 percent, though.

I'm wondering if there may be. . . . I'm not quite sure how to handle this one, but there's been a protracted strike on the Sunshine Coast regarding the providing of transit there. I'm not sure whether B.C. Transit is involved in that or whether, indeed, it's the regional district that's totally responsible. So if you can explain that to me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not at the negotiating table. It's a regional district strike. The handyDART service has been declared essential, but the conventional bus service is provided by part of the regional district staff and therefore on strike. We are monitoring it, but we don't have any play at the table.

D. Symons: I'm noting for the Victoria conventional bus service that, basically, the provincial government pays about 31 percent of its operating cost. The rest of it is picked up locally through various methods. For the custom service, it's about 60 percent that the provincial government picks up. We go back to the two of them together, and it averages out to about 33 percent. I'm wondering: is that the sort of usual percentage of provincial funding to the various municipal systems? Or is Victoria sort of unique compared to the other municipal systems?

[2010]

D. Symons: You're serving a more compact area -- that's what you mean by a smaller base.

If we look at the custom and paratransit services for the municipal systems, we find that the growth has been quite phenomenal. I've got the report here, and this graph climbs quite rapidly. Custom and paratransit are the more expensive services to put in place. I'm wondering if the government is looking at alternative ways of supplying that service. I think somewhere around 75 percent of the people who are serviced by custom and paratransit systems are mobile to varying degrees, and they don't need the wheelchair lift capabilities. Yet we seem to be providing it to virtually everyone at a fairly high cost. Are you looking at other methods of handling this that might be more cost-effective?

[ Page 13191 ]

D. Symons: Part of the reason for asking that question is that there have been some suggestions in the past of expanding both the taxi saver program and also, maybe, of making use of the private sector through taxis. Apparently, using taxis for these people who are ambulatory would be less expensive for the system. I gather it costs about $16 a trip, on average, for the handyDART system, where 80 percent of them could take a normal taxi. They average out at about $8.33 per trip, and that's for figures around the Victoria area, supplied to me by a person that works for the Coalition for Casual Custom Transit in Victoria -- Mr. Snijders, whom you've probably heard of.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, comparing trips of a similar length, handyDART costs and taxi costs are very similar. But we're constantly analyzing and shifting in the program to get best value for the dollar.

D. Symons: I'm being encouraged by my fellow member here to move on. I would thank the minister and her staff for their time and diligence in listening to my questions and providing answers. Thank you very much.

Vote 28: ministry operations, $100,696,000 -- approved.

Vote 29: registries, $8,634,000 -- approved.

Vote 30: pensions administration, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 31: product sales and services, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 32: British Columbia Transit, $170,540,000 -- approved.

Vote 46: management of public funds and debt, $940,000,000 -- approved.

Vote 47: B.C. Benefits, $222,200,000 -- approved.

Vote 48: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $110,000,000 -- approved.

[2015]

Vote 53: Public Sector Employers Council, $3,161,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank, very much, my colleague for the excellent discussion.

We'll now do the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

The Chair: We will have a very short recess until the minister arrives.

The committee recessed from 8:17 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE

Hon. I. Waddell: Good evening. It's nice to be here. I have with me my deputy minister, Lyn Tait, and officials from the museum. I'm not going to give a long opening speech. I just want to say that it's been a wonderful year for my department. We've succeeded in achieving most of our goals. As a matter of fact, I think it has been a spectacular success. A big victory for small business is the major lowering of taxes to small business. Tourism is booming. Film is just behind Los Angeles and New York -- incredible growth. The film industry may be the fastest-growing industry in British Columbia. We had spectacular success with the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition at the museum here. We've had a number of other successes that I could go into, but I'm sure they will arise in the estimates.

Having said that, I will take any questions.

R. Thorpe: I would like to start this evening just by saying, very briefly, a couple of remarks, and then I'll get into questions. I do appreciate the staff coming out tonight.

Unfortunately, my opening comments are sad comments. I thought it was most appropriate to say a few words about David Mark Scott, who suddenly passed away on May 28 -- especially when we're going to be doing the estimates of the museum. I know he was on the board of the Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum and the board of the Royal British Columbia Museum. Actually, ten days before he passed away, he and I had a breakfast meeting. One of the things we talked about was the museum -- where it is today, and where it's going in the future. I know all members of this House, as was expressed earlier in the House, are sad to see Mark leave us. Our thoughts are with his wife Judy and his two sons, Christopher and Sean, who he was so very proud of.

