2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 10
[ Page 16467 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In Committee B, I call second reading of Bill 23.
[1005]
BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that Bill 23 be now read a second time.
This bill relates to the agency agreement between B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project 2000, which is in place to foster the construction of the SkyTrain extension project in the greater Vancouver area.
I think it's very important to have strong fiscal discipline at any time, but particularly when we're talking about a large infrastructure project, something the size of the SkyTrain extension project in particular. Since the beginning of the SkyTrain extension project, we've tried to take the necessary steps to demonstrate strong fiscal discipline and sound project management.
Today I'm bringing forward second reading of Bill 23, the British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000. This bill will assist in ensuring that the financial mandate for the SkyTrain project is maintained.
By way of background, in March of 1999 an agency agreement between B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project 2000 was established. The agreement gave Rapid Transit Project 2000 the administrative powers to plan and construct this project as well as acquire property for the SkyTrain project on behalf of B.C. Transit. This bill will strengthen this agreement or at least clarify this agreement and explicitly provide RTP 2000 with statutory powers under the British Columbia Transit Act to plan and construct this project and to acquire property for this project on behalf of B.C. Transit.
It will also make clear that B.C. Transit retains the powers, including expropriation of private lands in the greater Vancouver regional district, in terms of planning and constructing this rapid transit project. The proposed legislative amendments in this bill will be retroactive to March 1999, when B.C. Transit and RTP 2000 entered into the agency agreement.
The need for this legislation was brought to light earlier this year when the agency agreement was challenged in British Columbia's Supreme Court. The legal challenge halted construction work at the Lougheed town centre for about three weeks, because there was an injunction in place at that time. The plaintiff in that case argued that with the passage of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, which established TransLink as the regional transportation authority in greater Vancouver, B.C. Transit no longer had authority in the lower mainland to construct the SkyTrain project or a rapid transit project. Therefore the agency agreement between B.C. Transit and RTP 2000 was invalid.
Although B.C. Transit and RTP 2000 successfully defended the legal challenge and substantiated that the agency agreement was a legally valid tool for the SkyTrain project, the injunction did unnecessarily delay work in this area, as I mentioned earlier, by about three weeks.
[1010]
We were fortunate that the contractor in this case was just beginning to mobilize, and the financial impacts therefore weren't as significant as if the injunction in this case had delayed the project at this point in time. The actual cost to the project and ultimately, of course, to the taxpayer is still to be finalized, but ultimately it may cost between $100,000 and $275,000 per week of delay. Such a delay today could cost the project several times that amount.
At least 30 private properties will have been acquired for the project by the end of this month. We know the risks, and we have estimated the financial impacts associated with these risks. I would submit that if we didn't act upon these risks, we would not be protecting the project or the interests of British Columbia taxpayers, and that would be irresponsible project management.
So I think it's fair to say, hon. Speaker, that today, especially with major
This legislation is essential to reduce financial risks due to challenges that have to do with this agency agreement. We don't want to have to face those challenges again, especially when we already have the British Columbia Supreme Court saying once that this agency agreement is adequate. If we are to be fiscally responsible on this project, we need to ensure that the basics are in place. We need to reinforce and make it clear -- in this case, through legislative amendments -- that RTP 2000 has the powers under the British Columbia Transit Act to plan, acquire property and construct the SkyTrain project so that these issues are not subject to further legal challenge.
I want to emphasize something very important here. These amendments will not take away from the rights of private property owners who wish to legally challenge the acquisition or expropriation of their properties if that is to happen. These amendments simply ensure that the basic elements of the agency agreement are clarified in law, and clarified to the extent that there has already been a Supreme Court decision on the matter agreeing that the agency agreement is valid. But I want to emphasize this again: the Expropriation Act isn't being changed. And all of the avenues of appeal that are available to private property owners under the Expropriation Act remain in place.
What this is about is simply clarifying who has the legal authority to expropriate. So it doesn't have any ultimate
[ Page 16468 ]
impact on the ability to expropriate for the purposes of this project. Or, I should say, it shouldn't have any impact on the ability of private property owners to avail themselves of the traditional mechanisms to challenge an expropriation or to have a fair hearing in due process under the Expropriation Act. With these amendments we're enabling RTP 2000 to access the powers it requires here by statute, where it currently accesses its powers administratively through its agency agreement with B.C. Transit.
At the same time, these amendments will reinforce that RTP 2000 can also acquire properties to plan and construct what we've termed ancillary project works within the greater Vancouver regional district. These projects may include areas for services and amenities to passengers within stations, municipal integration fund items such as bus loops and parking areas which might be adjacent to stations, as well as operation and maintenance sites.
[1015]
We focused our energy on designing the new system, together with its stations, to serve current and future riders and to make the system part of the communities that it serves. It must integrate into the existing transportation system, which may include works that adjoin or extend beyond what might be termed a narrowly defined linear system. We need to be sure it is clear that the province's designated agencies have the legislative ability to carry out such project works within the greater Vancouver regional district, even after the coming into force of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act.
The project has operated under intense scrutiny regarding its financial management. We've made all financial reviews available to the public. Independent agencies have reviewed RTP 2000's financial and management controls and confirmed that RTP 2000 has appropriate financial review measures in place. RTP 2000's management reviews were also cited as a model for other capital projects management during the government's recent capital project review.
The project will continue to be scrutinized by independent agencies to ensure that the best business practices are being followed. We will continue to post all such reviews on our web site for the public to see. These measures reflect a commitment to openness and transparency of fiscal and project management with the SkyTrain project. The proposed legislative amendments are also a part of our project and fiscal management regime, more generally speaking. We are not asking for new powers through Bill 23. Bill 23 will simply clarify the agency agreement between RTP 2000 and B.C. Transit, and it will clarify the authority for that under the British Columbia Transit Act. It will clarify that RTP has the appropriate powers to plan and construct this project and to acquire property for the entire SkyTrain project, including what we've termed ancillary project works.
I look forward to broad support in this House for this. This is a measure being taken, I submit, in the interest of taxpayers, in keeping this project on budget. I'll take my seat now and hear what other members of the House have to say during second reading debate.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for his explanation of the bill. I thank him, because from my reading of the bill, I think he was fairly straightforward in explaining the aims and objectives of the bill. Maybe he didn't put it in quite these terms, but certainly the reason we're looking at a bill today is that the government really didn't put things together right the first time. We're doing, yet again, an amendment bill to something that went on before, to correct the fact that it hadn't been done in the best way possible the first time around. Maybe it's another reason that the opposition can get up and say: "Why not take a little more time, get things correct, and then we don't have to come back and redo this? Particularly, we don't have to look at something that's going to be retroactive to a year ago."
The minister maybe didn't also say that the real reason, I guess, that this is brought forward is because there was a court challenge. They mentioned a court challenge there. That's the reason, I guess, that we have this. It's because of the delays caused by the court challenge and the fear that there may indeed be more court challenges. That was because of the concerns and the way that the agency agreement had worked. It was a fairly complicated system that allowed people to look at it and say: "Well, maybe this isn't legal now that the authority for transportation issues in the greater Vancouver regional district has been turned over to TransLink or the GVTA." Because of that confusion and the way that things were set up for the expropriation to do with SkyTrain 2 -- this is the reason that we're here today.
The minister had made some comment that the court agreed with the agency agreement or called it adequate. The judge, in bringing down his judgment on the challenge that had been made over expropriation of the Lougheed Mall area, made the following comment. He was at a loss as to why the government chose to create such a "convoluted administrative and operational structure" for the rapid transit project. I hardly think he would call it adequate. He would say: "Legally, I guess, it's all right. But it's convoluted, and I'm at a loss to understand why you had set up that one." I think it brings this whole thing into focus as to why we're here today discussing this particular bill.
[1020]
I see nothing terribly wrong with the bill in the sense of looking at what it's doing. It seems to be cutting out a lot of duplication between what was up to now being done by the Rapid Transit Project office then having to be done again, in a sense, by B.C. Transit, to make sure that they weren't liable for any errors and omissions that the Rapid Transit office may have done. Now we have one agency looking after the issues of expropriation, rather than having two doing it. One is a backstop to the other, since they are the one that will be ultimately responsible. I believe that the bill is correcting those problems.
There are a few questions I will have during committee stage that I want to discuss and get clarification on. We'll see that when it gets to committee stage.
I was interested in the minister's comments. He spent quite a bit of time talking about strong fiscal discipline -- I think that was a term used -- and good project management. I don't know if this bill really addresses those in any way. He got in a few plugs for the rapid transit project, I suppose, but this is really just correcting the problems set up in the previous agency agreement, which created a convoluted system for doing the expropriation. This bill seems to correct that. In that sense, I'm in support of the bill.
G. Plant: There are really two comments I wanted to make. The first was a point already made by my colleague
[ Page 16469 ]
from Richmond Centre: the only reason we're here is to fix a problem. In this case, the problem is the government's failure to structure an arrangement correctly the first time. I assume that if the government was of the view that they had in fact constructed the arrangement appropriately the first time, we wouldn't be here changing it.
The second reason is to, in effect, ask a question -- or put a question on the record. The minister spoke about the impact that this bill might have on property owners whose land will be expropriated by the construction of the SkyTrain. I think he was careful to say that this bill will have no impact on their right to seek expropriation or to seek compensation for the expropriation.
The issue that I'm less clear about is who will pay. It may be that that is a result of my own failure to wind my way through what is still a fairly convoluted structure. There are agencies here identified as agencies of the provincial government, but also playing a role in this whole picture is the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, which is not itself a creature of
So, when land is expropriated -- some of it has been expropriated for the purpose of the SkyTrain project -- the question that will arise which will be of interest to the taxpayers of the province as a whole is: who will be on the hook for paying the bill for the expropriations? Is it the province as a whole, provincial taxpayers as a whole? Or is it essentially the greater Vancouver regional district through the GVTA? If the minister has an answer to that question now, he may feel able to give it in the course of his closing remarks, or we can revisit the issue in committee stage debate. I think it's an important aspect of ensuring that the project is indeed as open and transparent as the minister would like to have it. I think it's a question worth pursuing, although not, in my view, a reason at this stage to oppose the legislation.
[1025]
By way of a final comment, I want to make this observation. The law works best when it confers certainty on people and gives them some understanding of what their rights are in a way that isn't susceptible to change at the whim of the Legislature. One of the ways that the Legislature respects that basic principle is by refraining from legislating retroactively. Every time the Legislature legislates retroactively, I think there is reason to be concerned about the erosion of some of the basic principles upon which this place operates, and democracy operates. Of course, we need to look at each particular instance of retroactive legislation in its specific context to determine whether it's an appropriate exercise of the government's ability to come here and seek to reinvent the past, which is what it's doing when it legislates retroactively.
In this particular case, it's interesting -- the government wants to have it both ways. It wants to point out that it won the court challenge to the agency arrangements, but nonetheless it thinks that it's important to retroactively revisit those arrangements and relegislate them for greater certainty.
If it is in fact the case that no existing rights will be altered by this use of retroactive power, then I think the concern about the exercise of that ability is much muted. Since, again, I understand that that's the case here -- that the government is not legislating retroactively so as to disturb existing rights, but rather is doing so simply to try to clarify existing arrangements for the construction of the SkyTrain project -- then I don't think that this is an occasion to vote against the bill simply on the basis that the government is legislating retroactively. I think it's a point worth making. I've made it, but I've also attempted to put the point in the context of the bill as a whole. As I say, I don't think that the presence of a retroactive provision in this bill, given the particular context, is a problem. So, like my colleague from Richmond Centre, I'll be supporting the bill.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll ask the minister to close debate.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Just a few very short comments in response.
I want to clarify, and maybe the Hansard record will clarify this. I don't believe I said that the court said this was adequate. What I meant to say, at least, was that the court found this to be an adequate arrangement. But certainly the member for Richmond Centre is quite right to cite that particular passage from the judgment. I read the judgment myself and didn't find a great deal of comfort in it. Although ultimately we won, certainly the judge found this to be a convoluted way of handling this matter. But nonetheless it's what we have, and I appreciate the support of the opposition on this.
The member for Richmond-Steveston raises the issue of expropriation and whether this may change, in some way, who ends up paying. I'll suggest right now -- when we get into committee stage, we may have more detailed discussion of this -- that it doesn't change who pays. Really, the main part of the project we're dealing with right now is what we're calling the Millennium Line. It's the line from New Westminster through Coquitlam and then down into Vancouver. This is the $1.167 billion extension which is being paid 100 percent by the province. So if there's an expropriation claim, it would be paid by the province through its agents -- in this case, RTP 2000 -- out of that project budget. So that's where that will come from.
I understand that the member for Richmond-Steveston raises the point about retroactivity. I understand the basic presumption that exists, certainly within our courts when they're interpreting legislation against retroactivity. But it's also the case, as part of that presumption, that presumption is always overridden where there is clear legislative intent.
[1030]
I appreciate, as well, that retroactivity isn't something we should be looking for in legislation on a regular basis. But as with most pieces of legislation, as legislators we're trying to balance various interests, and the interest at stake here is a broader taxpayer interest. This is an enormous capital project, and I think it's fair to say that the concern I have is that we can't afford even minor delays -- I mean even a few weeks -- which are due to claims which have little basis in law but nonetheless could result in an injunction being issued and even a short delay, which could add several million dollars to the cost. And if it's multiplied by several claimants wishing to challenge the basis of the agency agreement, then we have a fiscal problem for the taxpayers of the province and the project. So in view of these competing values, in this case I say we have to come down on the side of the taxpayer, making sure that we keep the project on budget. This is one way to help do that.
[ Page 16470 ]
With those comments, hon. Speaker, I guess that wraps it up. We'll have more discussion during committee stage. I move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 23, British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 16.
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Plant: The bill has just one section, which repeals the second schedule of the Electoral Districts Act that we passed last summer and replaces it with an entirely new schedule 2, which sets out the areas and boundaries of the electoral districts of British Columbia -- what will become the 79 electoral districts of British Columbia after or upon the dissolution of the current parliament.
My first question to the minister is: can he tell me how many differences there are between the schedule 2 that we passed last summer and the schedule 2 that we're being asked to pass here today?
[1035]
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, let me just say that I'm assisted in responding to some of the questions by Chuck Salmon, who's the surveyor general, and Nancy Letkeman, who's a senior policy and legislation analyst with my ministry.
The answer is: about 320 changes. About half of those are cosmetic in nature -- typographical and grammatical changes. The other half deal with clarifying and improving or correcting the legal descriptions themselves.
G. Plant: How were these changes identified, or these 320 needs for change?
Hon. A. Petter: As we discussed in second reading, there was a fairly short period of time to prepare the legislation once the report was provided last session -- about three weeks. So following the tabling and enactment of the legislation, information from the surveyor general was, as I understand, passed through to Elections B.C., which then did a sort of rationalization of all the material. In the process of looking through the data from the surveyor general and looking through the descriptions in the legislation, Elections B.C., over the course of the following number of months -- I guess it would have been January through March -- identified a series of errors. And it's on the basis of that identification that the amendment has been prepared and brought forward in the Legislature for consideration.
G. Plant: So the work that identified the errors in last summer's schedule 2 was done between January and March of this year.
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, Elections B.C. was going through some changes in terms of software that they use in order to do the work that they do in respect of electoral boundaries. That software development reached the stage of dealing with some of the mapping, and that occurred around January or so. At that point, when the data from the surveyor general was fed in and the mapping was done under this new software arrangement, that's when the errors started to emerge in their mapping. And through that identification process, the amendments were then prepared.
G. Plant: The minister talks about errors in the surveyor general's mapping, and, perhaps for the sake of completeness, I could ask whether the mapping that led to schedule 2 was done in-house by the surveyor general or was in fact contracted out, given the press of work that existed in the surveyor general's office with respect to other projects.
[1040]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm learning a lot about mapping and legal descriptions as we go along.
Apparently the errors here were in the legal descriptions. The mapping disclosed them, but the error was in the legal descriptions. The legal descriptions were done by contractors, or a contractor -- I'm not sure which; those under contract, anyway -- in that three-week period. I understand that the errors in legal descriptions
So the mistakes were made because of that short time frame, I think it's fair to say, in the context of contract work that tried to translate the Electoral Boundaries Commission report into legal descriptions. And those legal descriptions in some cases were in error and in some cases were not compatible, in the way that they described the boundaries, with the requirements for mapping under the software, etc.
G. Plant: Maybe, for the sake of providing a bit of context, I could suggest that one of the challenges here is that when the Electoral Boundaries Commission was drawing lines, or describing the location of lines, it tended to use features on the surface of the earth which are fairly readily identifiable to ordinary citizens. For example, in Richmond they would talk about lines down the middle of No. 3 Road. But when you get to the legal descriptions required for the purpose of preparing the Electoral Districts Act, the government's approach is that at that point you need to be using district lots and the actual legal terminology that would be familiar to the land title system and would be familiar to property lawyers so that they are not just descriptive descriptions but in fact complete legal descriptions of the places in question. Have I got the distinction relatively correctly?
Hon. A. Petter: I must say that I have some sympathy with the member's example, because when I look at my own constituency I have a hard time knowing what boundaries are being referred to. They are for the most part not boundaries that I would recognize as roads, etc. But in fact, as I understand it, the more common problem is not that. The more common problem is that geographical locators were used, like
[ Page 16471 ]
the tops of mountains or whatever, and that under the software and the approach that is taken in the election commissioner's office to mapping, those kinds of geographical indicators are not the relevant indicators. The relevant indicators have to do with the boundaries of watersheds and those kinds of things. So I think it's more a shift from geographical-type indicators to indicators that correspond to certain known boundaries which are more readily identifiable and translatable within the approach that's taken by the commissioner.
[1045]
G. Plant: The minister's answer is helpful. One way or another, I guess we get to the question: why have the taxpayers had to pay to have this all done twice, or in fact more than twice now? I was going to ask the question last time out: why couldn't we just incorporate into the laws of British Columbia the descriptions in the maps used by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in their report of June 3, 1999?
There may be an answer there that has to do with either the adequacy of the types of descriptions used or the compatibility of systems. But if that's the answer, that leads to the second question: why didn't the Electoral Boundaries Commission get the tools and the resources it needed to do it right the first time?
The result of all this is that it looks as though the taxpayers have had to pay several times: once for the set of boundaries in the December 3, 1998, report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission; again for the set of boundaries in the June 3, 1999, work; then of course for the work done to create the Electoral Districts Act that was passed last summer; and now again for the work done to identify the problems with that or to identify the issues with respect to incompatibility of systems -- additional work, in any event, that has led to the creation of the bill that's now before us. Why didn't we get it right the first time?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member makes a good point. As I understand it, the work that was done both by
Meanwhile, there was this software development process taking place in the chief electoral officer's office, as I understand it. Under that software development it was felt, for reasons I can't really speak to or am not fully conversant with, that to move to an approach that was somewhat different
If the chief electoral officer's got the new software right and that provides the basis for a common understanding of how to describe things, then a subsequent commission can work off that. Hopefully a subsequent commission will also be able to produce a more comprehensive set of boundaries so that we only have to go through this once instead of three times. I think the member makes an excellent point.
[1050]
G. Plant: The extent to which the situation the minister talks about will arise will be a functioning part of the extent to which the surveyor general is satisfied with the process that the chief electoral officer is using. I have great respect for the chief electoral officer, but I have enormous respect for the office of the surveyor general, which has a tradition as old as this province and is part of how this province came to be the place it is. I'm not sure that it isn't perhaps a bit outside the scope, strictly speaking, of the debate before us, but on the other hand I am concerned about whether or not I can lend my support to the thing that is before us.
I'm concerned to know that the problems that led to the current situation have been fixed so that we won't have to do it again. Therefore, I would ask the minister whether he can say either that the surveyor general is satisfied with the program that Elections B.C. is using or at least that he is happy that there is a process in place which will ensure that at the end of the day the surveyor general is satisfied that we're not going to have to do this four or five times the next time the boundaries of the electoral districts are changed.
Hon. A. Petter: A great privilege we have as members of this House is how much we learn in these processes about things that we never thought we would learn about -- mapping, for example.
As I understand it, two things: first of all, the surveyor general informs me that he is satisfied that the descriptions, as they now exist in the legislation, do meet the requirements from his point of view and that they do remedy the situation. Beyond that he tells me as well that there is within the legal survey framework of the province, which I think is referred to as cadastral, the opportunity now to have a better form of interaction with the chief electoral officer. It uses the new software opportunities, using the cadastral system, to try to better integrate the work that will go on in the future between the two agencies and institutions so that the disconnect that occurred here does not occur again, and there is a more seamless approach using the cadastral framework.
[1055]
G. Plant: I appreciate that. The need to remove a disconnect -- the minister will agree, I'm sure -- exists not only between the surveyor general and the chief electoral officer but among all of the ministries of the Crown which have responsibility to lease, license, grant and allocate rights in respect of land. And this is just a plug for digitalization and unrelated perhaps to the bill, but it seems to me that the era of digitalization gives this government an enormous opportunity to standardize the way that transactions in respect of land are recorded.
I know the minister himself has an interest in technology and is probably just as interested as anybody else in making sure that, as time goes on, all the ministries of the Crown and independent statutory officers are using data that's compatible with each other to make sure that we figure out what's happening and the Crown is licensing or leasing and all of that in a way that it is mutually intelligible.
But having said that, the minister has talked about different types of changes that are represented in schedule 2 of the bill before us. The first question is a compendious question. Is the minister able to give an assurance to this House
[ Page 16472 ]
that the electoral districts as set out in schedule 2 of the Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000
Hon. A. Petter: On the member's first point, I would simply say this. I think we've already seen some of the improvements in surveying that have come out of the surveyor general's initiatives in the parks legislation, where we see a much simpler, cleaner form of description. And I'm informed that certainly the use of technology is being deployed to assist in those efforts and will assist, hopefully, in the kind of integration that the member refers to in other areas in which surveying and legal descriptions are key.
On the second point, what I can assure the member of is that the review that has been done in respect to these boundaries has been rigorous and has involved three agencies to try to guard against any mistakes. And that review has included the surveyor general's office, which has reviewed these descriptions and is satisfied that they do conform. Elections B.C, I think, has reviewed them twice, and the legislative counsel's office of my ministry has also reviewed them twice. So, I mean, we are all humans, but that seems to me a very, very thorough and rigorous form of review that is designed to guard against the possibility of errors as much as can humanly be done.
G. Plant: Is the minister or, so far as he is able to say, is his ministry aware of any errors which have survived the review process that he describes?
Hon. A. Petter: No, I'm certainly not aware of any that have survived, or I would be tabling amendments at this very minute.
G. Plant: People who read with care the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of June 3, 1999, will have read through the descriptions of the 79 constituencies in that report, and they will have studied the maps to ask themselves the question: in what constituency will they find themselves when the next election is called?
[1100]
They will now know that on two separate occasions the Legislature has attempted to give legal description to those 79 constituencies. They will want to know whether they are in the same constituency or whether they're going to be in the same constituency, as a result of the enactment of Bill 16, that they would have been in as a result of the recommendations in the report of June 3, 1999.
The layperson's way of asking the question, I suppose, is: has anybody moved? Have the constituency boundaries changed, so that somebody who was in, say, Saanich South now finds themselves in Saanich North and the Islands? The question I have for the minister is: are there any instances where changes of that nature have occurred?
Hon. A. Petter: No. I think I can assure the member -- because I've been assured -- that the descriptions in this bill are in every way, shape or form designed to give effect to the report of the commission and that if someone had read that report, and read it accurately, they would find that the constituency in which they thought they were, based on that accurate reading, is the constituency in which they are now, based upon this legislation. That may not have been the case, given that some of the boundaries went in the wrong direction in the last iteration of this bill, but it is the case now.
G. Plant: There was one instance identified to my colleagues in the course of a briefing that we received on this bill, which related to a riding in the Coquitlam area, where the Coquitlam River was a part of the description. I think it might be the Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain riding, but I hope the minister's staff will recall the instance. My recollection is that it was perhaps the most significant problem identified in the course of this review and that in fact it may have involved as many as 2,000 people.
Perhaps the minister could explain that particular situation. Again, I'm certain that his last answer governs; that is, the bill last summer created a problem. But what we've done now, hopefully, is return to the original spirit and intent of the recommendation of the commission. But I think it might be useful to at least illustrate the problem that was experienced by reference to this particular situation.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have the detailed answer, but I think I have the general answer that should speak to the member's underlying concern. I think there was a situation in respect of the Coquitlam constituency that was perhaps the most egregious error, in which, if you went to the original report, you would have assumed that the people concerned -- some 2,000 people -- were in a given constituency, one of the Coquitlam constituencies. The legal descriptions in the legislation tabled last year inadvertently had lines going in the wrong direction, and that's where I can't give you the detail as to exactly how it happened. Those 2,000 people were inadvertently moved to another constituency, contrary to the intention of the report.