With respect to the Royal British Columbia Museum. . . . First of all, I, on behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, would like to congratulate all of the staff of the museum for their efforts and for the tremendous success of the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition. I believe this was truly a team effort and success. I would also like to compliment the management for showing leadership and for working the floor, which I saw firsthand -- a job very well done. I would ask you to pass our congratulations along to each and every one of your employees.

My first question. The museum is an SOA. Why was this structure, versus a Crown corporation, chosen?

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the member for. . . . I note his comments about Mark, and I thank him for his praise of the museum staff and volunteers -- let's not forget the volunteers -- which I share. Bill Barkley, the chief of staff, is here. Pauline Rafferty is also here from the museum.

Why is it an SOA? In plain English, that's a special operating agency. It's a logical step, we thought, that would give it a bit more arm's length from the minister.

D. Symons: That's why it's successful.

R. Thorpe: Your estimates are finished.

[ Page 13192 ]

[2025]

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister realized that my question was connected to the vision of where we're taking these things, and I think that we should be looking to the future and making sure that all of the parts of the vision come together, so we give the vision every opportunity of happening. In the vision one of the key objectives is to secure its place among the finest museums in North America. How will we measure that?

Hon. I. Waddell: Factors like attendance, international reputation amongst other museums, the ability to get exhibits like the Leonardo exhibition. As you know, we're planning for the Nuu-chah-nulth exhibit, which opens on July 3 and will run until the spring of 2000. It will be marketed to other museums for three-month displays.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if we have. . . . Perhaps the minister does. A vision, again, seems to be longer-term. It's out there; it's more than this year; it's more than next year; it's out -- if we can -- into the five-year range. What kind of vision measurements have we looked at? Because it's an admirable goal, and I wish every success in becoming the finest museum in North America. . . . What other longer-term measurements are we looking at, and who would rank as number one in North America today?

Hon. I. Waddell: The vision is outlined in the strategic plan for the museum, which we have shared with the member.

R. Thorpe: Who do we see as our key competitors, and where would we rank with those competitors? Where would we see our ranking today, against North American competition? I hate to use the numerical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but where do we see ourselves ranked, and who would be the major competition?

Hon. I. Waddell: The Royal British Columbia Museum sees itself as one of the ten ranked museums in North America. There are other museums there. You could name them, like the Smithsonian, the Canadian Museum of Civilization -- which you'll note, when you go in there, features west coast native Indian exhibitions as its main exhibit showing Canada to the world. We have that here too. So that's where we rank ourselves.

R. Thorpe: It's interesting -- and I appreciate the minister's answer -- that the minister said that Ottawa does showcase the west. That's good.

In the vision we talk about the percentage of revenues which will come from government versus non-government sources. What is our long-term goal in percentage? Where do we want to be with government funding versus non-government? Where do we see ourselves in that spectrum?

Hon. I. Waddell: We're at 30 percent now. We don't expect achieving more than 40 percent. This government is committed to having a publicly funded museum. Other governments may not be.

R. Thorpe: So in the time frame we're looking at here, we're saying that we want to be 60 percent funded by government and 40 percent from non-government sources. Is that an attainable objective for the museum?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

R. Thorpe: The Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum -- what is, in the broadest sense, its role besides being friends and supporters? What other key activities do they do? I'll give you just a couple of questions here, if I could, and then we could just rapid-fire them. How many Friends are there? What is their annualized financial contributions, and is it true that the friends that the Friends provided the venture funds to secure the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition?

[2030]

Hon. I. Waddell: I wouldn't mind if the director answered that. I mean, he knows about it. He should answer it, perhaps. Would Bill Barkley, the director. . . ?

B. Barkley: Sure, I'd be glad to. There are 23,000 members of the Friends organization. They have two main functions. One is to secure membership. Actually, three functions. They secure membership. They operate the retail function at the museum. We have three gift shops: two permanent ones and a temporary one that operates with our temporary exhibits. The third function of the Friends of the Museum, a very important function, is fundraising. Their annual contribution to the operating budget has ranged over the last five years from $350,000 a year to $500,000 a year. They didn't provide the upfront money for Leonardo, but they did for our first blockbuster exhibit, which was Empires Beyond the Great Wall. For Leonardo, it wasn't necessary.

Hon. I. Waddell: I just want to add to that. Many Friends came as supporters of the opening. We entertained them at the opening, just before Leonardo, and I thanked them. Unfortunately, I spoke in Italian and forgot to translate it, so I take this occasion to speak in English and to thank the Friends of the Museum for all their help.