And now those 2,000 people, as a result of this bill, are exactly where they were supposed to be and where they would have assumed they were to be, based on the original report. This is now remedied by this amending legislation, which is why this amending legislation is here. I believe there was such an instance involving a Coquitlam constituency, involving the number of people that the member refers to, and I believe that was the largest discrepancy in terms of numbers of people within the package that was identified.
[1105]
G. Plant: That's helpful. One last question: if someone had asked roughly a year ago whether or not the province was ready, in the event that an election were called, the answer presumably would have been, "Perhaps not quite," because the electoral officer at Elections B.C. had work to do to take the new schedule 2 from last summer's bill and work it into their new software system. To put the question in a somewhat facetious way, I guess, the question is: is Elections B.C. ready? I'm not talking about the politics; I'm talking about from the standpoint of whether or not there are in place electoral districts upon which an election could be conducted if this House should suddenly find itself dissolved.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to clarify my answer -- speaking neither on the political side of election-readiness nor on whatever other aspects of administration Elections B.C. has to be
[ Page 16473 ]
ready on in terms of the conduct of the election, but simply confining ourselves to the issues of: are we election-ready in respect of electoral boundaries? -- the answer is that once this bill passes and is proclaimed, the issues of boundaries will be resolved in a way that allows us to say that we are fully election-ready with respect to the delineation of new boundaries based upon the recommendations of the report.
Section 1 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[1110]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 16, Electoral Districts Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. A. Petter: I call estimates on Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in this chamber.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
On vote 29: ministry operations, $154,948,000.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to present the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the fiscal year 2000-2001. It really is a particular honour to present my ministry's first budget of the new millennium, and it's also my first opportunity to do so as minister. I'm very much looking forward to the discussion that we will have with these estimates, which I hope and know will be helpful and productive for all of us. But first I would like to say a few words of opening comments to put my ministry's work into context and perspective.
The mandate of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is one of the most extensive and all-encompassing of government. If you just look at the enabling legislation -- whether it's the Ministry of Environment Act, the Land Act, the Water Act, the Park Act and many others -- it will be quickly evident to all that the ministry's responsibilities include nothing less than the air, water, land, plants and animals of the province, in addition to a wide array of related resource uses that provide social, recreational and economic benefits, and human health and safety concerns. In other words, the responsibilities of my ministry do touch the lives of every British Columbian every day in every sector of our society, and that's a huge responsibility.
In addition, this responsibility encompasses a significant part of the Canadian land surface and a significant amount of its fresh water. I do expect, during the estimates, that we'll have a chance to talk about fresh water, because that is a very topical issue these days.
We are also the most biologically diverse province in Canada, with the largest number of wildlife species, the greatest variety of habitats and ecosystems, and the largest provincial parks system. That puts its own challenges -- to have that tremendous diversity. It is a diversity that we want to celebrate, but it is also a tremendous challenge in terms of managing that diversity.
So this is a tremendous legacy and an awesome responsibility. I think we all know that British Columbians care passionately about the environment, and as members in this House know, so do I as minister. That is why it is a tremendous honour and privilege that I feel, to serve as minister.
[1115]
It's a tremendous legacy and awesome responsibility at a time when the values and attitudes of British Columbians towards the environment are in rapid evolution. I think that we've recognized it only over the past decade -- the recognition and understanding of the impact of human activity upon all aspects of the environment and, much more importantly, the recognition that those impacts, by themselves and collectively, also impact upon our quality of life and that of future generations.
I believe that British Columbians are recognizing in greater and greater numbers that we need to have a lighter footprint on the environment. I think that is also being reinforced by this greener global marketplace that all people are finding themselves operating in, regardless of what industry or sector of society.
We know that in some areas such as forestry, perhaps, and around the issue of hunting, these changing attitudes can bring forward a great diversity of opinion. And it does make issues management within my ministry extremely complex for ministry staff. These are the issues that this ministry cannot resolve on its own. I think there is also a recognition, with these changing public values, that the mandate of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is really a mandate that the whole of society needs to have a part in managing.
Over the past decade the ministry's responsibilities have also expanded dramatically through the introduction of new and very much needed environmental initiation and legislation. Firstly, of course, we all recognize that we have many, many more parks and protected areas to manage. Again, we have talked about that often in the past in other forums and will again, probably. It is something to be celebrated, but it's also a challenge for our ministry to manage these new protected areas.
We have major legislation to provide improved forest practices in water protection and fish protection. We have significant new regulations to ensure better air quality, pollution prevention, cleanup of toxic emissions and contaminated sites, and numerous other areas that come under this ministry's mandate. I think it is fair to say that a decade ago these issues were not as high in the public's mind nor as visible and obvious in all of our communities across the province -- with a greater demand, if you wish, for all levels and aspects of government to deal effectively with these challenges.
All of this -- in addition to the need to respond to the growing number and intensity of external pressures on the environment from a variety of causes such as population growth, urbanization, the globalization of the economy and the increasingly global significance of environmental issues -- means that this is a very exciting and very busy ministry.
[ Page 16474 ]
Losses to habitat and biodiversity, climate change, water scarcity and pollution of air and oceans are all occurring not only in British Columbia but right across this planet in every area. So rather than thinking that the issues of this ministry can be managed to a lower degree of public attention, I'm suggesting that we all recognize that these issues will continue to become even more uppermost in the public's mind.
Finally, to add to this long list of challenges, it is important to recognize that the critical links between a clean and healthy environment and other factors greatly determine our quality of life in British Columbia -- for most, human health and of course the future of our economy. British Columbians do expect clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. They expect our ministry, government in general and society in British Columbia to work together to protect human health and to ensure that we do have a sustainable economy. I believe that British Columbians believe overwhelmingly that B.C.'s future depends on a clean and healthy environment, a sustainable and strong economy and vibrant, livable communities. This has often been referred to as the triple bottom line: people, profits and the planet.
[1120]
I wanted to give those general opening comments before I went into a little bit of the highlights of this year's achievements within the ministry, because I think it is really important to recognize that we are in changing public values. This is a very, very tall order for one ministry to try to coordinate. I want to say that I am tremendously proud of the work that this ministry does -- its staff and its executive -- to be able to respond to this enormously complex mandate that we have at a time when this ministry's mandate is becoming uppermost in people's minds.
I'd like to turn now to some opening comments on our business plan and environmental trends and then to a few of this ministry's achievements this year. Of course, I will conclude with some opening comments on the budget.
In mid-April I released "Environmental Trends in British Columbia 2000," which is a summary of the recent trends and current conditions in key areas of environmental quality, based on a very wide range of scientific data that's collected and coordinated by the ministry. It's our second report in recent years, and it serves several vital functions. It provides the public with a snapshot of how well we are doing as a society in our pursuit of sustainability, so that people can make the right decisions for the environment in their daily lives, in the places where they work and, hopefully, clearly at all levels of governments and government agencies. It also provides a baseline for measuring future progress and informed decision-making by government and the private sector. And, very important to me as minister, it provides the ministry with clear direction on its own priorities.
Last year at this time my predecessor released the ministry's business plan for 1999-2001. This document set out the ministry's long-term vision and goals, program objectives and priority activities over a two-year period, along with the performance measures and the targets for measuring progress. I really want to commend my predecessor and the ministry staff for putting together a business plan that has such a clear and tangible expression of where we are going and what the benchmarks are that we're going to use to measure our own progress, thereby tying in with the whole idea of environmental trends and making very clear to others our progress and the areas where we need to redirect more effort.
We are now entering the second year of this planning cycle. To ensure further transparency, the ministry will soon be releasing a progress report which details just how far we've come over the past year. Together with the environmental trends report, these documents represent this ministry's efforts to identify its accountabilities clearly, in addition to serving as a practical blueprint to guide the ministry's own activities. In this, I believe that our ministry is at the forefront. It is a model for other agencies -- certainly for similar ministries across Canada -- in tying together, as I say, a clear business plan with measurable indicators and targets. Again, I am tremendously proud of our ministry taking this leadership role.
In terms of some of our recent achievements over this past year, before coming to this year's budget I would like to highlight a few of the key environmental achievements. Firstly, in protected areas we have moved significantly forward this past year in the protected-area-strategy. The Park Act amendments permanently protected 1.4 million hectares of land in British Columbia as class A parks, including the new protected area of the Northern Rockies. We also announced the $1.7 million in funding for conservation projects under the Muskwa-Kechika trust fund to sustain that internationally significant wildlife habitat and populations of that vast area.
[1125]
Land use planning has resulted in the creation of 76 new protected areas, totalling nearly 8,000 square kilometres or 3,000 square miles. At year's end nearly 11.4 percent of the province's land base was protected. I am very hopeful and excited about the potential to be able to celebrate the passing of the 12 percent mark later this year with the completion of some of the major land use planning processes that are in place right now.
The last year also saw a completion of the construction of the nearly 1,300 new campsites in provincial parks under the Campgrounds B.C. initiative. I know it was a project that has been tremendously welcomed by families across British Columbia, because one of the key factors in protected areas and parks is that families in British Columbia and from elsewhere love to come to B.C. parks to camp, hike and just enjoy the wonderful scenery. Those 1,300 new campsites have been, I think, a tremendous contribution to communities across this province in terms of an economic incentive as well.
There have been numerous projects other than Campgrounds B.C. to employ young people through the environmental youth team -- another very popular program under our ministry. As well, as we saw very recently a few weeks ago, Clayoquot Sound was formally designated by UNESCO as an international biosphere reserve -- the first such biosphere in British Columbia. It's a tremendous tribute to the people of the Sound who have worked so hard for many, many years at all levels to achieve this great recognition of the exceptional natural values and the strategy that's now underway involving many of the partners to ensure a sustainable future in that region.
Pollution prevention and waste reduction. Again, this year we have made significant progress in pollution and waste reduction. For example, late in 1999, British Columbia was given a mark of A-plus by the Friends of the Earth for being the first province to commit to a managed disposal system for ozone-depleting chemicals. We've also expanded our mandatory emissions testing in the lower mainland to
[ Page 16475 ]
include trucks and buses, as a further step in our strategy to reduce urban smog. This is the most aggressive such strategy in Canada.
During the past year, as well, we've made further progress towards reducing the amount of waste entering B.C.'s landfills. That includes the expansion, as had been announced previously, of the deposit refund system for beverage containers which became fully operational on October 1. As a project that I have many, many personal hours invested in, I was very pleased that we were able to make that expansion into gabletop containers in a successful way. I think that British Columbians are showing their support by bringing back those containers, as well, for their refunds.
There are many other industry stewardship programs that have been very successfully expanded this year. That includes over 90 percent of B.C.'s reported household hazardous wastes, which are now being kept out of the municipal waste stream. Although we have not reached the target that was set a decade ago of cutting solid waste per capita by 50 percent, I want to congratulate all British Columbians for the tremendous progress we have made and reiterate that that target does remain unchanged. I think this is one of the most tangible examples of a much more sustainable society -- by recognizing that we need to change the concept of waste from a noun to a verb and realizing that we can't afford to do it regardless of the materials that are involved. So we will continue to challenge local communities and individual British Columbians and businesses and industries to find new ways to reduce, reuse and recycle all wastes.
In the past year our ministry also introduced a new municipal sewage regulation that is designed to improve water quality, promote water conservation and encourage the use of innovative technology. This is only one of the initiatives that our ministry has taken in the past year related to water.
[1130]
I hope that members of the House have all seen the freshwater strategy which we released late last year. It sets out the key actions for stewardship of water in a comprehensive way. That has become more topical of late, but there are many aspects of protecting water for all of the many uses and demands that we make upon it. And I'm very pleased that our ministry has been able to put out an integrated, comprehensive freshwater strategy. We are moving systematically through that to bring into place the key pieces of it.
Since releasing that strategy, we have also released the first progress report on the strategy. It focuses on sustaining that full range of water values right from aquatic habitat protection to, clearly, drinking water protection. The ministry is currently consulting with a wide range of stakeholders around this strategy. We've just had a workshop very recently to get their input to the priority actions that we will embark upon under this strategy within the next three years.
Last on my abbreviated list of highlights, and the one that I personally believe is one of the most exciting and significant for this province's environmental and economic future, is the green economy initiative, or GEI, which was first announced in last year's budget. My ministry has made a major contribution in just about every way possible to the development of this strategy, and I am very privileged to be leading that strategy as the chair of the green economy working committee of cabinet. The GEI represents a very practical demonstration of that broader holistic vision that I often refer to and that my ministry is demonstrating each day. It matches the economic opportunities to the environmental values of British Columbians. It includes encouragement for new environmental technologies that can meet some of our greatest environmental challenges, whether it is clean energy, innovative waste treatment or many others.
In this year's budget, as the hon. Speaker and members will know, there is a new green economy development fund announced to support green technology development. But innovation does go beyond technology. We're also working in this ministry with other ministries, especially the Ministry of Finance, to develop tax-shifting as a potential means of discouraging pollution and other environmentally harmful practices while encouraging the very positive business opportunities that can create jobs in all communities across British Columbia and, of course, in doing so can restore, clean up and enhance the natural environment that all British Columbians cherish.
Over the long term, I think that our goal is nothing less than the responsible stewardship across all sectors, involving all British Columbians, based on an understanding of the tremendous challenge and opportunity that this represents for our whole province. Our vision should be that of a province in which sustainability is a fundamental part of the core operations of everything we do. Green business therefore will no longer just be the name of one sector but synonymous with the way we live in British Columbia. That is a huge vision to achieve collectively. Certainly this ministry is in the state of transition for the role that it can play not only in its traditional mandate as a regulator and a sometimes rather proscriptive ministry that needs to ensure that land, air and water are protected but also as a facilitator, a partner, a problem-solver that can help lead British Columbia as a whole towards the more sustainable future that I think British Columbians have made clear they are aspiring to.
[1135]
A few words on the budget. Over the past few years, the global marketplace has made it very clear that the economies and businesses that succeed in the twenty-first century will be those that embrace the principles of sustainability. My ministry's budget for the coming year does reflect and recognize this shift that will help British Columbians further along that path. This year's budget supports the priorities that are vitally important to British Columbians, as I've mentioned: protecting biodiversity and special spaces, ensuring clean air and water, promoting the green economy and taking a leadership role in addressing emerging, huge issues like climate change and other global environmental responsibilities. This year my ministry's budget shows a 3 percent drop of $5.9 million and a reduction of 28 full-time-equivalents.
That is the simplistic story of this year's budget. However, I want to clarify that those numbers do not tell the whole story. I want to stress that in terms of actual resources for the ministry operations, programs and services, this year's budget does reflect an improvement in financing, because while there were some funds provided to the ministry last year for completion of particular incentives such as Campgrounds B.C., and other funds were received for other purposes, those fundings have been discontinued in the three areas of the budget where we've completed highly successful initiatives.
Firstly, the $8.5 million in one-time funding received last year, as I mentioned, for the Campgrounds B.C. initiative was
[ Page 16476 ]
actually successfully applied to that purpose, and we now have 1,300 additional campsites for our parks system.
Secondly, $1.2 million for the old -- what used to be called -- habitat conservation fund was not renewed this year. But this special fund has been gradually phased out in recent years since the creation of the habitat conservation trust fund in 1996. It's the trust fund, now, that has been established to respond in a much more flexible way for meeting the needs of all of the interests in communities across the province in terms of protecting and enhancing the wildlife diversity and particularly restoring habitat. As the trustee for that fund, I know firsthand of the tremendous contribution that is being made to the stewardship of habitat across the province through the projects and the partnerships supported by the habitat conservation trust fund.
Lastly, there was $3.8 million provided last year to assist in the transition of 152 staff who had been declared redundant to the ministry as a result of the previous year's budget reduction exercise. Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to report that as a result of the bridging, the ministry has been able to find solutions for about 117 or nearly 80 percent of those staff in our base operations by filling vacancies, by retraining for some of the new challenges in our ministry or within other parts of the public service and by bridging into retirement other people whose position could be filled by other people in the ministry. So I am very gratified that through very creative and cooperative work we have been able to find employment for so many of the people that were affected in last year's budget reductions. We've got a double benefit, because that means that many key positions within our ministry have been able to be staffed by experienced and dedicated employees. The ministry is continuing to work with the remaining employees whose positions were declared redundant in previous years, to find solutions for that.
We were subsequently given by Treasury Board the $7.6 million to add to our base for some of our highest priorities. Some of these priorities were identified last September when this ministry was awarded $5 million at that time. We have been able to allocate those dollars since last September and, in this year's budget, have been able to reaffirm the allocation of that $5 million. So that has been part of the revitalization of programs that have been facing operational pressures due to the prior year's funding reductions.
[1140]
I want to just say, hon. Chair, because there is good news in this budget, I'm very pleased that we have been able to take scarce dollars and allocate them to the parts of the ministry that are in greatest need of assistance. For example, the headquarters pollution prevention branch has received $2.3 million to support the continued success in the areas of waste reduction and recycling, particularly recycling of tires and batteries.
The regional operations division has received $1.6 million and 34 FTEs to address the concerns expressed by key stakeholder groups that environmental risks were increasing due to some of the reduced staffing and resource levels. This was an opportunity where we were able to achieve some small amount of dollars and put it to the most important uses out in the regions where the needs were clearly being demonstrated as the greatest.
The Parks division has received $900,000 and 16 FTEs to re-establish some ranger staffing that had previously been reduced. This will ensure not only greater public safety but also the security of some our parks facilities.
The wildlife habitat and enforcement division has received $200,000 and 2 FTEs for some policy and operational guideline development. I think that this too is reflecting a growing top-of-mind issue around the importance of environmental stewardship activities, habitat and biodiversity.
The reinstated resources will also be used to support key regional initiatives and activities that include providing essential staff and support for the conservation office service. This is something that I think is one of the most popular programs and, as a minister travelling around to the regions as I have, it is something I heard loud and clear: support for conservation officers, so they can spend more time out in the field doing the job and being visible to all British Columbians. Wildlife management, habitat protection and pollution prevention are also programs that have received some of the reinstated resources.
In addition to revitalizing some of our base budget, another $2.6 million of new funding was authorized for the ministry in this year. That includes $1 million for the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy initiative, which is a long-term legacy to procure key marine parklands of significant ecological values within the Georgia basin. That is a partnership between the province and the federal government.
As well, the Parks division has received nearly $1 million to help maintain some of the parks facilities within its system; that is a continuing challenge, but they are very well used. They are a great source of pride in our province. But in terms of sufficient maintenance dollars to make sure that they are up to standard, that is a particular challenge that the Parks B.C. division of our ministry does have.
Finally, nearly $1 million and 5 FTEs have been added to continue and deliver on the work with the salmon aquaculture industry, to ensure that it is an environmentally sustainable and economically feasible policy framework and guideline.
I see, hon. Chair, that you have signified that the time for my opening comments is over. I think maybe I will leave a couple of other comments until I can respond to the critic's opening comments. But I hope that I would be given a little bit of leeway to introduce my staff that is here with me. I want to say, if the red light hadn't already gone on, that one of my concluding couple of pages was to tell all of you how proud I am of ministry staff and the dedication they have to the ministry. I'll have to work those comments into some of my answers on estimates.
[1145]
The Chair: No, minister. The opposition critic has consented to let you proceed.
Hon. J. Sawicki: Thank you very much. I want to thank my critic. It must be because it's his birthday today, and he wants to have a pleasant day. I do want to wish the hon. member across the way a very happy birthday and best wishes for a very pleasant day.
I will just conclude my remarks briefly. I had a few comments on the environmental assessment office, which is also part of these estimates -- very briefly, just to give the hon. members across the way an idea of the work of that office. Then they can ask more questions later. Since its inception in '95 there were 37 development proposals that had been reviewed and certified through the environmental assessment process. The office is currently conducting 15 environmental
[ Page 16477 ]
assessment reviews, including three ski resort proposals, four energy projects and eight mining proposals. It has also taken the lead this past year on several special projects, such as the SkyTrain special commission and the Burns Bog ecosystem review. I will look forward to questions under estimates on that.
In conclusion, I do want to formally acknowledge a tremendous appreciation to the staff of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I believe -- and perhaps every minister feels this -- this staff demonstrates, every single day, an incredible passion and commitment to their work. I believe that certainly without their expertise, their energy and the significant personal commitment they make every day to do their jobs, British Columbia and this ministry could not possibly fulfil the mandate of this ministry as well as we do.
I want to take this opportunity now to introduce the staff that are with me today. Some of the other assistant deputy ministers that have particular responsibilities will be introduced as their topic areas come up. To my right is Derek Thompson, who is the Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. To my left is Dana Hayden, who's the assistant deputy minister of corporate services division; also Wayne Hodgson, who's the manager of financial planning; and Don Fast, assistant deputy minister, environment and lands.
Thank you to my critic for allowing me the extra time.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I thought that was an interesting way for the opposition critic to get official birthday greetings in Hansard, but
M. Coell: I am delighted to be here. This is my third opportunity to review the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I would thank the minister's senior staff for the briefings and the materials that I've been given over the last couple of months in preparing for the estimates. Over the last three years, that has been extremely helpful, and I think it has allowed me, as a critic in the opposition, to have more of a focused estimates while at the same time covering a lot of ground. I'll attempt to do that again this year.
Just to respond to the minister's opening comments, I have a lot of respect for her background and, obviously, the care that she brings to this ministry. If there's one thing I've learned in the last decade and a half of public service, it's that there is one area of life in this province that seems to be becoming more and more non-partisan, and that is the environment. I think what we're seeing is different philosophies trying to find different solutions for the same problems, which I think is going to be helpful in the years that come, in that British Columbians want their politicians to find solutions to allow us to have sustainable growth and sustainable living in British Columbia. So I look forward to the estimates and hearing comments from the minister and others and members of our side on how we solve the various problems that are presenting themselves to British Columbia in this new century.
[1150]
If you look at Canada over the last hundred years, you see a country that seemed to have endless resources and I think was treated very much like it had endless resources. But in the last couple of decades, I think, people have come to realize that that isn't the case anymore -- that we live in a finite world with a very finite country with regard to resources. So it's important for the future that we in this House and legislatures and communities around the province grapple with all of those issues. Whether they be beverage containers or whether it be sewage treatment or drinking water, there is only one solution, and that solution is sustainability. We must try together to find the answers that will give us a good clean future with a healthy environment.
I guess in dealing with the ministry in the last three years and, if I go back, five years, there have been cuts to the budget every year. This is the first year I would say that the bleeding has stopped in the ministry, and not until after a lot of complaints from a broad range of people, whether they be environmental groups or industry, who are trying to deal with government policies and programs that were taking more and more of their time to get answers, and environmental groups who, whether they be preservationists or conservationists, wanted to see a stop to the decrease in staff. I am pleased to see that, because I think earlier this year the BCGEU had a survey done of morale, and that wasn't a good survey for the ministry; that gives something for us to discuss later. It also gives something for the ministry to work on: how do you solve those problems?
There were two major problems that I saw a trend developing in, in the last five or six years; that would be more pressure on less staff and that creating holdups in decision-making within the ministry. So hopefully we can deal with some of those issues during the estimates and onwards in the year.
One of the things that I would want to bring to the minister's attention is the need for an all-party committee structure that would review environmental programs and legislation. One of the examples I would use is the Public Accounts Committee and the dealings that they've had with drinking water, and that was tabled a week or so ago. That was a very effective method of dealing with potential environmental problems as well as streamlining services. So if in the minister's travels she's able to convince her counterparts, I think that a very beneficial addition to this Legislature would be a committee that dealt with environmental problems and programs and processes on a regular basis.
The other issue that I wish to comment on in my opening remarks is population growth. Many of the issues that we're going to deal with in the next few hours are a result of population growth. In British Columbia we have been steadily growing over the last hundred-odd years, and we'll continue to grow, and there'll be ups and downs in that. But how do we make sure that we've got a ministry that is able to view population growth in regards to the programs needed to continue to have a sustainable environment? So I'm going to be anxious to hear some of the minister's comments on that.