The Chair: I thank Mr. Barkley for his comments. I'm just reminding us that the rules of this House require either the minister or the deputy minister to answer.

R. Thorpe: I do appreciate the minister setting that trend and letting people that actually work with these things answer the question. But I guess it says that the minister once again has found out another rule of the House. We were talking about that earlier today. Perhaps we need to change the rules.

[ Page 13193 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I can answer that. It's starting July 3 of this year. It's booked in Denver. It's going to eight other locations, but they're still tentative. We're hoping for Ottawa and Toronto.

As to my breaking the rules, it's true -- occasionally. I have been known in the past to have broken the rule of touching the mace in the House of Commons and been disciplined for that. I remind the member, however, that it has its up side. There were only two other members that have been disciplined in the House of Commons for the same thing, and those were John A. Macdonald and Louis Riel.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure Louis and John feel really comforted that you're in their company.

What is the status on the $625,000 commitment from the Friends and other donations, as I understand it, with respect to this project?

Hon. I. Waddell: What does the member mean by "status"?

R. Thorpe: I understand it's an objective to raise those kinds of funds to support this project. If that is incorrect, maybe the minister could correct me. If it's just generally to collect funds for the operation of the museum, I'd like to know: are we tracking to achieve that goal of $625,000?

Hon. I. Waddell: The funds are actually already in place. They were raised during the course of the very successful Leonardo exhibition, which got over 500,000 people, and through the gift shop sales and so on.

R. Thorpe: What is the status for the coming year for fees at the Royal British Columbia Museum?

Hon. I. Waddell: The fees were increased by $1, effective March 7 of this year.

R. Thorpe: Is that general, across the board, or have there been special arrangements made for students of British Columbia schools?

Hon. I. Waddell: I recall, I think, that there are some special provisions. I could provide the member with a schedule. I'll do that.

[2035]

Could you please explain the initiative to develop an IMAX film with a B.C.-themed partnership with B.C. Film? What is the amount of funds at risk? And what is each partner bringing to this project -- the partners being IMAX, the Royal British Columbia Museum and B.C. Film?

Hon. I. Waddell: The museum has put out a request for qualification, and B.C. Film is looking at that. It would be a capital venture, but it's in a very preliminary stage, as I understand it.

R. Thorpe: Even though it may be at a preliminary discussion stage, what kinds of funds have been allocated in this year's business plan for the project from the Royal British Columbia Museum perspective?

Hon. I. Waddell: None.

R. Thorpe: Would it be possible, as this project unfolds, to keep us abreast of the developments on that in a timely way.

Hon. I. Waddell: Certainly.

R. Thorpe: We talk, on page 23 of the 1999-2000 business plan, of a vision for a major international exhibition for October 2000. I guess we're talking about 15 or 16 months away -- not too long. Not that I would ask what the name of the project would be, for competitive reasons, but how are we coming along at securing this international exhibit, and are we looking at a standard that has been set by the Leonardo da Vinci?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that we have five possibilities that we're looking at. We haven't firmed up anything as yet. It's a big challenge to repeat Leonardo. It was fantastically successful. I was there welcoming the three-hundred-thousandth -- the woman from Seattle and her. . . . And then it went to 500,000 -- they were lined up for blocks at the end. So it's going to be pretty hard to duplicate that. Perhaps if the hon. member knows of another Renaissance man or something similar that we can showcase and get the same attendance. . . .

R. Thorpe: I don't know, but perhaps the next time the member's talking to Louis and John, they could do some work for him.

What is the decision date for selecting this exhibit? I'm aware, and Tourism Victoria. . . . I mean, these are major undertakings, so what is the decision date for selection?

Hon. I. Waddell: I agree with the member that they are major undertakings. September would be the time -- this year.

R. Thorpe: I was glad to hear earlier that the minister stated that he was committed to funding the public museum in British Columbia, just like the B.C. Liberals. I understand that a new multi-year agreement has been reached on funding. For how long? When does it run out? And what are the annual amounts of the funding?

[2040]

R. Thorpe: Well, if I'm not. . . . If my memory serves me correctly, the number that I have for the year 1999-2000 is $11,085,000. That seems to be -- I don't know -- some $300,000 more than the $10,770,000. Is there a carryover? Or is there some creative bookkeeping? Is that the profit from the Leonardo da Vinci. . . ? What's the difference?

Hon. I. Waddell: Sorry; the figure that I gave was the voted appropriation. There's a carryover of $300,000 from the Leonardo.