I think that, realistically, when you look out 25 years in British Columbia, there will be a major population increase and, with that, demands on park systems, demands on water systems and demands on recycling programs that we have to be prepared to meet. I think that 20 years ago we weren't prepared to meet some of the demands that have hit us. Hopefully, we can be more prepared for the next round of population increases and the next round of demands on the environment.
[1155]
[ Page 16478 ]
I guess I would close with saying this: this side of the House joins very much with that side of the House on what has been done in park creation and protected areas. If I can draw this analogy, coming from a municipal background where you have a municipality that's all divided up into different zones and different uses in different zones, for many years a very big municipality, the province of British Columbia, wasn't divided up into zones. It's very easy to see that once we've finished the land and resource program and we have zones throughout the province, the conflicts between different factions in British Columbia society may ease.
I'm hopeful, and I suspect that all members of this House are, that we can start to work from a framework where you know the rules. You know where parks are, you know where mining will take place, you know where forestry will take place, and you know where population growth will take place. And I think that will be helpful not just in the short term but in the real long term for the province, because I think we all want to make sure that the basic industries are there, and they want to know that they'll be there. And the people who work in those industries want to know that they have a future in their towns, whether it be Port Alberni or Cranbrook or Fort St. John. So I'm anxious to see that process through.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm anxious to see the next 20 years of that process, to see that it works. I know it's something that both sides of the House have been supportive on for the fact that it's protecting ecosystems, species and parks. But I think, in more respects, it protects a way of life for British Columbia. I look forward to reviewing that with the minister in the next few hours.
And saying that, I move that we rise and report progress, and we desire to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Smallwood moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
On vote 43: ministry operations, $73,324,000 (continued).
Hon. I. Waddell: This morning we're starting with the liquor distribution branch, and I have Jay Chambers, the general manager, here on my right. I'm pleased to report to the members that the LDB -- liquor distribution branch -- had another successful year. We have 223 stores provincewide now. It is the largest retailer in British Columbia. Net income for last year was $617.4 million, an increase of $1.5 million from the previous year. Sales were approximately $1.66 billion, which was up more than 1 percent from 1998-99. Wine sales rose more than 6.5 percent, partly because of an increase in champagne sales -- it being the millennium. While spirit sales increased almost 2 percent, poor summer weather last year contributed to a 1 percent decrease in beer sales.
Again, we continued the modernization -- and I can't emphasize that enough -- of our operation to improve service to consumers. We brought in credit cards. We launched a new web site. We operated four temporary holiday gift stores. We introduced a specialty emporium for spirits and icewine. We opened a new liquor store in Abbotsford.
Of course, our business strategies are based on four pillars: customer service, business effectiveness, workplace cooperation and social responsibility. The real commitment is to the customers. We believe that they're getting a good service, and we're focusing on fiscal responsibility and workplace cooperation. In the coming year I have every confidence that the LDB will continue to offer the best service to the public, in a socially responsible manner, while contributing significantly to provincial revenues.
I'm prepared to answer any questions on the LDB.
[1015]
I. Chong: We will be discussing the LDB issues this morning. We'll follow that up with small business issues, and if time permits prior to adjourning this morning, we may go back over any other tourism issues before wrapping up.
On the LDB, I first of all would like to ask the minister
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the member brought up the Spinnakers case. I want to make it quite clear for the record and for the press that what I did was implement a court decision. That's not a radical act. I implemented a court decision, because I thought the decision was the right one after reading the judgment and realizing that this is where we should go. But we had to defend the existing policy which had been
[ Page 16479 ]
there are a lot of players in the liquor field. One movement one way affects them in another way, and we're very well aware of that.
To answer the member's question specifically, the listing application will be implemented June 30. We already have an application and some details about that, so it's well in the works.
I. Chong: I do realize that the ministry implemented the court decision. However, it did take some time. The decision came out November of '99. It was February before a decision was made to take it to the business lens and then April before it was announced that we would proceed. So there has been quite a delay in that.
My question, though, was that
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to just nod; it would be easy. The applications have been received, and they have been looked at.
I. Chong: What is the time frame or the target that the distribution branch would like to have, from the time the application is processed to the time products will appear on the shelf?
Hon. I. Waddell: We anticipate that we'll have products on the shelf no later than June 30.
I. Chong: I also note in the letter, which the minister wrote April 13 to myself and other members on this side of the House, that there were other issues raised by stakeholders that were not applicable to the regulatory impact statement. Those other issues -- is the minister working on them? Is the LDB working on them? Is it possible to get a list of those other issues?
Hon. I. Waddell: The shorter answer is: we're working with the craft brewers who were affected. Let me try to explain it in layman's terms, as I understand it. The market for beer is, by and large, I think
[1020]
I. Chong: I have one final question before I turn it over to other members who've had some questions. When Mr. Hadfield from Spinnakers Pub had won the Court of Appeal decision, the province appealed that decision to the B.C. Supreme Court. Can the minister advise what costs were involved in that?
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I know it's kind of a weird system. But the Supreme Court is below the Court of Appeal. So you go to the Supreme Court; then you go to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. Those are the three areas: the Supreme Court of B.C., Court of Appeal of B.C. and Supreme Court of Canada. This went to the Supreme Court. We didn't appeal it to the Court of Appeal, because we thought -- I decided -- that was the right judgment. I don't know the costs. You'd have to ask the Attorney General's department.
B. Penner: Just to follow up on the questions of my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, the minister indicated that his ministry has already received applications as a result of the brewpub decision. Can you inform the House how many applications have been received at this point and how many you expect to approve?
Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the member's question, the ministry doesn't receive the applications; the liquor distribution branch does. We don't have that information with us; we'll get it for you and get back to you on it.
The Chair: Member for Okanagan-Penticton, on vote 43.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, sometime last year the LDB introduced a regional brewer taxation regime. I just wonder, for the record, if the minister could re-establish what the policy reasons and principles were for that regional brewer taxation program.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, I'd be pleased to. First of all, with some trepidation I answer the questions of my former critic, who knows this area quite well. The regional brewery markup category helps smaller independent regional breweries compete with the large brewing companies. The liquor distribution branch also has a special markup category to assist small cottage breweries with a production volume of less than 75,000 hectolitres.
R. Thorpe: What was the annualized impact of that tax reduction to the LDB?
Hon. I. Waddell: It was approximately $550,000.
I noticed that one of the beneficiaries, Pacific Western Breweries, was quoted in the Prince George papers as saying that they have some problems with the way their product is displayed in the stores. They were looking at an equal treatment. I'm prepared to look at equal treatment across the board, including having me visit this special category, if that's necessary.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps the minister could expand upon what he means by possibly revisiting this tax category of regional brewery. Is he looking to further reductions in taxation, or is he looking to increase the taxation?
Hon. I. Waddell: People like Okanagan Spring Brewery didn't qualify, because it was owned by
[ Page 16480 ]
So I'd have two choices if I wanted to revisit it. One would be to make it bigger, thereby reducing revenues slightly to LDB, or to eliminate it entirely, thereby gaining more revenues for the LDB.
[1025]
R. Thorpe: When will that decision be made?
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, we're looking at this whole area as a result of the craft brewers -- the implications of the Spinnakers case. I should have some options and documentations on my desk in a little while. It's just that it pertains to this regional category, because I keep reading in the Prince George papers how Pacific Western Breweries want an equal field. I would try to accommodate that and make an equal field and perhaps try to apply the same tax regime to everybody. I mean, some people would lose some of their regional advantages.
R. Thorpe: So has this regional brewery tax reduction accomplished, in your opinion, the policy objectives you were attempting to achieve?
Hon. I. Waddell: To give the member an honest answer, I don't know that. I can't know that, because I don't see the statement of income of the regional breweries. What we've tried to do is help the regional breweries so that we would have a healthy industry all throughout the province, not only
R. Thorpe: So my takeaway from that is: "We're not sure, but we think it has helped. We think that lower taxes are better." I think that's what I'm hearing. So in that connection, then, I know it's been about two years, and a year ago they made another major thrust. The minister made a commitment a year ago to work with the very, very fragile craft brewer industry. This government has said that it will be competitive for small businesses with other jurisdictions. Could the minister advise what our tax regime is for craft brewers? What is it in B.C. today, and what is it in Alberta today?
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I was not talking about lower taxes; I was talking about different markups. I don't have analysis of the markup structure of the LDB. We didn't bring that, but we will get that for the hon. member. I've asked Mr. Chambers to do that.
With reference to the craft brewers, as I said, I'll have a decision document in front of me within the next couple of weeks -- to have a look at the problems that the craft brewers have said they have.
R. Thorpe: For the record, I don't know why the government continues to espouse that markup isn't taxation. That can be your little island that you can stand on, but four million British Columbians know that it's taxation. I don't want to debate that.
I want to get to the point, though. On many occasions you have been on the record as saying that taxation, with respect to firms in British Columbia, will be equal to or better than Alberta. That has been your stated policy position. With respect to craft brewers, will you undertake today that craft brewers in British Columbia will not pay more taxes than the equivalent production levels pay today in Alberta?
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member is aware that this government has reduced small business tax to the second lowest now in Canada, next to P.E.I., and lower than Alberta. If they are small businesses, they will have lower taxes on the income side than Alberta. As for the markup side, I'm waiting to see what this paper shows me and what options I have.
[1030]
R. Thorpe: Will the minister commit today as to when the craft brewers industry will receive a definite answer from his government? Will they hear a definite answer by the end of June of this year with respect to this issue?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can't commit to that, hon. member, because if I have to make any revenue reductions, I have to go to Treasury Board. That's a standard procedure. I can't commit a date, but I can commit myself to doing what I can to help craft brewers. I'm very well aware that the Spinnakers decision had some ramifications for them. I'm out there to help the little guy in British Columbia, being one myself.
R. Thorpe: The same position applies, then, that has applied for over two years. You're just going to look at it; you're not going to make a real personal commitment. The minister's not going to stake a personal commitment to this issue with respect to craft brewers. You're just going to continue to waffle on this issue, as you have for the past two years. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: I think I already answered the question. I don't think I waffled. I made a decision on the Spinnakers case.
R. Thorpe: The industry is very fragile. This government has continued to throw out all kinds of rhetoric, but the facts and the support and the actions do not support the rhetoric.
Let me move on to something else that is a serious concern to the industry: glass recycling. When that was first introduced at the LDB, what was the anticipated annual cost to operate that system?
Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member will bear with us, we're looking to see if we can get some of the costs there. With respect to his comment about the rhetoric, I might just tell him that it's not rhetoric. I have in fact modernized the liquor laws in the last year -- I don't know if he's noticed -- and started to modernize the liquor stores. That is no mean feat. I know the hon. member's policy is probably to privatize the stores, so this is very important for British Columbia. There's going to be a huge debate.
Now, with reference to the figure
R. Thorpe: Before I rephrase that question, just let me say for the record that we stand for lower taxation and a taxation level that ensures that craft brewers and microbrewers and other alcohol beverage producers in the province of British
[ Page 16481 ]
Columbia have an opportunity to survive -- that they are not taxed to death. That's our position with respect to taxation in British Columbia.
The government introduced a glass recycling project at the LDB. My question is: what was the annualized estimate budgeted number that the LDB thought it was going to cost them to run glass recycling on an annualized basis? Was it $3 million or $5 million or in that range?
Hon. I. Waddell: About $5.5 million.
R. Thorpe: If my understanding is correct, when that $5.5 million was introduced at the very last minute, there were some quick negotiations done by the former deputy minister responsible, now the deputy minister in the Premier's Office, to ensure that people were onside and that the fees per unit were relatively low. I think it was pointed out at the time that the industry had some concerns and reservations.
So that's then, and here we are today. Can the minister confirm that that system is now costing $15 million a year to operate?
[1035]
Hon. I. Waddell: We think it's about $11 million. We'll try to confirm the exact numbers from a study by KPMG.
R. Thorpe: So it's between $15 million and $11 million.
Hon. I. Waddell: No.
R. Thorpe: With all due respect to the minister, he says they don't know the number yet, so I'm saying it's between $11 million and $15 million.
Hon. I. Waddell: You invented the number of $15 million.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, minister.
R. Thorpe: So we have cost allocations based at $5 million or less. We have costs now probably at a minimum of $11 million or perhaps higher than that.
What is the LDB proposing to do with that substantial increase? Are we going to increase the taxation in British Columbia? Are we going to increase the fees to the producers that supply the LDB? Or is the LDB going to eat the substantial increase?
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member has set out some options that are possible. We're trying to get the final numbers, which we expect by the end of June. Then we're going to consult with the industry, as we normally do, to show our cost calculations and get their input. Once that's done, then we'll assess what the next steps are.
R. Thorpe: This process has been going on and on, and I remember that we were going to know that last October. Now we're going to know on June 30.
I think the minister has a fantastic opportunity here to send a positive signal to industry that (1) he's not going to increase their taxation to cover this significant cost overrun and that (2) he's not going to put up their fees and further put their fragile businesses in jeopardy. Is the minister prepared to commit today that he's not going to put up the markup or taxation, as I would say, or that he's not going to increase their fees and that they're going to find a way within the LDB to offset these significant cost increases?
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, with reference to fragile, I think the economy is doing quite well. And so are, I think, the industries in the economy and especially the tourism economy. I think I've already answered the member's question in my last response.
R. Thorpe: We're talking about the wine industry. I remember just a week or so ago, when they had their reception, they actually
I just want the record to show -- and I want to give the minister one more chance -- that he is not prepared to commit to industry in British Columbia today, that the government will live with the fees that they originally established and that the industry probably can expect higher markup rates and/or fee increases to offset the significant cost overrun in the glass recycling at the LDB.
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I love the industry dearly. I've gotten to know them, and I've gotten to like them. They're doing a great job. But you know, if the hon. member ever got -- God forbid, but perhaps -- to be on this side of the House and got to be a minister, he might find out that every industry is going to say they're fragile, that every industry wants lower taxes and that every industry wants more government aid. That's par for the course. Yes, they're fragile, but they're doing okay.
We will certainly look at all the options that the hon. member suggested . Those are the options. We're not rejecting any of them out of hand. We may have to eat some of the additional costs. We might have to find ways of reducing costs; we might have to find other ways of financing costs. That's why we're waiting for the report. When I get the report, I'll make the decisions public, and the member will be fully informed then.
[1040]
K. Krueger: I also wish to raise a few points on the craft brewing industry. I submit that there is evidence that the industry is fragile; it's not just saying that it is. As I understand it, there have been some really tough growing pains and some substantial losses. I'm told that bankruptcies along the way, in the recent past, include Bowen Island, Coquihalla, Windermere Valley, Kimberley, Wild Horse, Tall Ship, Bastion City and Horseshoe Bay breweries. A lot of others are marginal -- financially challenged. Yet people are proud of their successes in the industry, and I think the minister is proud of it too. I thought it was heartwarming for all of us to be at the wine reception last week and to hear of these successes, some of which are to the credit of this government, I believe. If we can encourage our own industry within B.C., whether it's making wine or brewing beer, I'm sure we all want to do that.
[ Page 16482 ]
I don't think it's productive for anybody to deny that they're fragile, when they say that they are and we're seeing the evidence that they are. I just want to ask the minister, to begin with, if he feels the same enthusiasm for supporting the beer brewing industry within British Columbia that he does for the winemaking industry in British Columbia. I'm sure the answer is going to be yes. I just want to invite him to make some comments about that.
Hon. I. Waddell: As a matter of fact, I agree with everything the member said. It's true that the craft brewers are fragile. Remember, this is a free market. You can enter the market if you want. If you go bankrupt, that's part of the risk that you take in entering the market. A lot of people entered the market. But I'm aware, as I've answered in previous questions, that when you move one area of this market, which is somewhat regulated by the government, then you have effects on others. So Spinnakers would have a slight effect on the craft brewers, but it also made us aware -- made me aware -- of the fragility of the craft brewers. That's why I'm looking to see if there's anything I can do to help them and make it a fair competition.
K. Krueger: I'd like to know, on the record, whether the minister is familiar with these two documents. One is dated May 2000. It's a proposal to the LDB regarding changes to the cottage brewers regulations, written by the Craft Brewers Association of B.C. I wonder whether the minister has read that and is familiar with it. Also, there's the proposed trade practices code of the Brewers Trade Practices Association, dated April 14, 2000.
Hon. I. Waddell: On the first one, yes, I've seen the document. I've sent it to the LDB, and I'm waiting to get a response. That's the paper I was talking about. The second one, I haven't seen. That's gone to liquor control and licensing, which is over at the Attorney General.
K. Krueger: Does the minister agree that it would make sense to help the brewing industry in B.C. develop using the same methods as the government has used in the wine industry, if that's possible?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to that is: I'm open to that. I'm not quite sure; I want to be careful. The wine industry has some big players and little players, but it has a lot of players. In the beer industry, you know, Molson and Labatt have about 85 percent of the sales. That's really a dominance of the market. The rest share the other 15 percent. It could be a different market, and I'd have to be very careful with that.
K. Krueger: The minister and my colleagues, in previous questions, touched on the issue of the provincial markup rate. That, according to the craft brewers, is the crux of the problem -- the levy applied to the product of which the funds go toward general revenue and the LCB. Like my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton, that sounds like taxation to me.
[1045]
In 1998, the industry tells me, the LDB created a cottage brewery markup to support the craft brewers as a somewhat new industry. The intent, as I understand it, was to give the craft brewers an incentive in lieu of the restricted economy of scale. I'm told that this markup rate is now obsolete due to the changing marketplace and our economy. Craft brewers are paying $1.40 per litre for packaged product and 81 cents per litre on draft product; the commercials are paying $1.39 per litre on packaged and 80 cents per litre on draft. The markup rate for commercial breweries is based on the retail sale price of their products, whereas the markup rate for the craft breweries is a flat rate. This means that when a craft brewer discounts his beer to gain a competitive advantage, the burden is carried 100 percent by the craft brewer, while the commercial brewer reducing its price has the burden subsidized 50 percent by the markup formula. This is relatively new territory to me, but this is what I'm told.
In Alberta, I understand, they have a flat markup rate that applies to everybody in the industry. For the first 50,000 hectolitres the markup is 50 cents per litre, 60 cents per litre on the next 20,000, 75 cents on the next 30,000 and 88 cents per litre for all product over 100,000. Moving in that direction, the industry believes, would make a tremendous difference to their viability. I wonder if the minister would comment on his intentions.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, again, I could tell the hon. member that I have asked for a decision document from the LDB pertaining to some of the matters that the member mentioned, specifically with the effects of change -- what, if anything, we can do to help the craft brewers. I expect to have that in the next couple of weeks.
K. Krueger: I hear the minister. I hope there are positive changes, but I want to make sure that he's hearing what the industry has to say.
There's also a concern about imports from outside the U.S. and Canada. For example, Corona beer from Mexico, I'm told, accounts for $25 million in sales in B.C., while all our craft brewers account for $31 million in sales. The variants in wage scale between British Columbia and Mexico obviously put Corona in a pretty substantial competitive advantage over craft brewers in B.C.
I personally am proud of this industry in B.C., and I think the minister is too. I think most British Columbians are pleased that it's a potentially burgeoning and growing contributor to our economy. The B.C. brewers tell me that not only does the importation of a Third World country's beer hurt the craft breweries, but the LDB also acts as agent and actively solicits companies from other countries to sell in the B.C. liquor store system. It's also been known for LDB staff to travel to Europe in search of beer and other products to import. The brewers find it hard to take that they are taxed in British Columbia and their tax money funds the LDB, and the people who work for the LDB are then travelling off to search for competitors for them. I can understand what the LDB's point of view would be on that, but it's one of the things that's really sticking in the craw of an industry that wants to do well -- like the wine industry in B.C.
Perhaps the minister would comment on his views on that aspect of competing with Third World countries and the LDB spending B.C. taxpayers' money to go after those products from Third World countries.
Hon. I. Waddell: You know, I actually voted against NAFTA. Unlike most Canadians, I actually got a chance to vote on it, and I voted against it. But I was in the minority, and it passed. So they have access to our markets, and it's strictly on competition. They compete actually because of the Corona
[ Page 16483 ]
name and because the bottle's clear, and people who drink like to have it -- to show the bottle on their table -- when they're drinking. That's what I'm told. I'm all in favour of doing what I can to help B.C. brewers, and I'll do what I can. I'll take those views, given that there's a free market, given that there's NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- which allows access and prevents discrimination against foreign companies, and given that consumers have the ultimate choice
[1050]
K. Krueger: Just to wrap that up, I personally don't think it makes any sense that the province of B.C. would tax craft brewers higher than any other province in the country, which I'm told is the case. NAFTA considerations excepted, I think that the minister should do what he can to support the British Columbia industry, certainly without putting them in unfair competitive positions.
I want to move on to follow up on an aspect of the recycling issues that the member for Okanagan-Penticton dealt with. When this decision was made to crush bottles, I wonder why in the world our government chose to do it indoors in LDB premises.
Hon. I. Waddell: With reference to the member's preamble, I might say that
With reference to the recycling, it was the most cost-effective way of doing it.
K. Krueger: Carrying on the two simultaneous streams of debate, I'll give the minister a very basic lesson in economics. If you cut people's taxes, you give them a raise in take-home pay. They spend that raise in the local economy, and it creates demand for B.C. products like the craft brewers products, and it drives the local economy. If you have many more people working and paying a lower percentage of income tax, then indeed your economy grows. That's how it works, and that's how it will work. We look forward to the chance to show him that in a few months. It does work; it has worked elsewhere. In fact, it worked in B.C. when Bill Bennett made similar moves.
But that aside, we'll get back to the crushing of glass again. The minister has said it makes economic sense. I would like to know why it doesn't make more economic sense to do it outdoors. The reason I'm asking is that people, as employees of the LDB, believe it's negatively affecting their health. I know the minister's aware of those concerns. I think we all should be concerned about it. The Workers Compensation Board should be very concerned about it. This is the same WCB who implemented a provincewide smoking ban on the hospitality industry on January 1.
We're all in favour of protecting workers from anything that damages their health. The WCB has said repeatedly that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco-smoke inhalation. Well, surely there is also no safe level of crushed-glass inhalation. I think it's entirely predictable that there would be a level of crushed glass in the air when this activity is going on indoors; it's also very loud. And, frankly, I think there's a huge potential to be harming the respiratory systems of the employees who are exposed to this. I think it's a hazard. I'd like the minister's comments on that.
[1055]
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me say that I agree with the hon. member's remarks -- well, I don't entirely agree. I note the hon. member's remarks on the glass-crushing and any potential dangers; I am concerned about that. I've expressed concern to my officials through what I think is just kind of common sense.
First of all, here's what I've been told with reference to the first part of the member's question. It's too expensive to transport the full glass to someplace else, and then you'd still have the problems of crushing it and so on.
All the studies that I've been shown show that it doesn't have an effect on the worker. There have been a number of studies done at different places, and different kinds of studies. I'll try and get any of those studies available for the hon. member if he wants them. Having looked at the studies, I asked a further working group to look at the matter. Right now I have the WCB, the LDB and the union people cooperating at looking at the matter further to see if there's any possible effects or bad effects of the glass-crushing on workers.
K. Krueger: With respect to the minister, that sounds a lot like what the tobacco industry says about secondhand smoke. They can produce all kinds of studies saying that it isn't a problem, and we all know not only in our hearts but through our intelligence that that just can't be true. Secondhand smoke is destructive; it causes serious illnesses. We don't want workers exposed to it. In the same way, I think the minister surely would agree with me that there is no safe level of powdered glass inhalation. Would the minister agree with that?
Hon. I. Waddell: This is not secondhand smoke, so we're talking about something different.
I don't know the answer to that last question. But I do know that there have been studies saying that the matter is safe. I don't think there's been a WCB case saying as a result of any investigations that any worker has got sick, and it's due to this particular glass-crushing. However, I'm looking at the matter further, as I said, to make absolutely sure that nobody's health, no worker's health will be in jeopardy.
B. Penner: Well, I'm just wrapping up, but I want to tell the minister that I was astonished to hear that the WCB has also never paid a case for a serious illness arising out of secondhand smoke. They've never paid for the loss of a worker's life to cancer that they attributed to secondhand smoke inhalation, even the workers have been exposed to ETS for decades in this province -- never paid for a serious lung ailment. They have flatly never paid a serious case at WCB relating to secondhand smoke.
[ Page 16484 ]
So the argument that we haven't yet had to pay a serious case for a worker exposed to powdered glass in the air in his environment doesn't wash at all. I submit to the minister that there is absolutely no safe level of crushed-glass inhalation. I thought that was almost a rhetorical question -- that he would agree with me for sure. But I'll go on the record saying that that's a fact. Workers should not be inhaling glass in their work locations.