[ Page 13194 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: The SOA agreement allows a maximum of $300,000 to be carried over, and that's what was carried over.

R. Thorpe: In looking at this plan and comparing it to some other SOAs and Crowns and ministries, this plan is to be complimented for identifying goals, individual responsibilities and deadlines. What is the management process to manage, to monitor and to take corrective action, if and when necessary, in this process?

Hon. I. Waddell: Of course, there are daily management and quarterly reports, and there's a board that oversees. We appointed Mark Scott -- a good friend of the member -- to the board, and people of that calibre, to oversee the expenditures generally.

R. Thorpe: Are monthly financial statements produced? If yes, who are they shared with -- what level in the organization? Are we managing our costs in bringing people into the decision-making?

Hon. I. Waddell: Financial figures are produced monthly, and they're shared among the executive management of the museum -- 32 people, I think.

R. Thorpe: What are the three major risks to the 1999-2000 business plan?

Hon. I. Waddell: The three major risks are that revenue could fall. . . . But it's not really much of a risk, because tourism is booming in Victoria. The economy of Victoria is doing well. The search for a new exhibit is the second one, if that were unsuccessful. But we anticipate being successful, because we have been in the past, and we've got good management. The third is perhaps a change of government, which might mean the end of funding of the museum.

R. Thorpe: I am going to try very hard again this year, like I tried last year. . . . I realize that some people can handle stress better than others, so I'm going to take that in stride.

[2045]

R. Thorpe: Just breathe? God forbid -- I'm not going to stop breathing.

Minister, I'm going to assure you that it's going to be a long day tomorrow, so we may just want to stick to the agenda. It may be in your very best interests.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

R. Thorpe: Yes, of course, through the Chair.

One of the things that. . . . I haven't had a lot of time to go through this, because staff just gave it to me late today. I'm just going to point this out and ask the minister, the deputy minister and the senior executive from the museum: in reviewing the strategic work plan, both from the ministry's perspective and from the Royal British Columbia Museum's perspective, we noticed some differences in your benchmarks. I'm just drawing that forward to people's attention, and I'd be pleased to give you a copy of it after so that everybody can start working off the same song sheet.

I did want to ask a couple of questions. My deputy, unfortunately -- from Parksville-Qualicum and North Nanaimo -- couldn't be here tonight, so let me just ask a couple of questions -- noting the time. Is the development office's only function fundraising? How many people work there, and what is the cost of carrying out this function?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are three people who work there. The budget's $240,000, and it all comes from the Friends.

I just might add that I thank the hon. member for saying that he'd pass on some information. I view the work in the museum as pretty non-partisan. It's a great treasure, and we're all working hard, including the Friends and other people, to make it work, and it's working.

R. Thorpe: I hope I'm saying this right. The Fannin Building. . . . Apparently, we're looking at moving some collections from upper floors and subletting space as a private sector office. What will happen to those exhibits, and what is the overall game plan there?

Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that the Fannin Building is used for collections and the storage of exhibits. Those exhibits that aren't used that much could be stored in a cheaper place. That's what is going to happen. They would rent out the other part, and it would be more cost-efficient.

R. Thorpe: Does this have any linkage whatsoever to some other reports I've heard about the province lessening its intake of artifacts and items from the around the province of British Columbia for storage and for guarding the history of society?

Hon. I. Waddell: No.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how much of a decrease there will be in the coming year for B.C. communities receiving Royal British Columbia Museum programs?

Hon. I. Waddell: In 1998-99 there was in fact an increase. This year it's status quo -- no decrease.

The hon. member will recall. . . . I'm trying to get the name of the exhibit with the Leonardo. . . . I opened it. It's the Italian exhibit, Festa Italiana, which toured some of the Italian communities of the province -- places like Trail, Powell River and communities with sizeable Italian populations. We try to take things out to them and let them celebrate as well. That is a role of the museum. It's not just to be here in Victoria; it's to get out and around.

We have a number of. . . . The Living Landscapes project, for example, will get us around.

[2050]

[ Page 13195 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: The amount for this budget year for exhibit renewals is $364,000.

R. Thorpe: How does that compare with last year?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's all new money.

R. Thorpe: I would like to thank the minister and the staff for coming out tonight. Please know that the B.C. Liberals are committed to supporting development at the Royal British Columbia Museum. If there's any time that I can do anything as opposition critic to assist in its ongoing operations or development, you know how to get hold of us. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. Thank you, minister and staff.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member has any more questions, we'd be pleased to answer them. Thank you for that.

I move the committee rise, report progress and resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:52 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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