Surely we won't have to wait until somebody gets seriously ill for the government and the WCB to decide that that was the case, just as with asbestos and a lot of things that workers were exposed to in the past. Workers shouldn't be subjected to this kind of risk in the environment that they work in. Sure, we all agree with the goal of protecting the environment and recycling everything we can recycle and so on. But having gone full bore into this program, I think the government owes it to its workers, as surely as it ought to be concerned about secondhand smoke in workplaces, to not subject them to this risk. I'm going to just wrap up on that. The minister can comment if he chooses.
The Chair: Member for Chilliwack on vote 43.
B. Penner: It's one of those rare occasions where the minister appears speechless, with no rebuttal. I think my colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made an excellent point, showing what appears to be a double standard applied by this government. Keeping with that, I'd like to just ask the minister
[1100]
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I should tell the hon. member that I don't apply double standards, only single standards. With reference to the hon. member's question, I can't give him the precise figures, but we'll be happy to try and get them and to provide them.
B. Penner: My colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head just mentioned to me a moment ago that it's interesting that this government doesn't seem to hesitate to impose extra costs on businesses in British Columbia. Yet when they have an opportunity to take a step that would ensure the protection of their own workers, they hesitate, citing extra costs. I find that ironic, and we just have to go back to the WCB smoking ban for the classic example. I know of many pubs and eateries around the province that undertook expensive renovations in an attempt to abide by this government's regulations, in order to protect their customers and their staff, only to be told afterwards that that wasn't sufficient either. I wonder if the minister can tell us: what was his role in the smoking ban?
I note that liquor sales were down 11 percent in January 2000 compared to January 1999. We can blame that on the year 2000, if we want, and the hangover from the celebrations. But I think most people will agree that the WCB smoking ban had at least some impact on the decrease in liquor sales. I wonder if the minister can tell us what his role was.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair really regrets the necessity to intervene, but the morning so far has had debate on future policy, taxation and Workers Compensation Board, none of which fall under the direct administrative capacity of this minister. Member for Kamloops-North Thompson, if you want to make your comments on the record, that's fine. The Chair will entertain them. I'm calling the committee to order. I'm calling the committee's attention to standing order 61, hon. member. The committee would be advised to bring their debate into order, under standing order 61.
B. Penner: The minister calls himself an advocate for small business. Most of the pubs in British Columbia qualify as small businesses. I want to know if this self-proclaimed advocate for small business played any role in going to bat for those small businesses when they were faced with the WCB smoking ban.
The Chair: The question is out of order, hon. member.
B. Penner: Well, the minister can answer it if he wants to, and I will take his silence as an answer.
The Chair: The member would come to order. Structure a new question, please.
B. Penner: I will take that as silence, and I suppose that silence was clear to the cabinet table as well.
According to documents that we've received, the LDB suffered a $5 million decline in net income last year. That was attributable to a 2 percent increase in cost of sales and a 6 percent increase in operating costs. My question is: why were those operating costs so high last year?
Hon. I. Waddell: The primary causes for an increase in operating costs were two: first the implementation of the credit cards and, second, the recycling initiative.
B. Penner: What does the minister attribute the 11 percent decrease in liquor sales to, which we experienced in January 2000?
Hon. I. Waddell: People drank less in that period.
B. Penner: That's got to give the minister or certainly the LDB great concern when revenues drop by 11 percent in one month. I wonder if the minister or the LDB has embarked on any studies to examine the cause for the dramatic drop.
Hon. I. Waddell: We think -- and a lot of it's conjecture -- that the drop was attributable to the fact that people
B. Penner: So the Chair will see that the smoking ban is relevant to these estimates, given the minister's answer.
How do the first three months of this year look, the first quarter results? How are sales compared to the previous year?
[1105]
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that we only have two months' data. But on a comparable-day basis, the sales seem to be up 2 percent.
[ Page 16485 ]
B. Penner: When I asked the Attorney General a few questions under liquor licensing, one issue I was told to address you about was the issue of rice alcohol and the commitment made by the government for the LDB to purchase remaining stocks of rice alcohol. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what it cost the LDB to purchase stocks of rice alcohol that were still in grocery stores after December 1, 1999.
Hon. I. Waddell: While Mr. Chambers is looking up some information on that, I might say that this was an initiative that we worked on with the Attorney General and with the people in the downtown east side of Vancouver to try and make things a little better -- to make this form of cheap alcohol that was killing a lot of people less accessible. It was a good social initiative.
The LDB paid $10,810 for over 8,000 bottles of rice alcohol that were brought in by merchants and distributors. These bottles were then destroyed.
B. Penner: I'm not sure I heard the figures correctly. Could you repeat that?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry; I apologize. The LDB paid $10,800 for over 8,000 bottles of rice alcohol that were brought in by merchants and distributors. These bottles were destroyed.
B. Penner: No doubt in glass crushers located in stores.
One thing we've heard repeatedly from this government, in terms of changes they want to make to liquor policy in British Columbia, is the advent of Sunday openings for government liquor stores. We've had many press releases. I could probably go back in my file and count them. Yet there are still no liquor stores open on Sunday, despite repeated announcements of the government's intention. Maybe the minister can update us as to the status of this objective and shed some light on why it is that liquor stores are still not open on Sundays, even in resort locations like Whistler.
Hon. I. Waddell: The official answer I'll give to the hon. member is that the consultation process is currently on hold, pending successful negotiation of store employee hours of work between the B.C. Government Employees Union and the liquor distribution branch. My answer is: coming soon, hopefully.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could just tell us, for the record, which particular liquor stores have been identified for Sunday openings. Also, I wonder if he has a target date in mind. He says opening soon, but I wonder if the minister or the LDB has any target dates that he can share with us.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that one of the things I've learned in my attempt to modernize the liquor policy in British Columbia and the liquor stores and everything to do with liquor policy is that you try and get one thing at a time. And when you get something, you praise the Lord that you've got something. The system is so interrelated, and you have to be careful. If you make too abrupt a change, you can hurt someone who's made a big investment into a business.
So in Sunday openings -- you have to remember that we have beer and wine stores in the province that do a lot of business on Sunday -- you're faced with the beer and wine store people. Those are folks who, naturally, don't want any other competition on Sunday. But you're faced with tourists who come to our province and say, "Well, why isn't the liquor store open? I want a bottle of Scotch," or whatever.
So the plan is, I would think, to start slowly and to operate in tourist areas. I don't have the list of all the particular areas, but I would think areas like downtown Vancouver, Whistler -- more in the tourist-oriented areas.
[1110]
A Voice: The target date?
Hon. I. Waddell: There's no target date at the moment, but I'd like to do it as soon as possible. I already told the hon. member that we're in union negotiations over it.
B. Penner: One of the other changes that actually has been implemented, and I think the minister referred to it, is the use of credit cards in government liquor stores. I'm curious whether the LDB has tracked whether the average size of transactions increased in government liquor stores after credit cards became acceptable as a form of payment. I'm wondering what the average transaction was, and do we have an estimate for this coming year for the size of individual transactions.
Hon. I. Waddell: That's a very good question. It's a question that was asked in the debate over, you know, whether you should have credit cards. Will it increase consumption and perhaps, in our puritanical state, is that bad? I don't have the exact figures, but I'll try and get that for the member, because I want to get those figures myself.
I've got some other figures I can give him around the credit card, that we've got so far. Credit cards accounted for approximately 14 percent of the sales. Debit cards, which we had before, account for 23 percent of the sales. The average credit card sale is $57 on MasterCard, $73 on Visa and $38 on the debit card. The average cash sale is $30. So there's some indication there that the credit card sales are a little higher.
But we'll try and get those figures and pass them on to the member. I'd like to see them as well.
B. Penner: That information is very interesting, I agree. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the costs associated with credit cards were to the branch or to the LDB. And what is the fees rate on a percentage basis for the various cards?
Hon. I. Waddell: While we are getting those figures, I wonder if we might just take a short break.
The Chair: It's in the hands of the committee. Do you want a short recess? Five minutes? Back at 11:20 a.m.
The committee recessed from 11:13 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.
Hon. I. Waddell: In order to answer that last question, what I can tell the member is this: that the actual amount that we have spent on transaction fees to date is $1,112,421. For this budget year -- when you go for the whole year -- we think it'll be $4,460,000. Now, I can't give you the rate. That's negotiated by Treasury Board, I think, and it's not public. I can say
[ Page 16486 ]
that we think it's going to be a bit of a wash -- that is, that there'll be some increased sales which will pay for the cost of the use of the credit cards. That's been true in other jurisdictions.
[1120]
B. Penner: One controversy that erupted last year, I guess in the fall, dealt with an individual named Russ Pratt. He landed a position with the branch, I believe. I'd like to know what role he played during his brief tenure. Specifically, was it his idea to spend $150,000 to sponsor last year's Grey Cup game?
Hon. I. Waddell: He was the deputy minister in the department at the time of that Grey Cup period. That was one of the decisions that was made. But the deputy minister doesn't make those decisions. The minister makes those decisions, in the end.
B. Penner: What accomplishments did Mr. Pratt achieve during his tenure as deputy minister?
Hon. I. Waddell: Mr. Pratt is a civil servant. You can ask me what I achieved, if anything. I'm the politician.
K. Krueger: Well, that's a good question too.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, that's a good question. If you want to ask me that, fine. But if I might say, I don't think civil servants reckon their achievements
B. Penner: I believe the branch also sponsored something called the Scott Tournament of Hearts in Prince George last winter. How much was spent on that?
Hon. I. Waddell: The sponsorship totalled $20,000 and entitled the LDB to promote its social responsibility mandate. Our slogan there was: "Here's to the best calls on the ice and in the lounge. Thanks for knowing your limit." So in fact it was an opportunity to put forward the
Remember, this is the largest retailer in the province, and I want it to act like a retailer. That's why I tried to modernize it -- using credit cards, with a modern look, and upgrading of some of the equipment there. I think we've got a great staff. I think it's becoming even more friendly in dealing with customers, and part of retailers is that they sometimes do limited sponsorships. That's what was in this.
The Grey Cup was a national audience and an audience around the province -- one of the top-watched events. We were able to do a sponsorship and in return got a lot of kids to go to the Grey Cup that wouldn't normally have gone.
B. Penner: How much did the Scott Tournament cost?
Hon. I. Waddell: It cost $20,000.
B. Penner: Is there a Mr. Cohen still on the payroll in the branch?
The Chair: Minister, I don't think that answer was on the record.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry.
The question was: is a Mr. Cohen
B. Penner: Not that I have here in my notes.
Hon. I. Waddell: If he's speaking of a Mr. Allan Cohen, who was on the
A Voice: It wasn't Leonard Cohen.
B. Penner: Given his singing abilities, maybe that's a good thing.
I wonder if the minister can outline the costs related to the work that's being done to the so-called connect logistics that's going on in the branch that started last fiscal year. I understand there's some networking or connecting work that's being done in the LDB. I take it that's a form of an upgrade.
[1125]
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not sure what the member is referring to. If he could be more specific, I'll answer.
B. Penner: Perhaps that's the name of the company, Connect Logistics. I believe they have a contract to do some form of upgrading work for the branch.
Hon. I. Waddell: We're not specifically aware. Connect Logistics is a warehouser, I'm told. but I don't know of any particular contract.
B. Penner: When I had a briefing with the LDB staff a few months ago, one of the things we talked about was the LDB's web site. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many hits they're getting on a monthly basis, and if there's any way of determining where these visits or hits are coming from. Lastly, I wonder what the cost of the development of the web site was.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member we didn't bring the information on hits, but we'll be happy to provide it. The site cost approximately $100,000 to develop. It requires 1.5 full-time employees; it costs about $3,000 per month to maintain and update. What would be a modern company without a web site? We'll get the number of hits for the hon. member.
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I'm going to try and move through, wrap this up pretty quickly. One idea that I had back when we met with the staff a few months ago was perhaps a listing of the various wines and other products available by liquor store on the web site, to give consumers such as myself and others the opportunity to know in advance which stores they can go to, if they're not in receipt of the newsletter that comes out, and perhaps also to facilitate online purchases or paying in advance to make sure that your favourite bottle of whatever is available for you when you get to the store. I'm told that places like Manitoba have embarked on this kind of e-commerce. I would encourage the ministry to consider this type of development.
I think I've got one final question; this deals with icewine exports. This is a rather late-breaking item that I've been
[ Page 16487 ]
advised about. I'm told that the European Union is proposing or talking about banning icewines; you know, that's a product that British Columbia produces. Should that happen, I'm wondering if the minister is in a position to tell us what the impact will be on B.C.'s small wineries. How much money is made in sales of icewine to the LDB? Is the icewine market something that's significant; is it increasing?
Hon. I. Waddell: To answer the hon. member: we're working with the federal government and Ontario vis-à-vis dealing with Europe on the icewine question. In fact, the sales of B.C. icewine to Europe are not big. We focus more on the Asian market. But I'm hoping that Europe would, of course, not ban icewines; it would be a retrogressive step. You know, we wouldn't want to retaliate and ban the hon. member's favourite Chateauneuf du Pape or something like that.
A Voice: We only drink B.C.'s.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah. I think that's all I can say at the moment.
[1130]
B. Penner: I don't know either, what scale our icewine exports are to Europe. But I hope that we don't stand idly by. At first blush -- no pun intended -- it seems to me that a move to block our products would be a clear violation of the World Trade Organization's rules for trade. I hope that the B.C. government would play some role in defending us from unfair trade practices in Europe. Certainly they don't hesitate to go to the WTO when it suits them, with respect to activities that they think we're taking that aren't proper. That's a mechanism there that we shouldn't shy away from if we believe that's justified.
That's my final comment on that.
Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the member for that suggestion. I expect that he'll join me on the streets of Seattle someday.
I. Chong: Mindful of the time, I'm just going to ask the minister some very brief questions on the LDB as well. Perhaps Mr. Chambers can make note of those and get back to me on them.
In particular, the minister did briefly mention the sponsorship of the Grey Cup. I believe $149,000 plus GST was the total amount. For that sponsorship, I understand, there are 125 game tickets and then 20 tickets to a VIP suite, two tables at a Grey Cup dinner, tickets to a game lunch, tickets to a fan day festival and tickets to an awards ceremony. Would the minister direct Mr. Chambers to supply us a listing of just who is entitled to those tickets that are provided through the sponsorship and, in addition, where might I find the total sponsorships in the financial statements?
I have the '98-'99 financial report. I don't have the '99-2000; I presume that's on its way. I don't see a category for sponsorship, so it must have been added here in a category that's not clear. I would like to know what the total sponsorship is, annually, for 1998-99 -- and for 1999-2000, once the financial statements are prepared. If the minister can have Mr. Chambers get back to me with a listing, I'd appreciate it.
In addition to the '98-99 financial statements -- and I'm not sure what the '99-2000 will show -- I noticed the professional services category has gone up close to $2.7 million, it looks like. I'm curious as to where those additional costs are, from 1998 to '99. Now, if in the year 2000 those are consistent, I'd still like to have a further breakdown of that, if possible. The other category, which is where everything is usually lumped into, is "Other operating expenses." From $798,000 in '98, it jumped in 1999 to $2.716 million -- again, a substantial jump in costs there. I'm just wondering again where those may be, and if I can have a detailed breakdown of those financial figures, a detailed breakdown of what sponsorships are made through LDB and how the tickets are generally awarded. Those are the final questions I would have on LDB.
Hon. I. Waddell: The costs are Y2K-related, I believe -- some of those extra costs. I'd be pleased to have Mr. Chambers get that information for the hon. member.
I. Chong: That, then, would complete the LDB part of the estimates, and I'll just wait for Mr. Chambers to return that information to me. I want to thank him for coming over this morning. I know he was here last night, so I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate his contribution this morning.
The next area I do want to canvass very quickly is small business issues. Hopefully, in the time remaining we will be able to do that.
[1135]
Hon. I. Waddell: My assistant deputy minister, the very quiet and serene Ardath Paxton Mann -- I'm kidding; she's very dynamic and committed to small business -- is with me here at my right. And Rhonda Hunter is behind me with some financial figures, if we need them.
I. Chong: I do want to again express my gratitude for the briefings that were set up to deal with the small business issues. Clearly there are a number of areas that we could canvass. Suffice it to say that I think many of them have been canvassed over the past few years. Clearly our direction is to support small business and the growth of small business, which we know on this side of the House -- and I'm sure members opposite know -- that we depend on heavily for bringing our economy around. So the areas I'm going to canvass today are going to be more specific areas of the ministry branch.
The first area is that of small business loans; this is a recent development, as the minister knows. The small business loans that have been written off this past year are $2.4 million, with another $2.8 million to be written off, for a total of $5.2 million -- a substantial amount.
Does the ministry have a listing of those? To what extent was due diligence done on these loans to ensure that we would not be caught in the situation we're currently in, where we're going to have to write them off? In all other organizations and in business enterprise there are monitoring and risk evaluations that are done -- aging analysis as to when repayments are being made just to ensure that the amount receivable in fact will be receivable. I'm just curious as to what the ministry does in this regard.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, first of all let me say: let's not be apologetic here. We have nothing to apologize for. These programs, which have gone over the years, have started some great enterprise. Look at the loans to Lions Gate studios in
[ Page 16488 ]
North Vancouver. They virtually got the film industry -- a billion-dollar industry -- started here. This is something that in fact worked.
You ask about small business. They'll tell you that you can't get a loan from a bank sometimes. And through different funds and different programs and different loans we've in fact helped small business in British Columbia. So I hope the hon. members opposite are not disparaging small business, suggesting that the government cannot ever aid small business at all. I would find that very distressing. I know that the member's party is largely financed by big business. I don't like this attack on small business, because I think it's unfair. I think some of these loans have helped a lot.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, because the program was basically suspended some time ago. The loans are administered by Ministry of Finance, and they're listed under the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So I'm at some disadvantage in the sense that I don't have that information. But any information I can get, I'll get for the hon. member.
I. Chong: I am aware that the Ministry of Employment and Investment has loans, but there are some through this ministry as well. My question was about the due diligence process that is done to ensure that these loans don't in fact become bad debts.
To the minister's point: we on this side of the House do respect small businesses. We on this side of the House believe small businesses can survive and can grow if there is a competitive tax regime, if there is a friendly business environment and if there are regulations that are there to assist and not impede businesses. So I take exception to the minister's comment, because he is continually misinterpreting what we are saying on this side of the House. If he were only to listen to small businesses
And my question is to ask this minister about these loans -- $5.2 million being written off. Surely if there was a due diligence process we would see just how the winners are picked and how the losers are picked and if that's how the minister has it set up in his ministry. If he doesn't have any kind of process, I think everybody is entitled to know that as well; $5.2 million is a lot of money. The cultural tourism industry, which this minister recently spoke as an advocate for, is asking for somewhere around, I think, $5.2 million. They certainly would have loved to have seen $5.2 million coming their way for their entire industry.
So I would like to know if the minister is able to provide the breakdown of this $5.2 million for me, and if not, then I'll just have to accept that as it is. That was the one question; I don't need the answer now, because I know it will require some information.
I'm also curious about the area of small business -- the one-stop access. I know the province is attempting to ensure that all areas of the province have access to this. I'd just like to ask the minister whether or not they've accomplished that or how close we are to reaching that particular target.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that we're on target. We're going as fast as we can. It depends on the ability of a particular area to have the technology to support it, and on the request for it.
[1140]
We've just gone to our sixty-second one, and I would like to try and get the whole province. We haven't got there yet. I can't give the complete area. I'll try and get a map for the hon. member with the areas that we've done. I can just say that we are trying to do it as fast as we can. I think the hon. member agrees that it's a good program.
I. Chong: Any program that reduces red tape and regulation and assists small business is certainly something that we on this side of the House would wholeheartedly support, as business is crying out for that kind of assistance.
I am aware that the small business division is attempting to integrate municipal licences with the one-stop as well, and possibly piloting a single business ID number. I'm wondering how far along we are with that at this point. I know we did discuss this in the briefing. I'm just wondering if there is a concrete plan now, and how many areas will be targeted for a small business identification number.
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that a steering committee has been formed which has the WCB, Revenue Canada, the LDB, the Attorney General and consumer taxation. That's the first time that they've all been at the table together. We expect to have a plan to be implemented in the fall.
I. Chong: That's probably good news -- to find out that it will be implemented in the fall. Can the minister advise where the ministry is targeting? One region, or one city, or one municipal district? Can we get an idea of how this will start off? I know it should start off slowly, but sometimes, you know, you do try three or four different regions to get the differences.
Hon. I. Waddell: It's a good question. I can tell the hon. member that we're not looking at geographically specific. The single business number, as you know, is geared to small business, so we might look at one sector first. The WCB and Revenue Canada are the farthest ahead on this, so we would do some sort of sector of small business in with those two. Perhaps that would be the first single number.
I. Chong: I hope it doesn't become too complicated by going in sectors that way. With different programs and different agencies, it can become complicated. As long as the small business sector is apprised of the details along the way, we're on the right track.
The other area that I'd like to ask about, which has been briefly mentioned and which my colleague the member for Chilliwack raised, is the area of e-commerce: e-transaction or electronic activity. Electronic activity and electronic transactions can't occur everywhere throughout the province, as a result of not having Internet service providers available. Other areas just haven't the infrastructure. Can this minister tell me what plans there are to reach out to those areas that may have difficulty having e-transactions occur? Are there discussions, for example, with people like Telus and other organizations to go into those areas? Are there partnerships being looked at? Perhaps that might be in the Ministry of Employment and Investment, but does this minister make any contribution in that area?
[1145]
Hon. I. Waddell: Apropos to the member's earlier remarks, I can say yes, we are interested in fostering better
[ Page 16489 ]
and more modern things for small business, to keep our lead in Canada. We have to recall that B.C., according to Statistics Canada, the federal agency -- not according to the provincial government
E-commerce is the new thing, and we've got to keep our lead there with electronic transactions. When I was in the federal House, incidentally, I tried to make the point that we've got to equalize the communications in the country -- that the big cities, under the free market system, would automatically draw the big companies to provide the latest technology there, and they would kind of ignore the regions. The regions could be left out unless the federal government required, as some terms of regulation, that the companies spread the technology around the region. It's always going to be a fight in the regions.
Here's what we're trying to do. We're working with the information and science office to work on this problem -- to work on spreading technology around the regions. Where there is no technology for small businesses, we're trying to use B.C. Connects. They can go into a government agent or one of our points of contact that we have, and they could use that. That's not completely satisfactory, but at least it's something for the people in the regions until they can get the new technology. That's the way we're trying to help small businesses without the technology in the regions.
I. Chong: In the area of the small business task force and the reduction of regulations, can the minister advise of any developments in that? Is the task force continually meeting? Have any other recommendations come out of the small business task force recently?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm glad the member asked this, because it's as if it doesn't exist, when you listen to the Business Council talking about getting rid of red tape and so on. They sit on the task force. The task force meets quarterly. It publishes quarterly reports; it's out there for people to see.
Small business has brought over 600 proposals to the task force. We've implemented 44 percent of the proposals; we're working actively to implement another 40 percent. We are reducing red tape. Part of the problem, when people talk about red tape, is: what is the red tape that you want reduced? Then let's tackle it and do it, and that's what we're doing. Some people would just prefer to just say: "Well, you know we have so much red tape." But what is the red tape? How do we tackle it? How do we do it? We are doing it, and those figures speak for themselves. Business, both large and small, and labour are involved in this task force.
[1150]
I. Chong: If the minister can provide a list of the recommendations
I do appreciate that small business still feels that there is a lot of red tape. Perhaps those that have more significance are the ones that are still being worked on versus those that have less significance, which seems not to be the case.
I want to conclude my Small Business estimates in this area. I do want to thank the staff, as well, for being here and, again, for the briefings that we've received. However, before I take my seat and allow the minister to move the vote, I do want to quickly leave two questions on the record that we couldn't finish canvassing in Tourism, so that the minister could have his deputy return these to me. In the area of highway signs, where are we in progress on that? Secondly, what is happening with the Royal Hudson?
With that, hon. Chair, I've completed the estimates for this ministry.
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, noting the time, may I thank the hon. member for -- I'm not supposed to say this, but I will -- asking some very good questions. I will be pleased to get her that information, and anything we can do
Vote 43 approved.
Vote 44: Royal British Columbia Museum, $10,963,000 -- approved.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and request leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada