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)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 12
[ Page 16561 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
P. Nettleton: Much to my surprise, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House my wife's younger brother Espen Andersen and his bride Yvonne. They were married some 11 days ago in Fort St. John, and we had the privilege of attending that wedding. For some reason they've chosen to pass through Victoria and check out the Legislature, so I'm delighted to be able to welcome them here.
[1410]
E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today a constituent of mine from Cranbrook. His name is Bob McWhirter. Bob is a hard-working constituent who works terrifically hard, actually, for those people with disabilities and also for those homeless and at risk. I would ask the whole House to please give a warm welcome to Bob McWhirter today.
Hon. C. McGregor: Today in the gallery are two friends of my staff member Debbie Hunt. Their names are Sean Barrett and Charlene Ross. I understand Sean and Charlene are getting married at St. Ann's Academy chapel this Saturday, June 17. I would ask the House to please extend their congratulations.
R. Thorpe: Today in the precinct we have the privilege of having 65 students from Summerland Middle School. They are accompanied by teachers Darcy Mullin and Jacquie Newton and nine chaperones. If the House could please make these students from Summerland welcome.
E. Conroy: Devon Windsor, who is a tireless worker on our floor in these buildings, has two friends here today: Jennifer Shore and Patti Haines, who have come all the way from Daytona Beach, Florida, to visit in Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Randall: In the visitors' gallery today there are approximately 52 grades 4 and 5 students and a number of adults with them. They're from the Second Street Community School, and that's the school, of course, that's in the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. We had a group here yesterday from the same school. They're accompanied by teachers Cathy Kirkpatrick and Naomi Murao. Again, as I mentioned yesterday also, this is a very community-minded school. Would the House please make them all very welcome.
B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have some very distinguished visitors from the village of Burns Lake, representatives of the community forest in Burns Lake, one of the pilot projects that this province is putting together. I might add that the largest and probably the best proposal that came through was from Burns Lake. We have with us Ken Guenter, Cliff Manning, Bill Brinnen and Scott Miller from their board, along with the mayor of the village of Burns Lake, Paul Jean, and I'm sure everybody in this gallery remembers quite fondly when he visited us two years ago with his bed to deal with the rural doctors issue. I would ask everybody to make them welcome.
F. Randall: Up in the gallery there I just noticed former MLA Jim Beattie. Would the House please make him welcome today.
Hon. I. Waddell: Today in the members' gallery -- I just noticed that she has arrived -- we have a special visitor from the United Kingdom. She's Janet Anderson, a Member of Parliament for Rossendale and Darwen; I believe that's in Lancashire. Ms. Anderson is the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting at the British Department for Culture, Media and Sport. She's accompanied by her private secretary, Tom Owen-Edmunds, and Mr. Ian Kydd, the British consul general, who's based in Vancouver. I'll be meeting with her this afternoon, and I'm looking forward to that. Please join me in giving her a warm welcome to this House and to British Columbia.
L. Reid: Some of you will know that my little daughter is just four months old. Today she had a visit from a youngster, Mr. Ben Beatty -- an older man by just a month -- the son of the other Jim Beatty in the legislative gallery. I would ask the House to please make another very young member of this House very welcome.
[1415]
Oral Questions
DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE
L. Reid: Yesterday this government decided to replace the director of child protection on the Draayers case because of his unwillingness to abide by a Children's Commission tribunal. However, Mr. Ross Dawson remains as the head of child protection for the 10,000 children this government has in its care. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us today, in light of the Draayers case, if she still has confidence in Mr. Dawson's ability to oversee B.C.'s children in care?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. I want to assure this House and I want to assure Mr. Dawson and I want to assure all the good and tremendous folks who work for Children and Families and all other ministries that I have full confidence in the ability of Ross Dawson as the director of child protection for the province of British Columbia. He remains the director of child protection for all situations in the province, for all children involved with the province.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.
L. Reid: The children's commissioner said this about the director of child protection in response to the Draayers case: "
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The report from which the member quotes is indeed the report from the children's commis-
[ Page 16562 ]
sioner. It is his report. It is his opinion, and that's fine. What occurred was an impasse, as the director of child protection had a point of view, as did Mr. Paul Pallan. The children's commissioner had a point of view. That created an impasse that needed correction, and we then appointed Ms. Cynthia Morton in order to make the decision. The decision will be Ms. Morton's to make, as a specially appointed director of child protection for this period of time to make this decision on this issue by June 23.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a further supplemental.
L. Reid: With respect, this is bigger than a legislative knot. We have today an individual -- a Ministry for Children and Families official -- who has ignored a statutory order. That is the issue. Even though the director has been replaced on this file, how can this minister have confidence in an official who ignores statutory orders?
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm going to repeat it again, in case the member didn't hear what I said earlier, in this great way that she seems to want to celebrate Public Service Week. I have complete confidence in Ross Dawson as the director of child protection in the province of British Columbia. He has an unblemished career in the province in his whole history. In this one case where he had a disagreement, it was important that a decision be made, and we have undertaken a process to have that happen.
EARLY SUPPORT AND
PROBLEM PREVENTION FOR CHILDREN
V. Anderson: We all know that in individual cases, things go right. But we also know that in individual cases, things go wrong. The Children's Commission report has once again indicated that the recommendations that had been coming from the independent servants of this House -- the Gove report, the transition commissioner for child and youth services, the children's advocate and the children's commissioner -- have consistently demanded the creation of prevention and early support for our children, a program that will deal with the early support and prevention of problems with our children. These recommendations have not been implemented by this ministry. Can the minister explain to us why there has not been put in place a consistent, effective program for early intervention for our children in this province?
[1420]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: The member knows and others know that this government and this ministry are very much committed to early childhood development and early childhood education. We are working very hard in that direction. The member knows -- I'm sure he's perused the estimates -- that he will see there a good piece of money in the budget to respond to that very issue and some special programs for this year -- one on autism and one directly on early childhood interventions. I'm very pleased about that; I'm very proud of that. And I would hope the hon. members would be as well.
DRUG AND ALCOHOL
REHABILITATION SERVICES FOR YOUTH
V. Anderson: This ministry has existed as such for over four years, and yet there is this serious delivery
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to assure the House that I'm very interested and pleased with the responses that we've had in terms of the various groups including the children's commissioner, who has pointed out some of the areas in which we need to do better. And of course, we all know that we always -- every one of us in this room and in this chamber knows -- need to keep working and moving in a positive direction. There are plans in the estimates and plans in the works, always, to keep moving in a positive direction to support our young people with some of the very difficult situations that they find themselves in. We know that in fact extra moneys -- and the member knows this -- are going to many of the organizations that respond to our children with some very special developmental needs and issues, and I'm very proud of that.
MENTAL HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
C. Hansen: Three Health ministers ago this government introduced something called a mental health plan, and it was a plan that was never budgeted for. On May 11 the latest Health minister promised this House that there would be a mental health implementation plan released, and he said: "It will be released within a month." The month is up, minister. Where is it?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Stay tuned. It will be released very soon.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.
C. Hansen: I am surprised at the minister's glib response to that, because the mental health community in this province has been waiting for three years for a mental health plan to be implemented.
The Mental Health Monitoring Coalition produced a report about a month and a half ago that they titled "Promises Made, Promises Broken." And here again we have yet another Minister of Health making promises to the mental health community and then not delivering on those promises that he made. Will this Minister of Health admit that he is just one more NDP Health minister that is continually breaking promises to the mental health community?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I will tell that hon. member and tell the members of the opposition is that this side of the House takes mental health very seriously. That's why, over the last number of weeks, I have been meeting with groups in the mental health community to look at the best ways of bringing forward changes that meet the needs of the mental health community. We are committed to implementing the mental health plan and have taken steps to do that. We will be releasing that implementation very, very shortly, hon. member, and we will be addressing the issues raised by the mental health community in a way that will meet their needs.
[ Page 16563 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a further supplemental question.
ADDICTION PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
C. Hansen: Actually, on a new question, hon. Speaker, this question is directed to the Premier, because in May the Kaiser Youth Foundation released a report condemning this government's inaction in dealing with youth addiction. The report states that there is no provincial strategy, there is no focus, and there is no leadership to address this issue.
Well, on May 19 the Premier put out a press release, and that press release is actually titled: "Action Plan for Substance Abuse Due in Two Weeks." It's been almost a month now. Will the Premier tell us: where is the action plan?
[1425]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The Premier has the floor.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll be happy to proceed; thank you, hon. Speaker.
So this government spends $250 million on all these services, and this opposition says we don't do enough. I agree that all of those services are not focused and directed properly. I have ordered within government to get someone of a stature big enough in British Columbia to come into government in an unbiased way, to collapse some of these services together, to refocus and redirect them and get full value out of the dollars that we spend.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.
C. Hansen: The Premier misses the point that what we see is this government continuing a legacy of nine years of making promises and breaking them. Why is it that this government is making commitments to some of the most vulnerable parts of our society and then failing to deliver in the timely fashion that was promised? If you can't deliver in time, then why is this government making those kinds of promises in the first place?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't recall all the words of the press release, but the hon. member should look at it carefully. What that press release said is that I have asked my ministers to provide me with an action-oriented response. A response came, and I rejected it. I rejected it because I was not satisfied with that response. It said: "Spend more money." I want to make sure that we spend the $250 million we spend in British Columbia more wisely, in a refocused, redirected fashion, so I have redirected government to do that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
ROYAL HUDSON STEAM LOCOMOTIVE
K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Hudson steam locomotive has been a symbol of B.C. tourism for 25 years. Unfortunately, this world-famous locomotive has been out of service since last fall, sitting in disrepair in a North Vancouver repair yard. Can the minister responsible for Tourism explain to British Columbians and visitors why the government hasn't been able to get the Royal Hudson locomotive back on the rails for the peak summer season?
Hon. D. Miller: The Royal Hudson is operated by British Columbia Rail, so I'm responsible, and I'll try to respond to the question.
Unfortunately, while the Royal Hudson is very unique and has been a very important contributor to the tourism development in that corridor, it's also a very old locomotive. There are some fundamental, serious problems with respect to maintaining its operation. B.C. Rail is looking at that very carefully and trying to develop a plan to deal with the locomotive. In addition to that, they are also looking at new opportunities to promote tourism on that line. The Pacific Skylight, the dinner train, has been a very, very successful tourism development brought about by B.C. Rail. They are looking at, and I fully expect, the development of a higher-end tourism train between North Vancouver and Prince George.
So they've been fully involved. While it's a complicated problem, B.C. Rail is looking to find a solution with that very old locomotive.
[1430]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
TAXATION REVIEW FOR NON-PROFIT
COMMUNITY REBROADCASTING SERVICES
Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise to respond to a question taken on notice on June 1. The member for Shuswap asked about a property tax
Interjections.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I may have got the pronunciation wrong. Apparently the member got about everything else wrong in his question.
[ Page 16564 ]
The member said that the Enderby TV rebroadcasting society had received a property tax bill of "nearly $1,000." A review of the records shows that their property taxes on an annual basis have ranged from $420 to $430 a year and that the assessment of the property has not changed since 1998, when the property was first assessed. I'm also pleased to advise the member further that there are exemptions for non-profit rebroadcasting sites and that these exemptions are under the administration of the B.C. Assessment Authority, which reports to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
There have been several appeals of assessments since 1998 that have been granted by the Assessment Authority. In this case there has been no contact by the Enderby TV rebroadcast society with the area office of B.C. Assessment and no appeal made of the status of their assessment.
I urge the member to have the Enderby TV rebroadcasting society contact the assessment office in Vernon. They're quite willing to work with the society to examine their eligibility for exemption, if the society chooses to initiate that discussion.
Reports from Committees
R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "1999 Follow-up Performance Audits/Reviews." I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion carried.
R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted. This third report describes the work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to three issues: the management of government travel, severance practices in government ministries and Crown corporations, and trucking safety enforcement programs.
The committee recommends to the Legislative Assembly that the government ensure full implementation of all recommendations contained in the auditor general's follow-up audits on these topics. Specifically, the committee encourages the government to take the necessary steps (1) to reduce government travel expenditures, (2) to review and disclose severance practices for senior executives in public service, and (3) to institute a program evaluation and performance measure framework to monitor trucking safety in British Columbia.
I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank the Deputy Chair and members of the committee for their contributions and commitment to this report, as well as the office of the Clerk of Committees for their assistance and support.
R. Kasper: Speaking to the trucking safety portion of the report, I know that in 1997 the member for Kootenay, the member for Okanagan-Boundary and myself conducted a review in regard to the Motor Carrier Commission. We heard extensively from the trucking industry, both owners and operators.
What was stressed by that community was safety and the need for improvement in regard to safety issues. We also heard from the trucking industry -- and what is outlined in this report and the recommendations 9 through 12, which include the implementation of an incentive program for carriers that are conducting business in a safe, sound fashion
From this side of the House I lend my support to the adoption of the report.
[1435]
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
In this chamber I call Committee of Supply, continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
The committee met at 2:39 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)
On vote 47: ministry operations, $54,425,000 (continued).
L. Stephens: To begin the estimates questions around the Ministry of Women's Equality for this final session, my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale would like to ask a few questions of the minister at this particular time.
B. McKinnon: My questions to the minister are going to be concerning a place in Creston, B.C., called Bountiful. I was wondering if the minister was aware of this place and the agreement that her ministry has with it.
[1440]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry to inform the member that our ministry does not have an agreement with this organization.
B. McKinnon: There is an article that was put in last month's Province newspaper, from the Province's Fabian Dawson; it was a special report on Bountiful. It talks about the agreement the Ministry for Children and Families has with Bountiful up in Creston and that they were meeting in the last part of May to renew this agreement. My question to the minister is: is this agreement not being renewed?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This is the Ministry of Women's Equality. It is our estimates. If you have a question for the
[ Page 16565 ]
Ministry for Children and Families, I would encourage you to ask that question during Children and Families estimates.
B. McKinnon: No, this isn't a question for the Minister for Children and Families. This is a question for the Ministry of Women's Equality. Okay, then I'll rephrase my question.
In 1993 the Ministry of Women's Equality asked a lady by the name of Ms. Palmer to do a research paper on the commune up in Creston. Her research paper that she did for the Ministry of Women's Equality, detailing the control and power exerted by the group's elders, cost $20,000 and is now apparently collecting dust on the ministry's shelf.
I have requested to have a copy of this research paper, and I haven't heard anything from the minister. Could I ask the minister, then, if she would see that I can get a copy of this research paper?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Now, that is a different question. The answer to that question is that I'm aware of your request; it's going through the FOI process. The legislation is clear about what is public information and what must be considered under the privacy provision. A freedom-of-information officer is looking at the report. Once that process has been concluded, then your request will be answered.
B. McKinnon: Is the minister telling me, then, that her ministry is not the one that is signing the agreement between Bountiful and the Ministry of Women's Equality?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's correct. Our only relationship to this story has to do with the funding of a report back in 1993. We're addressing your request. Any other concerns that have been raised by that particular article must be dealt with the ministry responsible, which is the Ministry for Children and Families.
L. Stephens: I just want to follow up on one item from yesterday that we discussed; that was the request for the Women Against Violence Against Women audit report. We had asked for an FOI request as well. We received a letter late yesterday afternoon to tell us that this report is in the custody and control of the Ministry of Attorney General and that we should apply there. As a matter of fact, the FOI department has transferred our request to the Ministry of Attorney General. My question is: why does the Attorney General's ministry have custody and control of this particular report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I wonder if the member could advise the source of the letter.
L. Stephens: This letter has come from Debra Barr, acting director, information and privacy program, Ministry of Attorney General.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry, I can't provide any information additional to what the member already has in the letter.
[1445]
L. Stephens: Thank you very much. Perhaps that will be part of the documents that we receive, when we receive them.
We're almost finished with the Women's Equality estimates. I want to talk a little about the policy and planning division of the ministry. I notice in the goals and objectives, which form part of the performance plan for 2000-01, that one of the goals, of course, is social well-being for women. One of those objectives is to advocate on behalf of all women to ensure their experiences are reflected in social and economic policy.
Part of the responsibilities in the policy and planning department, of course, is to look at the programs and policies of government and to do review and research. I'd like to begin by asking the minister: what federal-provincial-territorial initiatives is the ministry participating in?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we move to that piece, let me provide some additional information with respect to the letter that you have received. At the time that the audit for WAVAW was initiated, WAVAW was one of the Attorney General's programs. It was the Attorney General's ministry that conducted the audit, so it was just simply a routing issue. We were not the ministry responsible for the audit, so the FOI request has gone to them. Their freedom-of-information officers over there are looking at it. It's the same process, different ministry.
The question with respect to federal-provincial
There are a number of other initiatives that will be on the agenda. The federal-provincial-territorial ministers will be meeting in British Columbia in September, co-hosted by myself and the federal minister responsible. The other issues being dealt with have to do with women's health and violence against women, as well as an initiative that the federal government is recommending with respect to the gender lens. Late last evening I made the point that our province is leading. Here's another example of how the federal government is now picking up on some of our initiatives, gender lens being one of them, and recommending that other provinces and territories pick up and learn from the initiative in this province.
L. Stephens: There were some other initiatives, as well, that I have been led to believe are happening with the federal-provincial-territorial initiatives. I am not sure if the minister was talking about the Canada Pension reforms in terms of the economic and income issues that she was just describing. Also, I understand that an economic equality framework is another initiative that is coming forward to this council. Could the minister describe whether in fact that is actually happening and whether or not those two initiatives, the Canada Pension reforms and the economic equality framework, will be on the agenda for the meeting in September?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I reference the working group that I am chairing; that is the economic working group. There is a paper, and it will be dealt with at the next meeting.
The issues with respect to Canada Pension -- my understanding is that that was on the agenda last year and that there has been some work done on that with the provincial and territorial ministers.
L. Stephens: Have there been any reporting from those meetings on that issue in particular, the Canada Pension
[ Page 16566 ]
reforms, and any other finalizations that have been done by that particular group -- and whether or not those findings have been made public?
[1450]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, my recollection -- and this was in conversations with the federal minister responsible -- is that the consensus of the provincial and territorial sections was that there should be a gender analysis applied to the pensions review that was underway at the time. The minister responsible, along with Finance ministers across Canada, was encouraged not only by the sections but also by the federal minister to involve women in the process and ensure that the outcome of the pensions review, as of last year, included the impact that the review would have on women.
One of the sections in particular, having to do -- I believe, and I'm really relying on my memory -- with time out to raise children, remained as an integral part of the pension plan. The women represented by the provincial-territorial meetings were successful in that endeavour.
L. Stephens: But just a short question: are those findings public information in some form, either from this provincial government or from the federal government? I'll repeat the question for the minister; there was some noise in the chamber, I guess. Are those findings available? Have they been made public either by the provincial government or by the federal government?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We'd be happy to follow up on that for you. I wasn't there at the time; it was simply re sharing information that was made available to me.
L. Stephens: There are a couple of issues I think are important that I would like the minister to address. One is custody and access. I know the minister is aware of the Senate subcommittee that travelled around the country a couple of years ago; it put together a report on custody and access and made recommendations to the federal Justice minister about this issue. Is this one of the areas that is currently under discussion with the provincial-federal-territorial initiatives in formulating the provincial response to this particular subcommittee hearing?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me first add some information, a clarification to the question with respect to the CPP. As I said, they did a gender analysis; it was a gender analysis of survivor benefits. That was in '99. I believe there is ongoing involvement in preparation for a next round in the review of the CPP, but we'll look for some public confirmation of that.
On the question with respect to custody and access, I don't believe that is on the agenda. However, our ministry has been in discussions with the provincial Ministry of Attorney General to ensure that proposed changes to the Divorce Act do not negatively impact on women's situations and that proposed changes address issues of violence against mothers and their children.
L. Stephens: I know the minister is aware that this is a very serious problem for many families, both men and women -- custody and access. It's one that I know the courts have been struggling with for quite some time. I would like to know whether or not your ministry or the Attorney General's ministry or the interministry committee has been developing a response to the federal proposals and whether or not those are public or when they will become public.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My understanding is that the federal government has a discussion paper out. There is a consultation process, and we'll look for an opportunity to have input through that process.
L. Stephens: Thank you very much. So the province at this point doesn't have anything that they're prepared to put forward publicly in this regard, for general public discussion.
[1455]
There are two other areas. One is the age of consent, and this, as I think the minister is well aware, is a particularly troublesome issue. With youth, some of the issues that we were talking about today in question period touch on that. Certainly the youth prostitution issue touches on that as well. Could the minister talk about whether her ministry and she herself were involved at any discussions along those lines, either in the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' discussions or within her ministry and within the government of British Columbia as a whole?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'm sure the member's aware that there's a federal consultation paper out -- November '99 -- to do with child victims in the criminal justice system. Any comments that would have gone into that process would have gone in prior to my taking this post.
L. Stephens: Yes, I'm well aware of that; however, the ministry does go on. I'm sure the ministry itself would have that kind of documentation. I would very much like to receive any of those kinds of reports that have been done on behalf of either this ministry or the province of British Columbia that deal with those issues that I've just outlined and are primarily a federal responsibility. But I will look for that federal paper from November '99 and have a look at that as well.
The other issue that deals with the federal-provincial initiatives is the new reproductive technologies. The federal government had tabled legislation. It's not before the federal House at this moment, although I know there has been significant consultation around this particular issue as well. I'd just like to ask the minister whether or not she or her ministry or one of the ministries of this government has been actively involved in formulating a provincial response to possible federal legislation around new reproductive technologies.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have actually written to the federal minister responsible. I'm just getting a copy of the letter, which I'd be happy to share with you.
L. Stephens: I thought the minister was going to read the letter or tell me what it said.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Thank you; I'll look forward to it.
The ministry itself -- this particular section, the policy and planning -- has increased by $83,000. I understand that it is the addition of a new staff member. If not, could the minister tell me where the increase of $83,000 is going?
[ Page 16567 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The increase that shows on the budget is simply an organizational change. One staff member that was previously in corporate services now reports to this division.
L. Stephens: One of the areas that some people are concerned about in this policy and planning is that it doesn't have a representative from one of the minority groups, particularly aboriginal women. Has the ministry brought on, in this particular branch, a staff person who is familiar with immigrant women, women of colour, aboriginal women and all of the minority groups that are quite represented in this province?
[1500]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very happy to report that not only do we have an aboriginal woman -- and this is a component of ten staff -- but we have a Japanese Canadian director and a South Asian man on staff.
L. Stephens: I know that we now have a new Ministry of Multiculturalism and that the Ministry of Women's Equality did quite extensive policy workshops and outreach to a number of minority groups and multicultural groups in the province. Is that still going to continue with this ministry, or are all of the multicultural initiatives being moved over to the new Multiculturalism ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We recognize that women of multicultural groups, visible minority women and women representing other equity groups are doubly challenged in meeting their equity requirements in the province. So we are very aware of the need to continue to work with women of ethnic background and with aboriginal women as well as women with disabilities and lesbian women.
L. Stephens: I'm glad to hear that, because now I know where I can direct my questions or any information that I have around the multicultural issues. It's difficult sometimes to know which ministry is responsible for what, but I'm glad to hear that Women's Equality is still responsible for issues that directly affect multicultural women.
The Aboriginal Women and Treaties project, too, I understand, is ongoing. Perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about what is happening with the Aboriginal Women and Treaties project and whether or not there has been some headway made in trying to represent the interests of aboriginal women in the treaty-making process.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Before we leave the first question with respect to multicultural, aboriginal, ethnic minorities and lesbian women, my comment on inclusion and recognition for the double barrier that these individuals face is in the context of women seeking equality. I know this is a discussion that we have had throughout the estimates. I understand that it's one that the opposition has pushed from day one in this ministry.
Our mandate, fundamentally and firstly, is with respect to women seeking equity. There is a recognition that women seeking equity are doubly challenged if they are from an aboriginal background, from a visible minority background or whether they are disabled or they are lesbian women.
The focus here is on seeking equity. This is not a ministry of all things that touch women. There are issues that men and women face in the same proportion in society and have the same interests. We have a Health ministry and we have an Education ministry and we have a Multiculturalism ministry, as well as many other ministries in government. I work very closely with them on an agenda to promote equality for women, when they are the deliverers of a program that affects an equality agenda for women.
The Ministry of Education is a ministry and an agenda that we are very proud of in government. It has disproportionately had an effect on women's lives in their quest for equality in our society. But I want to be perfectly clear. When the member said, "I now know that I can direct all questions dealing with multiculturalism to this ministry," that is not a correct assumption. The responsibility we have has to do with women that are seeking equality in our society and the barriers to that equality.
[1505]
The member asked specifically about aboriginal women and the treaty process. Again, I would encourage the member, if she is seeking additional information about the treaty process, to ask those questions specifically of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: It's my very great pleasure to introduce 35 grade 7 students from Little Prairie Elementary School in Chetwynd, British Columbia. It's a long, long way from Chetwynd to Victoria. The students are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Evans, and by their principal, Mr. Brian Bradshaw. Would everyone wish them a very warm welcome to this chamber.
L. Stephens: The minister misunderstood my question or my statement around the multicultural issue. I was just relieved to hear that her ministry was still going to retain the equity issues around multiculturalism and that not everything was going to go to the new ministry. So I want to correct that.
Also, the minister is talking about women seeking equity as her focus and her mandate. I couldn't agree with her more; that is her mandate. But, you know, women seeking equity is very broad. I think most people who are aware of the treaty-making process and the issue of aboriginal women would recognize that that is the fundamental issue for aboriginal women. It's the equity that they are lacking in their dealings with the band councils.
I can't believe that the minister hasn't had any conversations around this issue with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Again, the minister has said repeatedly that her ministry is an advocacy ministry that does consult. Indeed, in the ministry operations estimates here, under policy and planning it says that the responsibility of that division is: "
[ Page 16568 ]
In the ministry's description of its roles and responsibilities and the votes that are contained in the estimates process here, it's quite clear that the role of the ministry is to look at those other policies and programs of government ministries in an equity-seeking way for women. My question about the Aboriginal Women and Treaties project is one that her ministry undertook and has to my knowledge had an ongoing role in, in the development of those issues. Again, I'm just going to ask the minister what is happening. What can she tell me to bring me up to date on this particular project and how aboriginal women are participating in it?
[1510]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I may have to ask the member to repeat the last part of her question, but let me say this with respect to aboriginal women in the treaty process. Our ministry is in discussion with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as we are with most ministries that have major portfolios in government. However, the member must recognize that the relationship around the treaty process is a nation-to-nation relationship. It is the provincial government, the federal government and first nations at the table. It's been made very, very clear that this process is a government-to-government process, and I believe that it would be inappropriate of this ministry or any other ministry of government to interfere in that process without respecting the wishes of first nations themselves.
There are some aboriginal women's groups that seek an involvement with our ministry. They are often involved in issues that are off-reserve and separate from any treaty process whatsoever. We welcome that involvement and our ability to learn from and support their endeavours.
Secondly, the member asked me about the letter to the Minister of Health -- the federal Minister of Health -- with respect to reproductive technologies. The letter that we sent was in April 2000. We indicated support in principle of the need to regulate reproductive and genetic technologies on a national basis. However, we indicated that we wished to have a significant ongoing role in the activities of the national regulatory body because of the profound social, ethical, legal and health concerns raised by reproductive and genetic technologies, the rapid rate of technological change and the need to monitor cost implications on the delivery of health care generally.
The letter goes on from there. It is signed by myself and the Minister of Health.
L. Stephens: I have one final question. Has the ministry continued to monitor the issue of gaming and women? The ministry had commissioned a report. I know that the government has prepared gaming legislation and is consulting with various groups and organizations on that particular legislation. I wonder if the minister has made her comments and the results of that particular report known to the organization or the ministry that's responsible for the gaming legislation. Could the minister fill us in on what's happening with women and gaming?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think that's a prime example of an area that I believe should be dealt with by the ministry directly responsible. I would encourage the member to participate in the estimates of Labour, because that ministry is responsible for gaming in the province.
With respect to this ministry's involvement in the past, I've asked staff if they can access that. I'm unaware of it.
L. Stephens: Well, I have a copy of the report, and I'd be happy to give it to the minister if she would like to have it. Again, I just want to reiterate that the policy and planning department of the ministry clearly says that the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women is a function of that particular program.
I really want to encourage the minister to perhaps put a little bit more emphasis or concern around issues that affect women. I think most of these issues are equity issues. I know she's trying to sort of put a box around her ministry and focus only on what she perceives as equity issues. But I think, when you look at
[1515]
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the help from the staff of the Ministry of Women's Equality. We have a new deputy minister; I wish her well. And I want to thank the minister for answering the questions.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm going to take from the member that we are concluding our estimates. I would thank the member and other opposition members for their thoughtful comments and assure the opposition that this ministry's role will continue in a strong advocacy across government, which we will, however, focus. I want to be sure that my time in this office is a time where we can show focused progress, and I will be very diligent in that. There is no end to the good works that can be done. But with the resources that we have, I think the women of this province are counting on us to be able to demonstrate that we have made good use of our time.
The critic made the point that issues around access to health care are equity issues. I would argue that they are equity issues for all of society, not specifically only for women. It is the same with respect to legal aid or gaming.
While we'll continue to be involved and provide a gender analysis, we will focus the majority of our time and energy on the priorities that are articulated by the women of this province. The women of this province have very clearly told us that their priority is economic security; that's where they want us to spend our time and energy, and they want us to be focused about it. So that is what we will do, because at the end of the day, we are accountable to them.
I would thank the opposition. I'm truly startled that we have gentlemen on the back bench here, on the opposition's back bench, enthusiastic about our agenda. I am so pleased.
The appropriate motion to make, hon. Chair: I would move that the committee rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:19 p.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 16569 ]
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
[1520]
Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill Pr402.
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, 1904 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
V. Anderson: I move that the bill now be read a second time. This is a bill simply to change the name from British Columbia Insurance Company to the Optimum West Insurance Company, subject to a bill that was passed in 1904.
The Speaker: Is leave granted, members?
Leave granted.
V. Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. We needed leave for second reading. Now we'll have the motion for second reading; then we'll go to your motion. The vote on second reading
Motion approved.
The Speaker: Now, if the member could ask for leave to go to
V. Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill Pr402, the British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, 1904 AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr 402; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 approved.
Title approved.
V. Anderson: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill Pr 402, The British Columbia Insurance Company, 1904 Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment, read third time and passed.
The Speaker: I recognize the hon. Minister of Women's Equality.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Who has just completed her estimates, hon. Speaker. I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm just hoping that staff have hurried up to the galleries. The work that is done for our ministry is done by a fairly small contingent of staff that work very hard. The whole estimates process sees the ministry leadership in the House, and they're introduced, but often the folks that are backing them up are in another room providing information to the opposition.
Three of those people have just joined us, and I wanted an opportunity to introduce them and to thank them for all of their work as well: Janice Nakamura has joined us; along with her are Brian Price and Huguette Cyrenne. All three of these individuals are providing yeoman's work for the women of this province. I'd like to have the House welcome them and recognize their work. In a fitting week in recognition of the public service, I think it's appropriate for all of us to thank all of those that work in the Ministry of Women's Equality on behalf of us all.
[1525]
Hon. A. Petter: I call committee stage on Bill 23.
BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I still have staff in the process of coming to the building for committee stage on this bill. Perhaps I might suggest we take a ten-minute recess.
The Chair: Fine. This House is recessed until 3:40.
The committee recessed from 3:26 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: It's a real privilege for me today to have students and teachers and chaperones visiting from Penticton, British Columbia, from Holy Cross Elementary. So I would like to ask the House to welcome 14 students, their teacher Mrs. Beachamp and two chaperones travelling with them. Holy Cross is one of the great schools in the riding; they do a wonderful job in the community. Please, everybody make them welcome.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd just like to begin by introducing the staff I have with me this afternoon. To my left is Colin Smith, the chief financial officer for Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., and to my right is Mario Pavlakovic, who is the manager for property for the Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd.
[ Page 16570 ]
On section 1.
D. Symons: I think I have just one concern in section 1, which describes the various ancillary Rapid Transit Project properties. I suspect that each of these are properties that could be expropriated -- come under this act. I assume that's why they're listed here.
My concern primarily was with section 1(h), which describes: "facilities for storage, maintenance and repair of vehicles, parts, signage and related items." Now, most of the rest of the items listed in (a) through (g), I can see, are related directly to the SkyTrain project and would involve right-of-way or driveways and stations and all the rest, where the need for expropriation is rather clear. You can't get the project without that particular expropriation of that property.
However, when it comes to facilities for storage, I'm not so sure that this would have to necessarily be contiguous to the project itself.
So I'm wondering if the minister might explain: will all of these things covered in (h) be in the immediate vicinity of the SkyTrain project -- of this project we're building with Rapid Transit? Or indeed, as I read here, would it allow that if they decided that somewhere, say, in the Fraser Flats and Vancouver area and south Vancouver, they wanted to put a storage facility or something there for parts for the rapid transit project that they would be able to expropriate property under these revisions in order to do that?
I would think we want to make sure the expropriation is related to the right-of-way properties that are along the line of the SkyTrain, and this seems to imply there might be other properties, if they're any way related to the project, that could come under this act.
[1545]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The purpose here is to provide for storage, maintenance and repair facilities for vehicles and the related parts, etc., that relate to the line, so it's relating to SkyTrain vehicles and parts and what have you. Because of the length of the line -- I mean, we're expanding the line quite considerably here -- it's important to have what we might call remote facilities along the line. So they would be located adjacent to the line. It would be difficult and expensive, for example, to remove vehicles far away from the line somewhere; it makes sense to have them right beside the line, presumably with some track into the facility.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for the answer. I would assume in most cases that that would be the case. It would be very nice, then, if the words "adjacent to the project" were somewhere included in there, because when I see the word "signage" in there, I'm not too sure whether you're going to have a sign shop that necessarily will be in it. If the minister will assure us that indeed any of the subsection (h) facilities mentioned there would be ones that are adjacent to the project, I'll leave it at that.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yeah, I think I can offer a fairly high level of assurance in that regard, particularly because it's not just
G. Plant: This is really a general question, and it's just my way of following up on an issue that was discussed briefly in second reading debate, where I asked the question whether any aspect of this bill changed the obligations in respect of expropriation in terms of who pays. The minister, in his closing remarks in second reading, said the province pays. He said it carefully. And, fair enough, at the time he pointed out that we might end up revisiting the issue in committee stage debate.
He now has the benefit of staff beside him. I just want to make sure that we do revisit the issue again and that in this hopefully somewhat more informed context, the minister can nonetheless get up and assure us that in respect of this part of the SkyTrain project, the Millennium Line, it's the province that will be paying the costs of compensation for expropriation of property required for that line.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes, I can confirm what I said yesterday in second reading debate. It's all in the $1.167 billion budget. The only possible minor exception to that is that there is an agreed-upon and approved $35 million -- we call it the MIF fund -- municipal integration fund. It's possible that there may be some items involved in that fund and some money could be cost-shared for expropriation, a particular item being paid for out of that fund. But that's a very minor part of the project. I'm advised that's a possibility, but for the vast majority of the projects we have a property acquisition fund for the vast number of the properties, and it all comes within the $1.167 billion amount, which includes our contribution to the municipal integration fund. There's some possibility that there may be some municipal contribution as part of a cost-shared item.
[1550]
G. Plant: Is the balance of the amount required for that municipal integration fund -- if I've got it right -- funded? Is it money that the province's cost-sharing partners have committed to contribute, should the eventuality arise that the fund needs to be called upon for the purposes the minister described?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is yes.
I'll just add that we're now also joined by Jeff Pottinger, who's legislative counsel.
G. Plant: Last question on this issue. The minister was helpful enough to refer to a property acquisition fund which is apparently part of the budget for the Millennium Line. Can the minister indicate how much that fund is? What is the amount that the project has set aside for the purposes of compensating people whose property may be or will be expropriated?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The total is $44.5 million.
Section 1 approved.
[ Page 16571 ]
On section 2.
D. Symons: Just a short question. At the beginning of the sections repealed and the following substituted, it says: "Despite any provision of this Act or any other enactment, the authority may do any or all of the following
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'd point out that this is not a change in wording from the existing statute. What's happening here is that the subsection is essentially being split into subsections in order to expand it. But it's exactly the same wording. I refer to section 8(9) of the current British Columbia Transit Act, which has exactly the same wording. It begins: "Despite any provision of this Act or any other enactment
D. Symons: Yes, and whether in this amendment act or the actual act, I suspect then that what it's there for is just as a safeguard in case there are other ways that people might get around the Expropriation Act as far as transit. Anyway, thank you.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
D. Symons: I gather that section 3 is actually the meat of this particular bill, in that it's the one that will change the arrangements for the expropriation from what was previously done in the GVTA Act. The agreement -- the agency agreement -- was there as the previous way of doing expropriation for the rapid transit project. This is the part that makes that change. Would the minister confirm that I'm on the right track?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The member used the term "arrangements." There is no change being made to the process by which expropriation takes place. What we're doing here is clarifying the legislative basis for the "arrangement," as the member puts it, that we have in place currently -- that being the agency agreement. So we're making sure that there's a very clear legislative basis for that agency agreement. But in terms of how it's felt by a property owner, they will see no difference in practice.
[1555]
D. Symons: The reason, I think, for the bill is the fact that there was some delay in the project because of a court case, which found for B.C. Transit and the Rapid Transit Project 2000. But it was felt that the way that it was set through the agency agreement allowed the possibility that people could challenge it -- although unsuccessfully. So this is an attempt to make sure that no more of that happens.
I'm wondering if you could give me just a brief thumbnail sketch of the procedures that were used before the court said, "Well, it was a rather cumbersome sort of arrangement before," and how this sort of shortchanges it and makes it a much clearer and more precise sort of arrangement, as far as expropriation goes. It seems to transfer, I would think from reading here, this authority directly on now to the RTP and sort of includes it in the B.C. Transit Act. Is that how it's operating? Anyway, I think you can explain it better than I.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: As I stated before, there will be no practical difference noticed by anyone on the ground. Someone who looks behind the process, as a lawyer would, to look for the legislative basis for what is happening, will see a difference, because prior to this it was done on the authority of an agency agreement. RTP was relying exclusively upon the legislative authority of B.C. Transit -- right?
What's happening now is that RTP, as the member can see, is in the legislation. It's much more clear what the legislative basis is for that agency agreement. It's made entirely clear in legislation. That's the only difference that anyone would see.
D. Symons: I would gather, then, that section 3, sections 8.1(3) and 8.1(4)(b) would basically be the items that do what you're suggesting.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Yes.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
D. Symons: My apologies for being slow here. There's a 5 followed by a 6, but it's 6 that's part of 5, unfortunately, not
[1600]
The Chair: Member, I think you're in section 6, transitional -- are you not?
D. Symons: It's just offset there, isn't it, in the copy. So yes, I think you're correct. Thank you.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
D. Symons: The layout on the page here is a little bit inconsistent, and it's confusing both ways.
As I was saying a moment ago, the transitional part -- section 6(2) and (3) -- basically brings in retroactivity. I dislike the concept of going back into the past and saying what we did then no longer counts; it's what we're doing today. We're saying it was valid back then. "All things done by RTP that would have been validly done had sections 1, 8(9) and 8.1 of the British Columbia Transit Act, as amended and enacted by sections
Could the minister possibly explain: are there other things out there that make it necessary to go back and do it retroactively? Have you other claims maybe or court cases
[ Page 16572 ]
pending, so that rather than going on from this point forward, you have to back-pedal and deem them to have been effective as of a year ago?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The answer is no; there aren't other pending actions. But there is a total of 23 parcels of private property that we've acquired by expropriation. I should add that 25 have been acquired consensually, by agreement. But of the 23 that have been acquired by expropriation, we don't see any actions arising out of that. There's certainly nothing filed in any court.
But there is a limitation period. There is up to one year for an appeal or a challenge to take place. We're just trying to make sure that the law is completely clear as iterated by the British Columbia Supreme Court. I should add, as well, that I think it's now four months since the Supreme Court decision. So it doesn't look -- and I'm advised that it doesn't appear -- as though the other party in that particular case is proceeding with an appeal, but they've certainly reserved their right to appeal.
We're making this very clear, because as I've stated during second reading debate, we can't afford even the minor delay that could be caused by a challenge, which may be baseless but would be given the due process of even a hearing for an injunction, which could delay the project at all. It's too large a project to allow for that, when we already know that we're on reasonable legal ground. Now we want to make sure that it's absolutely clear to everyone involved, including those parties who've had land expropriated.
D. Symons: If I'm understanding the minister correctly, then the court case that went through and was not won by the plaintiff
Hon. G. Bowbrick: It doesn't deny an appeal. What it does do, in terms of the context within which the appeal takes place, is that
[1605]
D. Symons: I guess the words that the minister could've used to shorten the whole thing are: "We'd have cut the ground out from underneath an appeal, basically, by having this there and making it retroactive." That's what I think you were saying in layman's terms. I guess I have some concerns about that.
Just one last question, then, on this: will this now clear the way for all the lands that may be involved in the project? Or will there still be some impediments or possible impediments through appropriation of lands that you need for the project?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We're doing this on the advice that
This is what has been identified as a risk, albeit it's not a substantial risk in the sense of the chance of an aggrieved property owner actually winning, because we've already got a court decision on our side. This will minimize the risk of that form of challenge. It's designed to try to ensure that we don't have any other impediments that would cost the taxpayer. The member referred earlier to taking the ground out from underneath an appeal. I guess the flip side of that is making sure the taxpayer is absolutely protected on a $1.167 billion project.
D. Symons: There was another side to my question of a moment ago, and that was that maybe there would be lands that aren't still affected by this. When I was asked the question, I was thinking in the back of my mind of Burlington Northern. This clears the way as far as challenges to any expropriation that you may need to do for the program to carry on the rapid transit project. But you do still have some lands, I believe, that you need that are not subject to expropriation, so therefore you still could be held up with those negotiations. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think the member is right to identify
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
D. Symons: Just one comment actually, and then we will get on with it. It's section 7(3) that I was amused by, I guess, because it says: "Sections 1 to 6 must not be construed as lacking retroactive effect in relation to any matter by reason that they make no specific reference to that matter." I think this seems to be, as I call it, a "just in case we forgot anything else" clause in the bill here. I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm interpreting it correctly, it seems to be that in case we left anything else out, this one's going to cover it, so your commencement is all right. I don't know if you want to respond to that comment or not, but from my viewpoint as a non-lawyer, it seems to be a pretty good lawyer term.
[1610]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm a lawyer, and I think it's fair to say that the member who is a non-lawyer has an insightful interpretation. I think that's an accurate interpretation of what that provision seeks to do.
Section 7 approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 16573 ]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 23, British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to call Bill 19, committee stage.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
[1615]
R. Thorpe: I believe this to be the case, but I'd just like clarification not only for myself as a taxpayer but for all of the hard-working taxpayers here in British Columbia. In these various tax rates, whatever category you're in -- if you're in the middle category, for argument's sake -- is all of your tax based on that, or is it a stepped taxation? Do you pay the lower rate on the first amount? Then, whatever the carryover is, do you pay that higher rate? Am I clear on that?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct. It's exactly that; it's a step process as you move up.
Just before we get into this, I'd like to introduce the staff who are with us in the chamber: Pat Parkinson, who is the director of income tax, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations; and Paul Flanagan, who is a tax policy analyst in the ministry.
I also wanted to advise the opposition that I have a floor amendment to introduce. It's to section 17. It actually deals with -- when we get to it, I'll explain it -- the provisions in Bill 18 on the investment tax credit for machinery and equipment. It wasn't included in this act because Bill 19 was introduced before Bill 18. So we couldn't include it in this bill when we tabled it. I will table this now. You'll get a copy of it, and we'll have a thorough debate on it, I am sure, when we reach section 17.
R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if we'll have it in this session, the Income Tax Miscellaneous Amendment Act, at the rate we're going here.
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: No such thing. No, it'll be one of the first bills, if that is the case.
In looking at the rates of taxation, some people from the government side would argue that they're not high enough, and some people from the opposition side would argue that they should be lower. In that context I'm just wondering if we could have the minister explain to us,
briefly, how they establish the various taxation rates that are in this section. How did they go about saying that it was going to be 8.4 percent, 12.4 percent, 14.35 percent? How did they arrive at those percentages for the hard-working taxpayers of British Columbia?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As we move towards having our own tax-on-income system, the tax year 2000 is sort of a transition year, because the federal government required, during this transition, that all the surtax structures essentially remain in place and that we pretty much use their brackets.
These rates were determined as follows. They are, with one exception, 50 percent of the federal rate for that bracket. So, for example, the federal government rate for the bracket of income under $30,004 is 17 percent. The federal rate for the bracket between $30,004 and $60,009 is 26 percent, and for over $60,009 it is 29 percent. So these are at 50 percent minus, as you can see, some tax reductions. The largest reduction, as we've said in our public comments on our tax structure in Budget 2000, is for middle-income earners earning $60,000 and less.
[1620]
[P. Nettleton in the chair.]
I. Chong: I do understand that with the federal rates we've got the 17, 26 and 29 percent levels. They are changing, as I understand it, which is why we have the variations. But where you have taxable income, I understood it to be income
Hon. P. Ramsey: The rates that the member quotes are our estimate of where those brackets will be after they're adjusted for inflation in the tax year 2001. So the member is quite right. Those are the estimated brackets that will be in effect after inflation adjustment occurs for the taxation year 2001.
I. Chong: When would those figures be formalized? When is the time of the year that we know we will have that amount so that people can rely on it as accurate information?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The inflation adjustment is based on the CPI through September of the year. Therefore starting in October, we'd be informing folks for payroll deduction what the new brackets are going to be and then, obviously, preparing the forms in December for the 2001 tax year, which would be then issued in 2002.
I. Chong: I'm just trying for clarification to ensure
How soon will they be available for those who are preparing estate tax returns? There are estate tax returns which
[ Page 16574 ]
have fiscal years other than calendar years. Can the minister advise when those forms might be available that take into effect these changes?
[1625]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry is working right now with CCRA on draft forms. We expect that work for the 2000 tax year to be completed by September of this year. Typically, of course, the forms don't come out until early in the next year. Staff advise me -- and the member is more familiar with this than I am -- that for purposes of trusts and estates, typically the previous year's forms are used, and then you have an adjustment.
I. Chong: That is correct. However, sometimes there are instances for an estate where there's a date of death that occurs in the middle of 1999, and someone wants to do the first and final and wrap up the estate within a year. So they'll choose a May 31 year-end and do the wrap-up, and they do need those forms. I know that typically in the past they've used older forms, but accountants have crossed out those rates, knowing what the new rates are. This is an entirely new system.
So the question I have is that the software that's going to be necessary to make the changeover has to be implemented. For those fiscal years such as estates that have a straddle year, is there going to be a requirement to adjust for the '99 taxes and the 2000 taxes, or will it be all under the 2000 rates? Is that what's going to happen, or are we going to have a very complicated system? This is particular; it's not for individuals. I do understand. It will be for estates and trusts, for which there are a lot of returns that are filed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's interest in this. What we are doing, of course, is working with CCRA to make sure that we and the feds are moving in parallel on this, so that we don't have a lot of complications or areas where we differ from it.
I must say that this is an area that is rather technical and surely beyond the direct knowledge that I have. So I am serving in a lot of this as a conduit for comments of staff. If this is an area of particular interest to the member, I'd be more than pleased to have staff provide her with a briefing on the handling of estates and trusts under this act and how these provisions harmonize with what goes on in the federal income tax system.
I. Chong: I do appreciate the minister's candour in the fact that it is technical. I'm not trying to bait him in any way. I'm just wanting to get some assurance that their staff is aware. It is a complicated process. I know you have to work with CCRA, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency -- the new name for Revenue Canada -- and there has to be a proper integration. It never has been easy in the past to deal with estates and trusts with straddle year-ends anyway, and it will continue to be a problem. But particularly, when you are moving to a new system, it's so much more of a problem.
With estates and trusts in particular, many times family members attempt to prepare these returns themselves. They don't always go to a professional tax preparer or to a law firm to have these matters dealt with. My concern is that those people who wish to deal with it themselves are not going to be able to because of the complications.
I think it might be helpful, rather than myself having the briefing -- because I will follow whatever forms come out -- that maybe an information circular is available for the accounting bodies to have a look at, for them to circulate, and to request or solicit their assistance in providing that information. Not that it should cost a lot of money to do that. I'm not suggesting that the ministry spend money to inform professional accountants. Just as information, I think, it would not be harmful; in fact, it would serve the public well.
[1630]
I'd like to just ask, as well, in this section 5, in the definitions of section 4 of the act, the question on surtax. It says: "'surtax' means the amount of the increase in tax referred to in section 4.86 (2)" of the Income Tax Act. I don't have that with me, and I'm just wondering if I can get a clarification on that.
In the past, as I indicated in second reading today, surtaxes have been imposed for a specific reason. Years ago a surtax was imposed, I believe by the Socreds, called the health surtax. It was supposed to be a temporary surtax, but eventually it became a permanent surtax added on to the base rate. I'm just wanting clarification as to whether this surtax is any different than what has been done in the past and whether this surtax is simply a surtax for higher-level income. If that's what it is, then so be it.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The surtax rates for the 2000 tax year remain the same as for the '99 tax year and at the same levels. For the 2001 tax year, of course, there are no surtaxes in the scheme; it is simply a series of brackets and rates.
Excuse me, Chair. Before I sit down, I would say that I appreciate the member's observation that the accounting community would benefit from a circular on the issue of how tax-on-income meshes with federal tax and what might be a good way of doing a circular. Our staff will take that up with CCRA. Of course, they're dealing, as we discussed earlier in second reading on this, not only with B.C.'s tax-on-income changes
I. Chong: I hope the minister and staff will indulge me as I go through section 5. I may not go through it in particular order, only because I'm looking at the narrative and the description as to what changes are being made to section 5, and I may not follow the actual sections of the act.
I am curious, in the narrative explaining the changes of section 5 of this bill, about the order in which certain deductions apply -- that is, a new ordering provision for individuals, which includes estates and trusts, and for corporations. I'm just wondering if the minister can elaborate further on the ordering and it being a new ordering. What specifically is being changed? Again, I apologize for having not attended the briefing; I was called out at the time.
Hon. P. Ramsey: For those who might possibly want to pursue this through Hansard, I think I'll reference the specific subsection of section 5, which is actually on page 18, I believe, of the bill -- section 4.79.
Interjection.
[ Page 16575 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Page 18.
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. member. This is why we just didn't say aye to section 5. It's a very long section. Okay?
The order of making deductions under this act is identical to the order under the federal act, and we are required to make sure that the order is the same. It's one of the provisions that the federal government put forward, as we moved to tax on income.
[1635]
Hon. D. Miller: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery behind me are a group of grade 7 students from the Annunciation School in Prince Rupert. They are accompanied by the school principal, Flora D'Angelo; a teacher, Jennifer Juteau, and her husband, Jason; Pat and Tracy O'Connor; Leslie Bateman; Valerie Paolinelli; and Bev Mark. I want to take the occasion to single out young Master McNish, with a shock of reddish-orange hair. I know his grandfather very, very well -- John McNish.
The children asked me outside whether we have arguments in this place. I said that yes, we do. Sometimes they're silly, but that there was a purpose for them. And I explained that we are debating a piece of legislation. I would ask the House to make the students and their teachers most welcome.
I. Chong: I hope the students find the debate as interesting as we do. But I'll excuse them if they don't, because it's about income tax, and many of them are too young to even file income tax returns.
Interjection.
I. Chong: Well, they might not have to file them; I think their parents may still be able to claim them. But I hope they will enjoy the debate that we have in this House. We're not having arguments; we have debates -- a correction I'll make, to the minister.
Hon. Chair, I appreciate the reference to the page. As I said earlier, I do apologize for having missed the briefing; it may have been made clear to me. I was just curious, however, because it referenced it being a new ordering, and I'm wondering why we had to specify a new ordering. Were there some specific changes that required certain credits to be moved up?
I'm also curious as to why these credits are referred to as credits, unless in the definition side there is something else. Generally, these are referred to as non-refundable tax credits; that word seems to be missing throughout. I don't know if we're going to have a miscellaneous amendment to ensure that these are all referred to as non-refundable credits; it's just a minor issue. If not, then I guess we won't see that change. In particular, I was curious as to why we had to specifically set out the ordering if our ordering was always the same as that of our federal counterparts?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff pointed out to me, actually, section 3 of this bill repeals the ordering in the previous act. So now we are putting this provision in. The reason for it, of course, is that for some of these credits we didn't have any reference to them previously, because in a tax-on-tax regime we simply did a proportion of the federal.
I. Chong: That does make sense. I did see the repealing provision. But again, not understanding why you had to repeal and restate it, that certainly makes sense, because of the changes and the requirements to make that change.
My other question -- I didn't mean it to be lighthearted -- maybe the minister or staff can provide clarification on. Through here you see the word "credits," these credits for personal credit, age credit, pension credits, etc. However, on tax forms you will always see them referred to as non-refundable, in a category as non-refundable tax credits. I do want to get that clarification from this minister, that all these are in fact non-refundable tax credits. They are not credits in any other way, or our system is not intending them to be refundable credits in other ways. I would hate to see this end up in the court system somewhere where someone says: "They're credits. I'm entitled to them, and they don't say they're non-refundable. I should receive them." The federal forms may have that clarification; we don't seem to have that. I just want to canvass the minister in this area to see if this might be a problem, in an effort to assist him.
[1640]
Hon. P. Ramsey: All the ones that have the same name, same title, as a federal credit are non-refundable -- no change, no intent to change. There are a couple here at the very end. The small business venture capital tax credit -- it's partially refundable. So there are some variations. I would refer the member, though, to page 4 of the bill, section 4.2. That actually outlines the treatment as deductions and how they are applied to income. This is actually the controlling section. The other section we were looking at, 4.79, is the ordering.
I. Chong: I appreciate the assumption that all the credits that we name would parallel those of the federal credits. Again, you can appreciate that, but if you don't so say, people aren't going to necessarily agree. And you'll always have someone who may take up the cause that it hasn't been clarified and challenge that. I'd hate to see this being taken to a court where we spend a lot of money, and it just takes one individual to do that.
But that raises another question, which the minister stated in his efforts to clarify this. There are some credits, he says, which are in fact refundable, such as the small business venture capital credit. How would someone know? It wouldn't necessarily be an individual, but it could be. How would they know that those aren't?
I guess there will be some clarifications on forms or schedules that are printed, if that is the case, so that people who prepare their own tax filing forms don't make a mistake of not claiming everything to which they are in fact entitled. I presume they would go out to a professional tax preparer, but again, some don't. I would hate to see it be so complicated that people don't get what they're entitled to in terms of a tax credit.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and through you to the muttering members opposite about my experiences as an accountant.
[ Page 16576 ]
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Minimal.
Let me say this: the non-refundable credits will be clearly indicated as non-refundable on the form. The treatment of refundable credits such as the family bonus or sales tax credit will also be clarified on the form.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the order of the credits, we've established that that is the same as and was part of the arrangement with the feds. Has there, for provincial purposes, been any change in any of the treatments for any of the deductions outlined here? Has anything changed for a taxpayer of British Columbia with respect to deductibility for any of the categories that are now going to be imposed, as prior to this bill?
[1645]
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are two issues that I want to try to separate very clearly. First, eligibility for credits is taken straight from the federal tax act, so there's no difference between what we're doing and what they're doing as far as credits and eligibility for them. However, the ability to now go to a tax-on-income system in British Columbia does enable us to set our own rates or amounts for those credits.
The one that has changed for the 2000 tax year -- and that's the section of the act that we're debating right now, section 5, 2000 tax year -- the name of the deduction is contained in 4.79. It starts on page 18 and continues on page 19. On page 19 under sub (3)(a) it points to section 4.72, the supplementary credit for the 2000 tax year. That is the additional tax credit that we are providing in British Columbia.
If you go to 4.72 which is on page 15, it specifies what that deduction is: "$600, if the individual deducts an amount in respect of a dependent spouse or other dependant under
R. Thorpe: I thank the minister, one, for his patience as we work through this, and two, for being very deliberate in making these linkages. I just want to make sure. I appreciate that he pointed that one difference out. But with respect to all of the other credits, the formula, the deductibility, all of the things that were in place beforehand stay in place after.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is accurate.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how many low-income earners did not pay tax in British Columbia in the year 1999?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try this. First, we obviously don't have the figures for the '99 tax year. For the '98 tax year, the rough figures are these. Out of a population in B.C. of around four million, there are 2.7 million income tax returns filed. Approximately 1.8 million pay some tax.
[1650]
R. Thorpe: So that means 900,000 don't pay tax.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Or 2.2 million, when the population of the province is four million. Look, I mean that it is a little difficult here. I mean, a lot of this 900,000 difference between those who file and those who pay has to do with children filing tax returns or people who file and then have extraordinary deductions and don't pay taxes for the year. I can give you the figures. I think a further analysis of it could consume us some time in this chamber.
R. Thorpe: It could. You're right: I wouldn't argue with the minister on that. But what I want to know, then, is: how do you arrive at that -- 100,000 low-income British Columbians will no longer pay taxes? How do you arrive at that number?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, the way it's done is
What the officials in the ministry sought to do was to be quite conservative in how they estimated that number; it could well be more than that. I'd be pleased to provide the member with the detailed calculation and breakdown if he wishes; I don't have it available to me in the chamber. But we did walk through in some detail, saying: "Here are people who are obviously low-income earners, obviously paying small amounts of income tax -- hundreds of dollars, not thousands. But by the time you take into account the changes we've made, they will wind up paying no British Columbia income tax."
R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's answer to that, and I realize the answer is directional in nature; it can't be exact at this point in time. I understand, and I accept that. How many of that 100,000, though, are not paying tax because of the provincial changes alone? In other words, how many of the 100,000 are not paying tax because of the federal changes?
[1655]
Hon. P. Ramsey: This estimate was based only on provincial measures; it took no account of the federal measures.
R. Thorpe: The minister made an offer earlier, and I'd like to take him up on that offer so that we can move this debate along. If the minister could provide the official opposition with a detailed breakdown on how this 100,000 number was arrived at, and if we could have the minister's commitment that we would receive that analysis before the end of June, that would satisfy the official opposition. If the minister would like to move the debate along, I'm sure he'd make that commitment to us.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff will have no problem in providing that information to the member by the end of the month.
I. Chong: For clarification purposes, prior to staff developing this list, the term that low-income people will not
[ Page 16577 ]
be paying taxes
I would not want those returns to be skewed in the 100,000 that this minister is estimating to be a part of those who are not paying taxes. Provided we are looking at the right line, of those who will actually have taxes eliminated before the refundable tax credits kick in, I think we will have a more meaningful schedule provided to us. If I can have that for clarification, or that staff understands what it is that we're requesting, I would appreciate that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're quite clear on what's being requested. I appreciate the opposition's interest in making sure that apples are being compared to apples. I'm quite satisfied with the work that staff has done. I'm quite convinced that they have estimated conservatively the number of British Columbians who will, as a result of the measures in this bill, be relieved of paying income taxes.
R. Thorpe: At what level of income will British Columbians not have to pay taxes?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure what the member is asking, because it's quite obvious that there is no one gross income amount. Given the great variation in deductions and credits that individuals may have, that number could be
R. Thorpe: The amounts in 4.3, the personal deductions -- how were those numbers arrived at?
Hon. P. Ramsey: In section 5, sub 4.3, which I think the member is referring to, on page 5 of the bill, these are for the 2000 year. They are identical to the federal amounts for the 2000 year. When we get to the 2001 year, you will see adjustments to these, either by rate of inflation or, for some, more than the rate of inflation.
R. Thorpe: How do those deduction amounts compare for our closest two neighbours, Alberta and Saskatchewan?
[1700]
Hon. P. Ramsey: For the year 2000 these are identical to what our neighbours would be charging. It's really right across the country. For the year 2001, once people get to move to tax on income, there's a real variation. Alberta has chosen to do quite a significantly higher personal reduction, though staff are unsure whether that has actually passed the Legislature or whether it's subject to amendment. We're not quite sure. And we're not quite sure what Saskatchewan is doing for 2001 either. Information of staff is that it looks like the majority of provinces are choosing to do what we have done and what the federal government has done, and that is to index those credits to inflation.
R. Thorpe: Yeah. Actually, I don't know whether it has received royal assent in Alberta or not, but I understand that amendments to Bill 18 in Alberta will increase personal reductions to $12,900. I understand that in Saskatchewan they are being increased above these amounts too.
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: No -- for 2001, as the minister said.
I don't know that I have any more questions in this area. My colleague does.
I. Chong: The narrative provided in the description section of the bill, where the establishment of a variety of provincial tax credits paralleling those under the federal act
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, this is what I was just discussing with your colleague. It's on page 15 of the bill, section 4.72 of section 5: "Supplementary credit for the 2000 taxation year." Okay? It's $300 for people not claiming a dependent spouse credit and $600 for others.
I. Chong: My apologies to the minister. I was reading something else at that time.
I just also wanted to ask on another matter dealing with this change to this new tax structure. That is in the calculation of taxable income, which I don't anticipate will change, but I just want this for clarification. There have in the past been transitional rules applied sometimes in calculation of taxable income. For example, where we've had changes to the inclusion rate for capital gains tax, there have sometimes been transitional rules provided, not so much in the inclusion of the tax but in the inclusion of those losses.
Where losses have been sustained in previous years and carried forward, it's never been a problem to carry forward those losses on your tax return, because we've been consistently completing tax returns in the same manner. With these new tax structure changes, do we anticipate there will be any problems with carrying forward those losses? Can they be applied to income for the calculation of taxable income in the same manner? I presume they should be, but I don't want to make that presumption without clarification from the minister.
J. Wilson: I'd like to make an introduction.
[1705]
Leave granted.
J. Wilson: It's my privilege today to introduce Mr. Seimens and 20 grade 7 students from Parkland Elementary
[ Page 16578 ]
School. They're accompanied by several parents. Today is a very special day for one of the students. Her name is Jessica Meade, and today is her thirteenth birthday. I ask that the House make her welcome.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just for clarity here, what the federal government has said and what the Ministers of Finance across the country have agreed to is that as we move the various provinces to their own tax-on-income systems, we will adhere to the definition of taxable income that is contained in federal legislation. As the member knows, anything sort of above that line, before you get down to taxable income, remains exactly the same. It is not included in these provisions. It is a federal matter, and we simply apply the rules to it.
As the member does know, the federal budget this year did contain changes to treatment of capital gains -- beginning in February, I believe -- and they will have to put in place transitional measures. But that's their problem and their doing and not this bill or the provincial ministry.
I. Chong: I would also like to canvass the minister in the area of the transfer of certain unused tax credits to relatives. I am familiar with transfer credits, and in particular, tuition and education tax credits usually being transferred to parents and, I see also now, to grandparents. I understand this is consistent with federal regulations, but I'm wondering whether this minister made any considerations to transfer of other credits and whether we might engage in that possibility in the future.
I know it's future policy and can't be discussed, but whether that is an area that the Ministers of Finance discuss
[1710]
Hon. P. Ramsey: In the year 2000 tax system that we're debating right now, there are no changes. It is identical to the federal system, and as the member knows, there are some circumstances under which an individual can transfer the tuition or education credits to a grandparent.
The other thing the member asked, though, and this is new ground for British Columbia
I. Chong: Thank you for the clarification.
I believe I'm through with section 5. I believe my colleague still has another question on section 5, after which we can probably move right through to section 13. But I'll let my colleague ask.
R. Thorpe: Just very, very quickly, with respect to 4.82 and 4.83, both of them having to do with pension provisions, I just want to make sure that taxpayers of British Columbia, with respect to pensions
Hon. P. Ramsey: Sections 4.81, 4.82 and 4.83 are all similar in that they do the following. They add to tax payable 49.5 percent of the additional federal tax payable by persons who receive Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan disability benefits for prior years -- that's 4.81 -- pension payments in 4.82 and pension payments for prior years in 4.83. So there is that provision.
However, what this is, is a federal mechanism to reduce the tax payable on a lump sum payment. Obviously if you take the lump sum in one year, you're going to be paying a higher percentage. Under the federal act, the lump sum payment is then excluded from the income for the year, distributed to the years for which it applies, and tax is then recalculated for each of those years. So that's what these three provisions mirror.
[1715]
R. Thorpe: So the answer to the question is that these three are intended to minimize the tax to the taxpayer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has got it. What we have here is a
I. Chong: I did miss another area here in section 5 which refers to the Income Tax Act: section 4.85 on page 20 of the bill, "Apportionment of additional taxes." I just wonder, to be brief, whether staff can assist the minister in providing clarification. I'm not clear as to whether this has been done in the past. This is where a person has filed their tax return in the past and declared their residency on the last day of the year and thereby filed their tax returns in the province in which they reside. This appears to be a deviation from that, and I just want clarification that it is not.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's no change in the treatment of multi-jurisdictional taxpayers in this act from the previous year.
Sections 5 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 17 that I tabled in the Legislature today.
On the amendment.[SECTION 17, in the proposed section 18.1 by deleting paragraph (h) and substituting the following paragraphs:
(h) section 105 [manufacturing and processing tax credit];
(i) section 99 [scientific research and experimental development tax credit].]
[ Page 16579 ]
R. Thorpe: What is the purpose of this amendment? Is this for order purposes? Is that why this amendment has been put in?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 17, which amends section 18.1 of the act, is the ordering provision for corporate deductions. What the amendment does is insert between (g) and the current (h), between the "mining reclamation trust tax credit" and the "scientific research and experimental development tax credit," the provisions for the new manufacturing and processing tax credit that are being introduced in Budget 2000 and are contained in Bill 18.
I. Chong: I'm not sure whether I should be questioning this in the amendment or perhaps when we get to the as-amended section. But in the ordering of 18.1, I was curious as to why paragraph (d), section 19(7), the "Nisga'a royalty deduction" -- this being a new deduction -- happens to appear before a number of other previously standard corporate deductions. If this is not where I should be questioning this, then I'll wait until the amendment passes first.
[1720]
Hon. P. Ramsey: It was inserted where it is in the order because it is the equivalent to the royalty deduction, which is in (c) of that section.
Amendment approved.
Section 17 as amended approved.
Sections 18 to 47 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report Bill 19 complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 19, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.
Hon. H. Lali: I call second reading of Bill 22.
COST OF CONSUMER CREDIT
DISCLOSURE ACT
(second reading)
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be read a second time.
I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill 22, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, on behalf of the Attorney General, who will join us later. This bill, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, represents a major advance in consumer rights both here in British Columbia and across Canada. The major advance is, of course, accomplished in a way that respects the needs of business and allows for improved business efficiencies.
This bill is harmonized with provisions that the federal government will introduce through an amended regulation pursuant to the Bank Act and with provisions all provinces and territories will introduce through legislation. Alberta and Ontario have already introduced similar provisions; Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will introduce similar provisions by the year's end. The remaining jurisdictions will follow in the year 2001. The result will be one uniform set of disclosure provisions that will apply to all credit grantors, whether they're provincially or federally regulated and regardless of their physical location within Canada.
[1725]
Before speaking to the bill directly, I would like to provide a bit of background on the reasons for harmonization and the process that led to the harmonized bill we have before us today. Changing patterns of credit use amongst Canadians prompted the need to modernize laws governing credit. The myriad of credit and leasing options available result in only the most financially astute consumers being able to make valid cost comparisons and informed credit decisions. I mentioned leasing options since this bill will apply to the leasing of consumer goods. This inclusion is because consumer goods are increasingly being marketed with some attractive leasing terms to compete with more traditional credit options.
The federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for consumer affairs agreed to implement the harmonized provisions that we have before us today. This will allow regulation to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving consumer credit market, to reduce compliance on business and to provide a higher standard of consumer protection.
In late 1993 cost-of-credit disclosure was added to the agenda of the talks that eventually led to the agreement on internal trade that was signed by the first ministers in 1994. Chapter 8 of that agreement addressed consumer-related measures and standards, with article 807 encompassing the commitment to harmonize credit disclosure provisions. The agreement on internal trade established a consumer measures committee of officials from each jurisdiction to begin the process of operationalizing commitments made in the agreement and to act as an ongoing forum for national cooperation on consumer issues.
Members may recall the legislative amendments to the Consumer Protection Act. That was Bill 61, which the former Attorney General introduced last year, that concerned direct sellers. That legislation, like this bill, came out of the agreement on internal trade and subsequent work of the consumer measures committee. Between 1995 and 1998 the consumer measures committee drew upon extensive legal and technical expertise from across Canada and conducted broad consultations with business and consumer groups, including representation from British Columbia, in negotiating a harmonization agreement for consumer credit disclosure. The resulting harmonization agreement was then developed into a harmonized legislative template.
[ Page 16580 ]
What are the principles? There are four principles that the harmonized agreement and the bill before us today contain: first, that consumers receive enhanced, fair, accurate, timely and comparable information about the cost of credit in order to obtain the most economical credit for their needs; second, that disclosure requirements and subsequent disclosures be as clear and simple as possible, given the inherent complexity of the matter; third, that business benefit from fairer competition under a uniform set of rules governing all provincially, territorially and federally regulated lenders and lessors; and fourth, that there be no derogation of pre-existing consumer protection measures -- that harmonization be the highest, not the lowest standard.
Like many jurisdictions, British Columbia has had cost-of-credit disclosure provisions in our Consumer Protection Act, and these are now repealed and updated with this new legislation. Let me just take a few moments to speak to the specifics of Bill 22, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act.
This bill is of general application, applying disclosure rules to all consumer credit agreements -- that is, credit to an individual primarily for personal, family or household purposes. This bill applies to both fixed and open credit, to both mortgage and non-mortgage loans, to lines of credit, to credit card agreements and to credit sales offered by retailers. This bill applies to the lease of consumer goods but does not apply to residential tenancy leases.
This bill places consistent disclosure obligations on all credit grantors, requiring all to provide consumers with financial information calculated using prescribed methods. With the same regulations applying to federally regulated institutions, the result will be comparable requirements applying to banks, trust companies, credit unions, credit card issuers, retailers, lessors, loan brokers, and so on.
[1730]
With disclosure required prior to the borrower being obligated under the credit agreement -- two days prior in the case of mortgage loans -- the borrower will be able to consider the cost implications of specific credit agreements in order to shop accurately and comparatively between credit options. This bill achieves comparative disclosure requirements by mandating comprehensive lists of financial terms to be disclosed. The result is no hidden costs and therefore no unpleasant surprises for the consumer.
Central to these lists is the calculation and disclosure of the total cost of credit expressed both in dollar and percentage terms. The total cost of credit of a specific credit agreement is the total of all interest and non-interest finance charges. It can be expressed as the difference between all payments made by and all advances received by the borrower in connection with that credit agreement. Expressing this total cost of credit as an annual percentage rate, or APR, will provide consumers with a figure comparable to an interest rate but inclusive of all non-interest finance charges.
The formula for calculating the APR will be prescribed by regulation, with that regulation consistent with the APR calculation as agreed to within the harmonized agreement. The APR, when read within the context of other information required to be disclosed, provides the consumer with an easy-to-understand comparison of the costs associated with different credit options.
The APR can be used to directly compare the cost of loans at different financial institutions. For example, a mortgage at bank A, which may offer low interest but high fees, can be directly compared to the same mortgage at credit union B, which may offer a higher interest rate but lower fees. The APR can also be used to directly compare the cost of different forms of credit. The use of a personal loan to purchase a car can be directly compared to leasing that same vehicle. The consumer can then take this total cost of credit along with other required disclosure terms and assess this information against his or her financial and other circumstances in order to make the best decision regarding his or her credit options.
This bill, being primarily concerned with disclosure, identifies specific instances in which the credit grantor will be required to disclose specific credit items. These are in advertising, in initial statements pursuant to specific credit agreements, in applications for credit cards and in ongoing statements in the case of an amendment, an interest rate change, an open-credit agreement or a loan renewal.
Let me speak very briefly to each of these instances. There are disclosure requirements in advertising, since the credit information that consumers receive often begins with advertising. Consumers require certain combinations of information to make informed choices. The credit grantor is required to include specific terms in advertisements where other specific information is included. For example, where an advertisement contemplates a fixed-credit arrangement, mention of the interest rate will trigger the requirement to disclose the APR. Advertisements related to other forms of credit or to lease arrangements have similar disclosure requirements.
Initial disclosure statements provide consumers with detailed cost information on specific credit agreements. Though comprehensive, disclosure requirements can be summarized into (1) the nature and timing of all payments and advances, (2) calculation and disclosure of the total cost of credit and APR, and (3) other items which may impact on the final cost of credit but are not factored into the APR, such as default charges and prepayment rights.
There are differences in the initial disclosure requirements for different types of credit arrangements -- mortgage loans, other fixed credit loans, credit card agreements and other open credit agreements. Initial disclosure requirements for leases differ from all others due to the specific nature of leases, such as who retains ownership of leased goods, residual obligations, options, estimated residual values, and so on. Despite any differences, the end result is that consumers receive detailed cost-of-credit information prior to being obligated under a credit agreement or lease.
[1735]
There are disclosure requirements on credit card application reforms. Credit cards can only be issued upon application. This bill adopts the prohibition of unsolicited credit cards, which is currently in the Consumer Protection Act. Since credit cards can only be issued upon application, the application form provides an ideal location to situate required disclosures. Despite these application form requirements, complete initial disclosure statements must still be issued upon credit card issuance. Note that the nature of credit card agreements -- no term, no way to project total advances over the life of the agreement, etc. -- means that this is the only form of consumer credit for which no APR calculation is required.
There are situations in which an ongoing credit agreement will generate the need for further or ongoing disclosure.
[ Page 16581 ]
Any grantor of open credit, such as a line of credit or a credit card, must provide the borrower with a complete statement of account at least monthly. Any grantor of fixed credit has an ongoing disclosure obligation in relation to any amendments to the credit agreement or following an interest rate increase which exceeds the threshold amount. Any grantor of credit for which there will be an outstanding balance at the end of the term, such as a mortgage, has an ongoing disclosure obligation concerning renewal terms.
The disclosure requirements outlined in this bill are generally the responsibility of the credit grantor. When a broker is involved in the transaction, some or all of the disclosure requirements may fall to the broker. In addition to the disclosure requirements, this bill contains two elements which, although discussed during the harmonization negotiations, were left to the discretion of each jurisdiction rather than included in the harmonized agreement. These relate to mortgage discharge papers and acceleration clauses.
Consistent with Alberta's Law of Property Act, this bill prohibits a credit grantor from withholding a registrable mortgage discharge or from charging a fee for the issuance of a registrable mortgage discharge when a borrower has completely paid a mortgage loan. This provision relates to a specific piece of paper that states the credit grantor no longer has a security interest in the subject property. It does not relate to the actual act of discharging a mortgage.
Consistent with provisions in the legislation of the other three western provinces, Quebec and the Northwest Territories, this bill states the credit grantor's right to accelerate -- that is, demand full payment upon default -- but stipulates specific steps that must be taken in invoking that right. These steps are consistent with the practices of most financial institutions and do not supersede the judicial relief provisions of the Law and Equity Act of this province.
These two elements -- acceleration clauses and mortgage discharge papers -- do not detract from the harmonized nature of this bill. Given that the intent of negotiations was to harmonize to the highest standard, adopting the standard even where there was no formal agreement to do so remains consistent with this project.
Compliance measures in this bill are based on three premises. One, borrowers should be able to rely on the information in disclosure statements, even where the disclosure statement is not formally part of their contract with the credit grantor. Two, borrowers who suffer actual damage as a result of a credit grantor's failure to comply should be compensated by the credit grantor. Three, remedies such as default or offence provisions should be designed to promote compliance. Compliance with this bill is addressed through default provisions that apply to specific credit agreements; through stated rights to refunds, compensation, statutory and exemplary damages; and through offence provisions.
Default provisions apply upon contravention or discrepancy and are always to the favour of the consumer. Compliance provisions limit the borrower's right to a refund to the amount of any overpayment plus interest, the borrower's right to compensation to losses suffered as a direct result of the credit grantor's contravention and statutory damages to $500. Exemplary damages are left to the discretion of the court. Default and compliance provisions are intended to dissuade the credit grantor from contravening this bill and to limit frivolous claims by borrowers.
Offence provisions were left to the discretion of each jurisdiction, because available enforcement mechanisms are so varied across jurisdictions. Offence provisions are seen as a last resort option against particularly egregious offenders.
[1740]
This bill continues the authority of the director named under the Consumer Protection Act to enforce cost-of-credit disclosure information. In addition, this bill includes the regulatory ability to utilize existing industry regulators for enforcement against mortgage brokers, motor dealers and provincially regulated financial institutions.
Finally, I would like to speak briefly about the regulations that need to be developed to operationalize this bill. This bill will be brought into force by regulation. Prior to that a regulation will need to be developed to prescribe, for example, the calculation for determining the APR and other financial terms which must be disclosed and the manner in which information must be disclosed in advertisements.
The development of this regulation will include further consultation with specific industry groups, provincial agencies and our partner jurisdictions. This will ensure that those specific industry groups and regulators are prepared for bringing this bill into force and will further ensure that any industry specificities particular to British Columbia that can be addressed within the harmonization principles are addressed.
Hon. D. Lovick: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for allowing that. We're joined in the gallery today by three people that I want to welcome. One of them is a young woman by the name of Monica Vseticka who happens to be the partner of my ministerial assistant Glen MacInnes, well-known in these precincts. I understand that Monica has been putting considerable pressure on Glen, and through Glen to all of us in this chamber, to please hurry and get the session over so she can have him back.
She is joined today by two friends of hers from the Czech Republic, Lenka and Vitek. Lenka and Vitek, I understand, were just married in Las Vegas. We're not sure if Elvis did it, but I am sure that they will be very happy. I want to ask all of my colleagues to please join me in making these three people most welcome.
G. Plant: I want to say a thing or two about Bill 22. The minister's explanation was helpful. What this is about in practical terms is that if someone goes and buys a piece of furniture at a furniture store on a lease payment plan, or a car from a car dealer, and finds that the lease arrangements include the payment of fees and different rates of payment at different times, then those people -- the consumers who are faced with those challenges -- are going to find, after this bill comes into force, that there is a new way in which those rates of interest are calculated and disclosed, for the purpose of ensuring that they get to compare the costs of these agreements from one furniture store to another and that they get the fullest, fairest, most accurate and most honest statement of the actual cost of the transaction.
That seems to me to be an objective which is in the best interests of consumers and also an objective which is in the
[ Page 16582 ]
best interests of those who are in the business of granting credit to consumers. So we will, on this side of the House, be supporting Bill 22.
I am interested not only in the content of legislation but also in the way that legislation is made -- the process that's followed before legislation is introduced in this House. In this particular case, the process to date has a couple of features that I think are worthy of note.
The first point is that this bill will effect a fairly significant and relatively complicated change in an important sector of consumer transactions. The evidence of that is surely nowhere more apparent than in the length and relative complexity of the minister's explanation in second reading debate. That being the case, it would seem to me that a government interested in ensuring that the public and members of the business community who are interested in this have the fullest possible opportunity to scrutinize the legislation would give them an opportunity to do so by means of the exposure process -- which is often talked about by this government but seldom acted upon.
That is, this is the kind of bill where the government could have put it on the order paper in the spring session and left it there for three or four months. Then when we came back in the fall, we would certainly have heard from the public on the details and the principles at stake, and we'd have a better sense of whether the public is happy with this or not. That was not done in this case. This bill was read for a first time a week ago today. It's now being read for a second time and will presumably pass second reading when this debate is concluded.
[1745]
It seems to me that that is an interesting illustration of the difficulty that members of the opposition and the public have when they hear the government talk about the need to reform the way that this Legislature works, the need to make the business of legislating a more consultative, all-embracing exercise. Here they were given a perfectly good opportunity to do that very thing in a context where I think most people would agree that we're not at the heart of some pressingly difficult partisan or ideological issue. The government has nonetheless chosen not to engage in that sort of process, which I think would have been called something more like accountability, in this business of moving very quickly from first to second reading. That's the first point I wanted to make about the legislative process followed here -- and there it is.
The second point I want to make is that this is a government that has taken a particular interest in the idea of ensuring that legislation which has an impact on business is properly considered before it is brought into force. In fact, in 1999 in what was then Bill 81, this government enacted something called a Regulatory Impact Statement Act. When you look through the details of the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, you will see there are obligations imposed on the government to undertake certain processes whenever it is making a regulatory policy decision. I can't imagine something that's more like a regulatory policy decision than Bill 22; that is, a decision which is of general application and that would in some way -- to use the language of Bill 81 from last year -- "regulate economic activity in British Columbia."
I haven't seen the regulatory impact statement for Bill 22. It may be that the minister or the Attorney General will have an opportunity to provide it to me when we get to committee stage debate. It is, unfortunately, much more likely that there is no regulatory impact statement for Bill 22. The government may have some reasons for that.
But nonetheless, we're faced with another situation where the government talks about a set of rules that are supposed to exist for ensuring that proper consultation is undertaken with the business community and other affected persons. Whether that set of rules is a change in the way we do business here by exposing legislation to greater scrutiny or a set of rules in the form of something called a regulatory impact statement doesn't much matter. It seems to me that the government chooses to follow those processes only when it suits its political convenience to do so, and it appears, at least on first glance, that those processes have not been followed to date.
There is, I think, an important part about the context of this bill that moderates some of what I've just said. At the national level there clearly has been consultation with the business community about the idea of legislating in a harmonized way the cost of consumer credit requirements -- disclosure requirements. If you look at the material and the process which the minister referred to in her remarks around the work of the Uniform Law Conference and the implementation of the internal agreement on trade, clearly there was consultation at a national level with the business community.
My guess is that for the most part that consultation succeeded, because we're here today and I don't know that there has been any significant opposition at a national level to this initiative. The government could well stand up and say that having done that exercise in consultation with the national level, it would be -- they might say -- unnecessary and duplicative to do it again at the provincial level.
[1750]
I don't want to characterize that argument as illegitimate. I think it has some force. But nonetheless, this bill is not word-for-word the Uniform Law Conference Act bill. As the minister's own remarks indicate, there are some differences between the Uniform Law Conference approach and the particular approach taken in this bill. At first glance, those differences appear to be workable, achievable and reasonable. But it does seem to me that once the government has said to the people of B.C., "We won't make a regulatory policy decision without following a particular process," then the government ought to follow that process. I'm not persuaded that the excuses that might be offered for their failure to follow that process work in this context.
I know, for example, that there was no consultation with the Credit Grantors Association in Canada at the B.C. level in respect of this bill, and that seems to me to be just an unfortunate omission on the part of the government. So far as I know, there was really no consultation with anybody at the provincial level in terms of this particular bill. The government has chosen a legislative approach to this issue which will involve the use of regulations.
The minister may be in a position -- in fact, I think she went down this road to some extent in her second reading remarks -- to say that at that stage, when we get to the details of how this scheme is going to work, we will in fact undertake the detailed consultation and we will in fact comply with the requirement to produce a regulatory impact statement and that, rest assured, all of this will be done in due course. If so, all to the better, and I look forward to that.
[ Page 16583 ]
I do want to say this additional thing about the use of regulations, however. The devil in these things is in the details. When you put most of the details in the regulations as opposed to the bill, it becomes harder to respond to the bill as a matter of principle, because at the end of the day, all the substance is found in the regulations.
A key element of this particular legislation is the use of the idea of APR, annual percentage rate. The minister explained very clearly in her second reading speech that the definition of APR will be left to regulation. So it's not really going to be possible in this forum to have a debate about whether the government will choose a fair definition of APR. That will be left to regulations, and at the end of the day, regulations, as we know, are made by cabinet without public scrutiny in the privacy of the cabinet chamber.
There are, I think, risks to the public interest of putting too much of a bill into regulations. I'm hopeful that the minister and the government will ensure that the broadest possible consultation takes place with respect to the drafting of the regulations in question and that my concerns will be fully and completely addressed during the course of that process.
That having been said, the substance of the bill -- as it's apparent from the text of the bill, given what I've said in terms of the problems around the use of regulations -- seems to me to be an excellent way of dealing with an important public policy issue. I like the fact that we're talking primarily about the idea of disclosure, which is to say, requiring businesses to be honest in their dealings with consumers. It doesn't necessarily change the rules in terms of what they can do by means of inventive marketing and financing schemes, but it ensures that the consumer will be able to assess and understand the details of these provisions, which are often extraordinarily complicated and, sadly, deliberately so in some cases.
I'm hopeful that the effect of this bill, when it's put into place, will be to ensure not only that consumers have a better idea of the deals they're making but that credit grantors will be able to say that they are, in fact, living up to the highest standards of commercial morality when they comply with the obligations that will be imposed upon them.
While I thought that it was important to comment on process, at the end of the day what counts is substance. And the substance of this bill
[1755]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the comments from the critic for the Attorney General. Let me just offer some reassurances on process. Yes, as our government made a commitment to do regulatory impact statements on all legislation, there was a regulatory impact statement done on this. The member can avail himself of that, and we would be happy to provide that for the members opposite. We are committed to making our decisions based on being informed by regulatory impact statements. That was done and did inform the government's decision to proceed with this legislation.
In the area of consultation in British Columbia, while the broad national consultations did occur here in British Columbia as well, there was further consultation to be done specific to the industry in British Columbia. For that reason, in order to make sure that that consultation was fulsome
Given that some of the process questions can be answered and that we can deal with those process questions, I do appreciate the support of the Liberal opposition for the contents of the bill and look forward to discussing the nature of the bill in committee stage.
I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 22, Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I now call private members' statements.
Private Members' Statements
MAKING BRITISH COLUMBIA RUN --
A TRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE
E. Walsh: This week we are celebrating Public Service Week, from June 11 to 17. This is a unique opportunity for people throughout the province to express their appreciation for the work and the dedication of B.C. public service employees. And the public service employees really do make B.C. run. These employees devote most of their waking hours -- Monday to Friday and many, many weekends for many of them -- to making life better for everyone in this province. I know that each one of us can think of many examples of public service employees who really make a difference with their hard work, good judgment, innovative ideas, ongoing commitment and their contributions to government and to the public as a whole.
I would particularly like to mention the front-line workers, hon. Speaker. These are people who deal with the constant demands, the frustration, the anger and the crises -- the crises of their clients who so badly need their help in those very times. These people deliver much more than government programs and services. They also deliver compassion, they deliver patience and they deliver hope.
Many criticize our public sector, while at the same time they forget that these workers are our friends, they're our neighbours, and they are our family members. I want to put a face on the public sector and just bring home the importance of what these workers are to our social fabric and to our sense of community. These workers implement programs and services that our society has decided are necessary.
The public sector is that nurse that you might talk to in the emergency room late at night. At these times, especially when your child or your family is sick, or those people you love are sick, this is a service that I think we all appreciate. They are the paramedics who are on the scene of a motor vehicle accident or who come to the old age home when problems arise. They're calm, and they're competent. They are that face in the middle of a stressful situation that we look forward to seeing at that time.
[ Page 16584 ]
The public sector is the workers who clean and maintain our schools and public buildings so the public has a safe environment in which to learn and to work. The public sector is a kindergarten teacher teaching children to read and the physical education teacher volunteering their time with the school teams. The public sector is a coordinator of programs for youth or the one administering grants or the community gardens.
Hon. Speaker, these are just a few of so many that are a microcosm of the bigger picture of what the public service sector really does in this province. These people are part of our 40,000 provincial government workers. These workers engineer our roads, they deliver our programs, they safeguard our streets and they work to preserve the natural legacy of our outdoors. They provide common threads in the fabric of our daily lives.
[1800]
In taking care of some of our common resources and dealing with common problems, the public service has seen many, many changes over the years. In the recent past the focus of the public service has been to provide essential services such as social services, engineering our roads, managing our resources, economic development and marketing those natural wonders of our province to an increasing stream of tourists. I live in one of those areas where we've seen an increasing stream of tourists. I know how busy our public service sector is in the Kootenays.
Today we know that health care and education are high priorities. Issues like the green economy and the information highway are also emerging priorities. But it's reassuring to note that some things haven't changed today -- that is, the day-in day-out public service employees who competently continue to provide many of the essential services to the people of British Columbia as the years go by, year after year after year.
People and groups in our society have competing desires that we mediate through our political system. However, the people who do the policy work, which balances environmental concerns and resource management, are a function of our public service. The people who issue permits for hunting, for fishing and for kayak outfitting are all a part of our public service. These talented people that we have working and serving us here in this province help balance the needs of society. In doing their job, and thanks largely to their efforts, we continue to live in one of the most desirable destinations on earth.
While I'm talking about desirable destinations, I might add that I do think that the Kootenays are just a little more desirable. But I've said that before. As I've also mentioned before, I am very proud of the people who work in our public service. We strive to recruit quality people, and once we have found these people, we use and enhance those skills that they offer to us. I'm going to speak a bit more about this a little later in my closing remarks. I will look forward to hearing the comments from the member opposite on the valuable role that the public sector plays in our society and for all of us in our province.
M. Coell: I am pleased to add my remarks to the member's comments on Public Service Week and the role that the public service plays in British Columbia.
There is a long history in British Columbia of having a good non-partisan civil service in the traditional role of Britain and the Commonwealth, and it's one that I am very proud of. I was a member of the civil service at a young age and worked with many people who are still in the civil service dedicating their lives to the civil service and to the service of the British Columbia resident.
I think many of us take for granted the work that the civil service does in British Columbia, and we sometimes take for granted the role that a professional in the civil service, a career civil servant, has in our society, especially in greater Victoria. Where the seat of government is, there's also a high number of civil servants and a high level of civil servants who make service in government their career.
[1805]
When I look at some of the comments the member made re nurses and doctors, ambulance attendants and paramedics
One of the things that has always struck me is that to have a good, non-partisan, progressive civil service, government needs to be a good employer. Government needs to make sure that education is there and retraining is there. I know we dealt with some of these issues at the Public Accounts Committee, which members across are members of, in making sure that if someone joins the civil service, there are opportunities for them to advance through merit and through retraining and that government provides that incentive to them. So when someone starts off as a health care worker at an early age, they can move through the ranks with education, going back to school, and end up as a Deputy Minister of Health.
That sets a standard for all the other ministries as well. If someone starts off as a forester and works through the system and retrains, they can end up as the Deputy Minister of Forests. I think that's what government needs to do. Government needs to be in a position to say: "We're going to take young people, bring them into the civil service and give them opportunities and advancement." I think that's what has made public service a desired occupation for many people in British Columbia.
When you look at the 40,000 who work in the provincial government and the numbers who work in municipalities and school boards and school districts, literally many, many tens of thousands have chosen to work within government. I applaud that. As I said, I've had the opportunity to work as a health care worker and as a social worker and as a psych aide in my youth, and I have worked with some tremendous people. I look back now at how many of them stayed in the civil service and had advancement and added their experience and their knowledge to the workings of government. We need to encourage that.
I think one of the things we've seen in the last few years is that we're going to come up to a position in the not too distant future where many civil servants will be retiring. We have to be ready for that through training and making sure that our universities and our trade schools are graduating enough
[ Page 16585 ]
teachers and nurses to take the positions that people who have spent their careers in the civil service and are now moving on to a well-deserved retirement have.
As I said, I'm pleased to offer some comments and to thank the member for taking the time to recognize the men and women who work for the people of British Columbia. I guess my message is that we have to make sure that government is a good employer and that government is looking after the training, education and advancement of the civil service so that they, in turn, can serve the people of British Columbia well. I thank the member for her comments.
The Speaker: For reply, the hon. member for Kootenay.
E. Walsh: Actually, I just want to touch on a couple of things that the member opposite has talked about too, but I'll do that in a moment. I'd like to thank the member opposite, also, for his comments.
A career in the public service today offers a wide range of exceptional programs and opportunities to all citizens. In fact, just to mention a couple of them, it offers an excellent mentoring program for junior employees. Those who are more senior can take advantage of the executive development program. We have another program, also in the public service. That is the intellectual property program, which provides opportunities to work with leading-edge technologies that are being marketed worldwide.
[1810]
An example of this would be with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They've developed a process that reduces the cost of stabilizing road bases. It's actually so good that the process is being used worldwide. I think that really says a lot about the expertise and the work that's being done in our government with public sector employees. These new technologies continue to provide very valuable jobs to the people of British Columbia.
I just want to touch on one point, and that is, when the member opposite talked about merit and hiring on merit
Public sector employees are professionals, and they're doing a wonderful job. They're doing a wonderful job delivering those services to every person in this province and for the benefit of all. For anyone to say that the professionals that we have working in public sector jobs today are not being hired for their expertise, knowledge and training -- they are wrong; they are dead wrong. Professionals in the public sector today know that priority in service delivery has to remain and that it should remain for the well-being of families and communities -- not shifting funds to the corporate balance sheets, which is really more prevalent today than ever before.
In conclusion, I would just like to commend the work of the public sector. They are highly skilled individuals, and they all work for the benefit of all of British Columbia. They are dedicated. I see the red light is on, and I would just like to end by saying thank you to all the public sector employees that serve all of us in this province.
THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
R. Coleman: My topic this evening is "The Future of Community Service." The reason I want to talk about that this evening isn't because of the measurement of the non-profit groups and the service clubs and what have you in our communities, which we look to as being community servants in our communities, but frankly to the unsung, unheard of and unspoken about Canadian heroes in community service. Tonight I'm speaking about the military reserves in Canada.
In this country and particularly in British Columbia, the primary reserves are our only first ability to handle anything in an emergency situation. The federal government has moved any regular forces out of CFB Chilliwack to Edmonton and therefore left us with the reserves. The sad thing about it is that it's incumbent on us and incumbent on every level of government to remember to measure the value of these people to our communities, because they volunteer to join the military reserves. They go out there, and they train to be ready for our communities.
But the military reserves in this country are in crisis. Recent reports done by John Fraser have clearly identified some of the concerns within the military reserves and the fact that in this country we don't value them. If we don't value them to equip them and train them properly, then we don't value anything that anybody would give to our community in the form of community service.
The report tells us that the numbers of the members of the military reserves in this country should be boosted from the 12,000 presently to 18,000 to 20,500 and that the militia is in crisis and in jeopardy of disintegrating if changes aren't made. We have to make a commitment to this organization and to its future, and the federal government has to wake up and meet its commitment. We as provincial legislators have to let our colleagues in Ottawa on any side of the House, no matter what political party, understand that without the military reserves, without that first line of people who have volunteered and committed to our communities, we are going to have great difficulties in a crisis. We must ensure that these units are properly equipped. It shouldn't be a situation where we're just putting a small fix into it but in actual fact something that we could actually do with no tricks.
The military reserves in this country have been told enough times that things were going to happen, that those people who would be there for us in crisis were going to get the support they needed. And every single time we failed to deliver. The chief of defence staff should include a separate section on the reserves in his annual report to identify their health and their commitment to the community and the value they give to Canadian society. We should consult with currently serving authorities on how to implement proposed changes that would allow them to be properly equipped and to be able to function in a better manner than they do today. The people in the military reserves today are there because they're committed to this country; it's certainly not because this country is committed to them. We have let them down, and we continue to do so.
[1815]
The Fraser report was called "realistic and well-founded," by retired Brig. Gen. Michael Heppel. The interest-
[ Page 16586 ]
ing thing about that is that Mr. Heppel has been around, and he says: "We run the risk of the whole reserve program, I believe, becoming counterproductive unless we stop now and put some resources into it and give it some more meaning and support."
The commitment that these people make to our communities is that they'll get up at 7 o'clock on a Saturday morning and go into Vancouver from the Fraser Valley to do training so they're available for emergency preparedness. They give up their Easter holidays, and they give up their Christmas holidays so that they can go for training when they're not working in order to be able to learn things that they can help our society with. And yet, in this whole panacea, it can take months for a single person who wants to join the reserves to even get through the system in order to have their application processed.
In addition to that, it can take up to two years, if you can imagine
I find my concerns with the whole thing around the reserves is a loss of understanding, at all levels, of the importance of a group of people who would take the time to train and be ready to help society. I know of what I speak. I was once in the naval reserves, before I joined the RCMP. Today my own son is a member of the 15th Field Artillery in Vancouver. I've watched those young men and women who are members of that organization commit and work on behalf of the community -- be trained and be ready for us. And I've also seen the frustration that they have with the fact that they don't even have enough ammunition to be able to train to the level that they need to. When they go to the U.S., they're better soldiers than the U.S. militia reservists are, but they're ill-equipped. They see the embarrassment in their faces of having to be in that situation.
During December 1999 the reserves on the west coast went on call for 15 days in order to be ready for Y2K. Quietly, for community service, they set aside their lives so they'd be there if there were a problem as a result of the changeover of computers in this world.
There wasn't a story anywhere, but the fact of the matter is that these young men and women made that commitment to us. That is the test of the measurement of our belief in the future of community service. When we don't measure and value the people that are prepared to put their lives on the line and stand up for this country and be there to help us, community service and our understanding and valuation of it are at risk. It's time this country woke up and supported our military reserves.
S. Orcherton: I want to thank the member opposite for raising what I think is a very important issue. It's one that rests, I guess, largely with the federal government in terms of the support for people who offer their services in a reserve capacity. Oftentimes people think that's simply in a military action or in a peacekeeping action, but, as I think every member in this House knows, the reserves do much more than that.
There's an opportunity for young people to get involved and learn some tremendous skills and have some opportunities to travel around the province, across the country, and meet other people, form friendships and bonds, and go back to their communities with those kinds of skills where they can apply their energy and their commitment inside their own communities. It's certainly a great benefit to the people of British Columbia.
I know full well the value of military service. My father was in the navy for 25 years. My uncle was in the navy for 30 years. My other uncle was a lieutenant commander in the navy. I have uncles who were in the air force and in the army. Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, which was once based here in Victoria, moved to Chilliwack, and there is really no army base left in Chilliwack at all.
[1820]
I think there is a huge lack, and I think the member puts it well -- a lack of commitment around reserve activities and a lack of commitment from the federal government. I know the provincial government has taken some steps to offer some time off work for government employees to participate in reserve activities. I think that those are good steps. Those show at least a level of commitment, where practicable, from the provincial government to support people who want to put something back into their community.
I know firsthand some of the work that was done by the reserves in my community in Victoria. In 1996 we had a horrendous snowstorm here in Victoria. The streets were clogged, and at the end of the day we called on the reserves from the battalion here in Victoria -- from the Armoury -- with their trucks and their vehicles. They were able to apply their training in the service of this community in Victoria. That occurred all across the lower mainland and up and down Vancouver Island in that snowstorm in 1996. They worked with municipal governments; they worked with the provincial government; they worked with the provincial emergency program. They coordinated efforts very well. That kind of activity, I think, speaks very highly of the reserves that we do have active in British Columbia and, as I said, the commitment they have to their communities.
The reserves have a longstanding history in my community. Victoria at one time was a very strong military base in terms of the army and equally strong in terms of the navy. The reserve capacity actually began through programs that continue today around sea cadets, around air cadets, and getting young people involved in training and some discipline and showing young people that they too can work together to the benefit of their communities. There are tremendous skills that have been put forward through the reserve program.
I agree with the member when he says that there needs to be more support from the federal government and that it is unacceptable that the equipment is not there and that it is unacceptable that the recognition is not there. I think the first step is taking steps like the member is doing tonight, by putting this item up for discussion under private members' statements so that we can at least, in some way, begin to educate the public about the value of the reserve program in British Columbia. By education, I think we can elevate some of those individuals who are offering their time, offering their services, and we can elevate them to the standing that they should be.
When we get community involvement and community support and some discussion and debate around issues of
[ Page 16587 ]
reservism, I think that will be what will prompt a larger and stronger commitment from the federal government and perhaps a larger and stronger commitment indeed from the provincial government.
Two weeks off work is a good thing. Perhaps we should be looking at more of that and elevating those individuals who devote their time. Really, at some point, as the member says, they may well be called to put their life on the line. It may be in an emergency situation in British Columbia; it may be through peacekeeping activities abroad. Those people deserve our respect; they deserve our commendation. I want to thank the member for bringing this issue forward tonight. I think it's a very, very important one, and I look forward to the response.
R. Coleman: I'd like to thank the member opposite for his comments and just touch on a couple of highlights in the next three minutes that I have. Basically what it comes down to is this: if we're not prepared to recognize the service of the people who are serving this country in the role of reservists, it goes to the next level, which is the Canadian military. The reservists in this country are volunteering for peacekeeping missions overseas, as well as actually being here for this country. But the interesting and sad thing about it is that we should be turning over our people that are in peacekeeping roles with a lot further gap between roles relative to the overseas commitment.
We have a government that goes out and likes to make commitments on behalf of this country in peacekeeping roles and then comes back and overtaxes the military. Physical and mental and all kinds of other stresses are put on our military complex, because we don't have the people or the equipment to be able to handle the missions that these people will commit to without thought. They're not listening to their experts, they're not listening to their own military complex and they're not listening to their own reports.
What they're doing is missing the fact that they're destroying and hurting people, that they are messing this thing up. They're messing up the ability of people to make a commitment to this country in a rational way, both in peacekeeping roles and internally to our country. And that is wrong -- absolutely, fundamentally wrong. Until they wake up and realize that, they're going to put our military in crisis, particularly the reservists, because we have underfunded and we've undertrained.
[1825]
The big concern here is that there's a group of young Canadians and older Canadians in their mid-thirties and forties, who have committed to the reserves of this country. They are real Canadian heroes. They are young people and middle-aged people who have stood there to control and keep this complex together because of their love of Canada and their love of their community. It is because of that that the reserves are still here today and not because of the support that's ever been given to them by any level of government in this country. The destruction of our military took place many years ago as far as that pride, and it's been a continuous erosion of that because of this lack of support.
It's time that people in this country stood up and recognized these people, time that they understood what they've done for us, time that we in British Columbia realize that Edmonton is too far away in a crisis and CFB Chilliwack is closed, so the reserves are vital to this province. They're vital to us. And we should be out there
JUSTICE -- NOT JUST US
D. Streifel: Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that the title of my statement this evening has been used before, in the title of a book by Gerald Vandezende on public justice.
This evening I would like to talk about justice, not just us. By this, I mean justice for all -- not for the rich, the taxpayer or even just the citizen. I would like to talk about justice for humanity, about migrants from India and Asia-Pacific to British Columbia and how we have treated them first as British subjects and now as Canadians.
I would like to begin by recalling the voyage of the Komagata Maru. In May 1914, 400 Sikhs chartered a boat from India to British Columbia, seeking entry into the Dominion of Canada as citizens of the British Empire. For two months the Komagata Maru was anchored in Vancouver harbour, while our federal and provincial governments refused to consider the wishes of the passengers and sought ways to force the boat back to India.
The passengers were defiant. They were British subjects who should be allowed to enter Canada, receiving the same treatment as immigrants coming directly from Britain. After enduring physical privation, harassment by immigration officials and intimidation by the Canadian navy, the passengers finally gave up, sailing back to Calcutta where they were received with gunfire from the Royal Fusiliers.
Canada's treatment of other Asian migrants has been equally reprehensible. We may think that the segregation of the Chinese Canadians who built the Canadian Pacific Railway and the internment of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War are events that are far behind us. However, these events were not isolated. They were built on a foundation of ignorance and xenophobia. This foundation is built over time by actions of intolerance and insensitivity, acts that continue to occur to this day.
An example of these acts is the story of the ships from China that arrived off our coast last summer. Last summer we heard news of two ships of illegal immigrants who were smuggled from China to our coast and who were eventually supposed to end up in Los Angeles or New York City. The public response to the news of their arrival was quick and reactionary, mostly calling for their immediate deportation back to China. This response translated into political pressure and a call to action.
As politicians and guardians of the public trust, we must be moderate in our response to events such as these. Many opposition politicians on Parliament Hill were quick to call for the immediate deportation of the migrants, fanning the flames
[ Page 16588 ]
of intolerance and leading to the atrocious "Go Home" headlines in the Times Colonist. The migrants were treated like aliens, with immigration officials even wearing protective gear during immigration hearings.
[1830]
Instead, we should call for the firm and fair treatment of migrants. Firmness means preventing migrants from escaping and possibly being recaptured by the smuggling ring. Fairness means reaching a decision about refugee claims in weeks rather than months or years. However, this firmness and fairness must be humane. Putting migrants in jail is not humane. We have seen the frustration and violence this can lead to, even in the last few days. Spending months deciding their fate is also not humane.
Perhaps the member opposite can join me in stating that the system is too slow and that we call on the federal government to treat the migrants with dignity, as they would treat any citizen of Canada. There are alternatives to putting the migrants in jail, such as housing them perhaps in the old military base in Chilliwack, where there are facilities. There are recreational facilities, and there are social facilities as well as decent housing on that base. It would be an alternative to putting these folks in jail. We should work to have refugee claims processed more quickly, with the claimant fully understanding the process they have entered.
This summer I expect to participate in some leftovers, I believe, from the resettlement of Japanese Canadians. There was a family living on my street, one property over from me, who had rented a small piece of land and a shack from, actually, the resident that still lives there. With work and help from Paul Kariya, the CEO at Fisheries Renewal, I've tracked that family in Ontario. I expect to host them this August when they're out in British Columbia, as a bit of a reunification with the last remaining member of the family with which they lived prior to that resettlement.
So the focus of my statement -- and in my closing statement I will address the issues -- is the smuggling rings and the snakeheads that trade in human flesh -- a part of our history that we thought was behind us a long time ago. I believe they are no better than the slave traders of the previous centuries that we've passed through. But I'd first like to hear the comments of the member opposite.
B. Penner: I thank the member for Mission-Kent for his remarks. Clearly this is a very serious issue. It's a sad fact, a sad reality, that almost everywhere in the world there seems to be, at least in their past, a history of hostility towards people of other nationalities. That seems to be a trait that's common throughout the world. Unfortunately, Canada and even British Columbia have been no exception.
I grew up with a girl named Brenda Yamamoto. Her parents were Canadian citizens at the time of World War II, yet because of their ancestry, they were forcibly confined for the duration of World War II under an act of Parliament. They did nothing wrong. They were, as I say, residents and citizens of this country, hard-working people. And through no fault of their own, they found themselves behind bars, effectively, or behind chained gates for the duration of the war.
I know from talking to Brenda and her parents, particularly her mother, that there's been a lasting legacy. They're happy to be Canadians, they're proud to be Canadians, but there's a tinge of sadness still at how they were treated so many decades ago.
I'm happy to report that Brenda is now a school teacher in British Columbia. Her mother operates a very successful health food store in the Chilliwack Mall in my community. They are very positive contributors to our society. That's a message that we should all remember. All of us came from somewhere else at some point, either personally or through our ancestors. We're all from somewhere else. That doesn't mean that we should be treated any differently than any other.
A couple of years ago I had an opportunity to spend some time in a very poor and destitute country known as Cambodia. These very poor people, who had trouble finding enough food to eat, and in looking after their young ones, would also spend significant amounts of time wondering whether somebody was really of Vietnamese descent, Chinese descent or Thai descent. The basis for those questions was that under Cambodian law, people were entitled to different treatment depending on where they were from, through their ancestry.
[1835]
I can't think of anything more irrelevant than a person's ancestry, in terms of how the law should treat them. People are people. Yes, we have some differences in terms of our culture and things that we like to do, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be afforded equal treatment under the law.
There's certainly one thing that I'm proud about when it comes to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, which is enshrined in our constitution, and that is that it applies equally to all Canadians. In fact, the courts have interpreted the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend to people who have washed up on our shores, even as so-called illegal migrants. Of course that term itself prejudges the outcome of any hearing process. But the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does fully apply to everyone who is on Canadian soil, and everyone is entitled to protection from government actions as a result of that.
To address some of the comments specifically that the member for Mission-Kent made, the official opposition was quick last year to call on the federal government to provide adequate support to British Columbia to help offset the costs of looking after the migrants from China, as well as to call on the federal government to speed up the immigration hearing process -- to sort out who was a legitimate refugee and who wasn't, and to get on and at least bring some certainty to the whole process.
I note lately that the federal government has made some overtures with respect to China, trying to discourage at the source people embarking on such desperate ventures -- boarding a leaky and certainly unseaworthy vessel in an effort to gain citizenship in Canada. Perhaps that effort will bear fruit; it remains to be seen.
All of us here in this Legislature believe that people should be treated humanely, decently and expeditiously when it comes to their applications for Canadian citizenship.
In closing I'll note that just last week I had an opportunity to attend a citizenship court in Surrey for the first time in my experience. I was there because a number of people, including some from my constituency, were becoming Canadian citizens. Some 104 people became Canadian citizens last week in Surrey. It was a very proud moment, not just for the people and their families but for me as well, to see in their eyes how
[ Page 16589 ]
excited they were to have something that we take for granted. Certainly I've taken it for granted. That is the right to be able to call yourself a Canadian citizen. That is a privilege and an honour.
D. Streifel: I thank the member opposite for his comments. It's clear to me that he understands the value of being welcomed to this country.
I can't resist one minor correction in his statement. The first nations were always here. They haven't had to come from anywhere else, like my mother did and like many of us here. But once we get here, I think it's important to realize that we all are treated fairly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- except, it seems, in the case of the immigrants from China that are showing up on our shores with, I guess, hope in their hearts and perhaps a wad of fear as well.
The focus of my statement, really, is to put out a plea to British Columbians not to blame the migrants that show up here but to view them as the victims and find the criminals in this equation and punish them. Canada can do a great deal to get between the slave traders and the garment industry in New York that they're heading to. Canada can do a great deal, I believe, to intervene in China as well, to find out exactly what the problem is.
They're indentured workers that come here with the hope, I guess, of life in a freer country, and they're willing to expend their time and their flesh, as well, in buying that life through whatever activities they're involved in. But to refer to them as
[1840]
I would be frustrated to my soul to be put in a medium- or maximum-security prison because I'd tried to find a better life for myself and my family. I think that with work from this House and work from our federal government, we can find a way to treat these people more humanely, to find better housing for them -- albeit it must be secure housing -- as well as find a better method for Canada to deal with immigrants and ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and perhaps our constitution as well, applies to all folks that land on our shores -- especially for those that really have no other choices in their lives as they show up here.
With that, I thank the hon. member opposite for his comments and his obvious support. If he brings the support from the Liberal caucus, maybe we can make enough noise to get Canada's attention to bring an end to this serious, serious affront to humanity. I know that I've had, I think, minor experiences as a union organizer in organizing within the garment trade and recognizing the fear that was in the eyes of some new Canadians as they're trying to find work. Perhaps we can find out which parts of the garment industry are using these folks as they show up in New York and check the labels in our shirts.
The Speaker: And for the fourth private member's statement, the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary.
GOLF FOR THE DISABLED
B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present an issue that I hope will be of interest to all members of this Legislature. I want to raise the matter of availability of golf carts for the disabled.
In this modern age we are taking steps to be inclusive of all members of our society. We work hard to ensure that all persons, regardless of any level of impairment, are given as many opportunities as possible to achieve their potential and to enjoy as high a quality of life as possible. Everyone knows that the game of golf is a favourite sport these days. We see the growing number of developments surrounding golf courses as their focus. It's definitely one of the preferred activities of our generation.
Making golf courses more accessible to those who are physically impaired is what I want to talk about. Specifically, I have a very fine example of that right in my own constituency. The Osoyoos Golf and Country Club has taken steps to make a golf cart available that is specifically designed for those who are paraplegic. I have been advised that there are other golf courses in the province that have taken similar steps; there are three in the lower mainland and one in Kelowna.
I am proposing that we should consider legislation that would ensure that golf courses provide such a specialty cart. The disabled should have the right to access golf courses, in that those golf courses that make rental carts available should also be required, by law, to make a special cart available for the paraplegic. It is possible for wheelchair-bound persons to enjoy golf. Let me share briefly some facts that I've learned and that, hopefully, will provide some supporting arguments for your consideration.
As I mentioned earlier, the Osoyoos Golf and Country Club has acquired a special cart designed for the use of paraplegics. I'm certain that they will be happy to talk to anyone of their experience. The cart in question is heavy-duty, has sealed batteries and sealed motors. That ensures it will work well even in hot temperatures. The costs of upkeep are minimal. The four-wheeled cart with smooth tires
I'd like to make some comments, just to read off here. It says: "The vehicle enables disabled golfers to rejoin the game they love." Another comment by another person here: "It's a miracle. It was fantastic to play again using the Golf Xpress at Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. Access is no longer an issue."
Hon. Speaker, I'd just like to read a comment by somebody that sent me a note about it from Vancouver. He sent it to my office:
[1845]
"I am one of the growing number of disabled golfers in B.C. and at this time there is no law that says a golf course must make their course accessible. By law, they have to provide parking spaces and make their clubhouse and washrooms. . . accessible. But they do not have to provide accessibility to the course by providing [a golf cart]."I discovered in the summer of 1996 that the hardest part of the game of golf was getting on the course. As a person recover
[ Page 16590 ]
And I must say, being a golfer myself, a 94 is a very good score, whether you'reing from multiple sclerosis, skiing and golf were my passions and although I was able to ski again with assistance from DSABC and Blackcomb Mountain, golf was impossible. That is why I started Accessible Golf '96 to promote the game in the lower mainland. We now have the You Can Swing Again program and the Golf Xpress carts at Langara, McCleary, Fraser View, Northlands, and this week a cart is going to Whistler.
"What's interesting is United States Golf Association and the Royal Canadian Golf Association have adopted rules covering
. . . provisions for me to get a certified handicap and play in sanctioned tournaments. My goal is to be treated as a golfer, and soon this will be a reality. In Vancouver and North Vancouver it is happening. I call the course, book a tee time, reserve the cart and play 18, just like my able-bodied friends. No different."I would like to participate in the games again this year and a fine legacy would be leaving a cart at the course in Langley for all to play.
"P.S. Two weeks ago, I played McCleary for the first time this year and shot a 94. It is amazing what's possible if you put your heart into it."
In all fairness, I have to give credit to a former MLA, Mr. Tony Brummet, who brought the whole concept to my attention. What he would like to see happen is these golf carts all over the province. I phoned my own local course at Fairview Mountain Golf Club, and talked to the pro there. They actually took the golf cart up from Osoyoos and allowed them to try it out. And he said it did absolutely no damage whatsoever. It goes into the sand traps; it goes onto the green. It's amazing what can take place, what can happen. Of course, they usually have to golf with other people in their foursome, but when you hear of things like that, you understand that this is the kind of thing that can happen for all kinds of people in this province.
Now, I don't think all golf courses will be suited. And I think that if it's the government's will to look at some kind of legislation that we could bring forward
The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.
M. Sihota: I'm enjoying this debate. I have to say that the starting point for any individual who wants to play golf and has a disability clearly has to be that they ought to have a fundamental right to play. That should be recognized, first of all, as an essential principle of society in terms of the way in which one ought to deal with people that are disabled. Inasmuch as the member correctly points out, it should and does apply for all sorts of -- should I put it this way? -- Building Code requirements, be it access to buildings or other facilities. That fundamental right to play -- the fundamental right of every Canadian to be able to go out and engage in activity -- is something that we should all strive for. One ought not to sort of place barriers to accessibility, be they real or perceived. Rather, the challenge for society ought to be to recognize and pay homage to the principle that, regardless of disability, anybody and everybody should have a fundamental right to play.
[1850]
If our attitude -- and I guess, to some degree, our regulatory and legal systems -- starts off at that point, then I think that any impediments that may be out there for people who wish to play golf would quickly disappear. I'm not sure that, at least on a psychological basis, those impediments have been removed. On a regulatory basis, I think that there is some good work being done to remove them.
Let me talk a little bit about that. First of all, in terms of just simple accessibility for a disabled person to a golf course. I know that the American golf industry as well as the Association of Disabled American Golfers in the United States have started a process -- in fact, are well into and have completed a process -- around rules for people to be able to access a golf course, how one engages in scoring and how one deals, if they're blind, with a coach on site -- much as we often see at ski hills these days. Those kinds of things are very much in play. The accessibility for amputees -- a number of rules have been developed in the game of golf in that regard.
Also, to enhance accessibility, associations like the Handigolf Foundation in the United States have worked to develop devices that make golf courses more accessible for people that are disabled. For example, as I think the hon. member alluded to
So we're starting to see more opportunities, not only on the rules side but in terms of technical innovations. I think that work needs to be done in terms of persuading the golf industry to overcome any kind of psychological barriers that they have and to start thinking about reaching out to people in the disabled community and encouraging them to access a sport that keeps people fit and gives them a lot to talk about after they've shot that stunning 94.
We here in British Columbia, of course, are doing a lot to try to encourage the development of the game of golf for people that are disabled. I understand that this August, the Canadian Amputee Open will be held for the first time here in British Columbia in the city of Vancouver. It's a prestigious international competition in which athletes from British Columbia
I know a little bit about these things, in part because I have an uncle who is confined to a wheelchair. Often the psychology of watching an event on television that shows that amputees, for example, have access to a golf course gets him thinking in ways that were perhaps outside the box for him sometime ago.
[ Page 16591 ]
Hon. Speaker, I want to conclude my comments by simply saying that had it not been for some of the working people like the Handigolf Foundation, the Association of Disabled American Golfers and, of course, golfers like Casey Martin, the kind of progress that the hon. member opposite refers to would of course not been before us. I thank him for his comments.
B. Barisoff: I thank the member for his comments, because I think that we've both come on the same wavelength.
Hon. Speaker, as a matter of interest, our American neighbours have already addressed this issue. For the past six years, since 1994, they have enacted legislation to ensure that those golf courses which provide golf carts on a rental basis must make accessible golf carts available. The Americans with Disabilities Act states: "It is a reasonable modification to provide a specialized golf cart for individual players with disabilities with carts that are made available to other players without disabilities."
In closing, I would ask the members of this House to consider what I am proposing. Today we have more time for recreation. In fact, we are all encouraged to participate in healthy physical activities. What society does to include and enhance the lives of those who are most vulnerable is a sign of its strength and its nobility. I hope that we will consider legislation to make accessible golf carts available to those who are handicapped.
[1855]
I would just like to point out for the member opposite that
Hon. D. Lovick: If I may, thanks to all of the members who made statements and those who responded. I think we were well represented tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I call in this chamber Committee of Supply. For members' information, we shall be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.
In the other House, in Committee A, the House recessed, and they are therefore continuing the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
The committee met at 6:57 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
On vote 38: minister's office, $29,752,000.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I'm happy to introduce the 2000-01 budget estimates for the Ministry of Labour. First I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are here to assist with me today: Tony Penikett, the deputy minister, and Gary Martin, the assistant deputy minister. Others will be joining us throughout the evening as well.
I'll be speaking briefly about the role and responsibilities of this ministry and the structure through which its mandate is delivered. I'll also be speaking about the accomplishments of the past year and where the ministry will be going in the coming fiscal year.
At this point I'll be concentrating on the labour and gaming components of the portfolio. We will, of course, have opportunities to discuss the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia during these estimates.
Let me just give you a brief overview of the ministry and its mandate. The Labour ministry's mandate covers a very broad spectrum of responsibilities that relate to the workplace. It includes employment standards, the skills development and fair wage program, labour relations, industry training and apprenticeship, workplace safety, workers compensation and pension standards. What ties all of these areas together is that they are part of the fundamental framework for relationships between employers and employees.
The Labour ministry's mission is to work in partnership with employers and employees to promote workplaces that are fair, safe, productive and harmonious in order to facilitate a quality working life. The Labour ministry is also an economic ministry. The ministry must also work to administer labour relations and employment-related legislation and policies in a way that fosters a strong economy and the social and economic well-being of all British Columbians.
In the past year this ministry has implemented a number of legislative, regulatory and administrative positions in support of this part of the ministry's mandate. Let me just review some of those for you. In employment standards, we continue to work with employers and employees to balance the need for flexibility with appropriate regulatory protections. Over the past year we have streamlined and enhanced employment standards regulations for domestic workers, farmworkers, silviculture workers and performers in the film and television sector. In each case the ministry has worked closely with all stakeholders to develop changes in regulations that equally benefit both employers and employees.
[1900]
These changes have embraced commonsense solutions to sector-specific issues, solutions that have maintained standards but also allowed employers flexibility so that they can compete more efficiently. My predecessor in the Labour portfolio took an active role in educating workers and employers about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace, and I hope to continue that initiative.
We're continuing our active employment standards enforcement campaign with respect to agriculture, and this year the agricultural initiative has been expanded to the Okanagan. I'm pleased to note that these estimates include additional resources that will help the employment standards branch reduce the backlog of complaints. That backlog is up to 15 weeks in some offices, longer in others, and that's unacceptable. We've also freed up resources in order to staff a toll-free inquiry service specifically for employers.
In pension standards, we introduced a bill last year that included numerous measures to ensure the ongoing health of private pension plans in British Columbia. We also took a leadership role in making changes to the definition of spouse in those pension plans.
With regard to the WCB, 1999 saw the implementation of long-overdue changes to the Workers Compensation Act.
[ Page 16592 ]
These changes will help us to improve workplace safety in a number of ways, including wider use of workplace health and safety committees. The year 1999 also marked the full coming into effect of a new occupational health and safety regulation. This regulation was the end product of a six-year-long review process involving employers and workers, facilitated by the WCB. The WCB will continue in the coming year to further reduce workplace accidents and injuries.
As well, the board, working in concert with the workers' and employers' advisers, continues to provide a range of excellent educational opportunities for workers, employers and their respective representatives. I would point out that these estimates include increased resources to establish new offices for workers' and employers' advisers in the Okanagan. This will enhance services to both workers and employers throughout the southern interior.
Now to labour relations. Finally, I must report on the labour relations climate here in British Columbia. We owe it to all citizens of this province to ensure a healthy labour relations climate. That's essential to the social and economic well-being of our province. There are many measures that can be applied to how well that objective is being met. One measure is the continued historic low levels of time lost due to strikes and lockouts in this province. In that, we have a very positive measure. However, in some quarters there is a continued perception that B.C. is a province of labour relations tension.
This past year has also seen controversy regarding governance of the Labour Relations Board. Such controversy has not contributed to the goal of fostering positive working relationships between employers and unions. To correct that situation, I appointed Stan Lanyon as the chair of the LRB. Mr. Lanyon has, unfortunately, made it clear that he will only do the job on an interim basis until we're able to find a full-time chair. Nonetheless, we have asked Mr. Lanyon to begin the process of reinvigorating the relationships between the board and its stakeholders. I'm pleased to report that Mr. Lanyon has been very energetic in taking on that job, and excellent progress has been made. This will form a solid platform for the work of a permanent Chair.
In respect of the permanent Chair, the search for a candidate is ongoing. In order to broaden that search, we have reached out to the labour relations community for assistance by asking both Mr. Lanyon and Mr. Steve Kelleher, a noted arbitrator, to assist in the search.
[1905]
Positive working relationships are key to the economic well-being of our province. Both the new Deputy Minister of Labour and I have embarked on a series of meetings and other engagements with stakeholders in order to better understand the realities facing them as we in government set crucial policies.
Let me speak briefly to gaming now, because my responsibilities also include gaming in this province. Government announced the end of gaming expansion in the province in June of 1999 and promised a process independent of the political arena for approving any relocation of or changes to existing gaming facilities. Dr. Peter Meekison was commissioned to make recommendations in that regard. His report was released on February 1, 2000.
Municipal governments that host casinos were provided with more than $19.5 million under a June 1999 agreement between the province and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Also, by agreement, government guaranteed $125 million annually to charities for gaming revenue. The government has also taken steps to support the horse-racing sector in B.C. by increasing the amount of tax rebated to the sector by an estimated $3.3 million annually.
Let me talk very briefly about the objectives for the ministry for the coming year. In this coming year we will be further working to stabilize the gaming industry. We will bring closure to the destination casino approval process. We will continue to support the horse-racing sector and charitable gaming.
Most importantly, we will enact the recommendation of the Meekison report to introduce new gaming legislation. The legislation will provide a practical and rigorous framework for regulating and operating all gaming facilities in the province. It will create an independent regulatory agency overseeing all gaming in this province.
On the broader labour front, in the coming year we will continue to work to build closer relationships with stakeholders, both in the business community and in the labour community. Just as the success of any enterprise hinges on building cooperative relationships, our ability to deliver services and ensure that our legislation stays current flows from positive and productive stakeholder relations.
The Ministry of Labour is continuing to play an important role in the growth of our province's economy and in improving the lives of British Columbians. We continue to work to provide leadership and direction in the management of provincial gaming operations and to promote public confidence in and the integrity of gaming activities in British Columbia.
This ministry is also committed to helping create a positive economic and social climate that will contribute to the creation and protection of well-paying, family-supporting jobs. The ministry is working to give business the flexibility it needs to thrive and create jobs while ensuring that adequate minimum standards are in place for all workers.
Over the past year we've continued to develop close and valuable partnerships with the business, labour and education communities as well as other levels of government. We look forward to these partnerships continuing in the future, and I look forward to discussing our plans and accomplishments in detail with the members of the Legislature.
K. Krueger: I thank the minister for her opening remarks. I wish to also express my gratitude to Gary Martin, who has been very helpful to the opposition in preparation for the estimates, providing us briefings when we requested them, providing us detail -- as he promised he would -- on the various documents that we had requested.
It would have been even more helpful to us if we could have procured one document that we asked for, which was the Ministry of Labour transition briefing binder, which the minister was given in February of this year. Going through the exhaustive list of topics, which we procured through freedom-of-information requests, I think it would have been a valuable document, even if some of it had to be deleted for reasons of cabinet confidentiality. It probably could have saved us some time. In the often expressed new spirit of openness that this government that refers to itself as a new government has said it intends to demonstrate, I would have liked to receive that and would still be happy to receive it if the minister would care to provide it.
[ Page 16593 ]
[1910]
As I understand it, we are going to have another break from these estimates after this evening, and that would certainly provide the minister time, over the next few days, to provide that to me. It could really expedite our estimates process. But in the absence of that tonight and perhaps in the days to come, we will wend our way along.
Certainly this ministry has huge responsibilities. A lot of people look to the Ministry of Labour as their recourse to justice. The ministry includes some huge Crown agencies and corporations that have dramatic effects on people's lives. I'm thinking particularly of the Workers Compensation Board and the Insurance Corporation of B.C. The fact is that once people are claimants with either of those entities, their lives are pretty much in the Crown agencies' hands -- and sometimes not happily so. We'll be dealing with some of the examples of that over the course of these estimates.
The ministry provided me with their strategic goals and business plan for 1998 through 2001. The very first items express, as the ministry mandate and core business, the intent to promote harmonious relationships between employers and workers and, secondly, to ensure that workers enjoy basic standards of working conditions, compensation and a healthy, safe working environment. Those, of course, are goals that one would expect the provincial government to have and the Ministry of Labour to demonstrate and to be a role model in. There have been a number of tangible examples that have come to me over the past year as Labour critic that I want to touch on briefly in asking the minister whether she thinks this government is fulfilling those roles and being a role model to employers in the province.
Before I get into that, though, I thought that it would be appropriate and polite to express to the people who support the minister the order of things in which the opposition would like to address the issues before us -- some general matters tonight, some questions about the Labour Relations Board, the employment standards branch and the Employment Standards Tribunal. When the government calls these estimates again, we would like to start in the morning, if we could -- in order that we don't oblige civil servants to make two trips from Vancouver -- with the Insurance Corporation of B.C. Perhaps on a subsequent day we could do the Workers Compensation Board, or if it's one of the longer days, we could perhaps do them together. Then we could do the B.C. Lottery Corporation and gaming, including the B.C. Gaming Commission and matters around the horse-racing industry -- a little bit after, pensions, some more general wrap-up questions and then probably finishing with B.C. Ferries. I note some excitement on the part of my colleague to my left, who is a specialist in that area.
The minister has many responsibilities, and I know that she's well aware that not everything is copacetic in the Ministry of Labour and in the areas of her responsibilities. I have looked at the performance plan; I have read it. There's a lot of text there. There aren't necessarily too many specific goals that could be measured or numerically expressed, but certainly the minister has -- I'm sure, in her own mind -- a list of priorities as to what are the most pressing matters that she's presently dealing with. I'd be interested to hear what they are and what the order of priority is if she looks across the broad scope of her responsibilities.
[1915]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually just outlined them in my speech. I regret if I wasn't speaking clearly enough, but perhaps we could review them tomorrow after the Hansard Blues are out. I clearly outlined the economic priorities: stable labour relations, elimination of the employment standards backlog, bringing the expanded gaming approval process to a close, assisting the horse-racing industry and ensuring that a new chair is in place at the LRB. That's what I remember from about 15 minutes of conversation that I had at the beginning here.
K. Krueger: Well, yes, I heard all of that. Again, I believe that if I was the minister, I would have some other issues in mind. There are some that I think are particularly pressing across the scope of her responsibilities, but we'll deal with them one at a time.
Now, I mentioned the government's responsibility to be a role model to employers around the province with regard to harmonious working relationships between employers and workers, as the ministry has expressed it, and with regard to working conditions and so on. Yesterday in Ministry of Environment estimates we discussed the case of a Mr. de Leeuw, a grizzly bear specialist, a biologist up in Terrace who circulated a paper to his peers -- not outside the ministry, as I understand it, but to his peers -- expressing his concerns about grizzly population management by this government. He was suspended without pay for that and subjected to considerable stress. That was shocking, I know -- well, certainly to the employee -- to his peers, to people throughout the ministry. I think shock waves went out throughout that ministry that that could happen to one of their peers. It's unacceptable in my mind, and I'd like the minister's comment on that in due course.
The entire staff at the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is expressing traumatic stress as more and more duties have been added to their portfolios and more parks have been added to the land base for which they're responsible. And yet their staffing numbers are considerably down from what they were five and six years ago.
In my own constituency and that of the member for Kamloops, staff from the extended care facilities have repeatedly come to me with grievous concerns about the way they are managed, about their working conditions, about the changes that have been imposed on them by new management hired by an appointed health board.
Nurses express concern for their personal health and well-being. They tell me that the equipment that they are working with is outdated and ineffective and causes them to hurt themselves trying to do their job -- for example, lifting heavy patients because they don't have lifting equipment.
The BCGEU is very concerned about the fact that apparently there isn't succession planning in place or attrition plans, when they know they are facing a huge wave of retirements over the next few years. They're concerned that the government doesn't seem to be coming to grips with that issue.
Employees in the liquor stores believe that they are being subjected to a health hazard with the glass-crushing activities that go on in the stores. It seems to me, obviously, that if there's any powdered glass in the air, that's a hazard as real as environmental tobacco smoke, which certainly the opposition is also concerned about as a hazard in workplaces.
People who try to assist this government by bringing forward their concerns -- people sometimes characterized as
[ Page 16594 ]
whistle-blowers -- have experienced rough treatment at the hands of this government. The Children and Families ministry has frequently resorted to blaming its front-line staff when problems go wrong in a ministry that seems to constantly be subject to reorganization rather than steady management.
The teachers express real annoyance about being tied up in accreditation processes orchestrated by the Ministry of Education, which seem ponderous and bureaucratic and ineffective. CUPE workers feel they've been squeezed out by the class size agreement with the teachers and the lack of funding, in that the government didn't properly allow for that one and agreed to it. So they have had their hours cut back, their membership cut back and their jobs cut back. People phone me constantly as to why the government has not acted on many of the royal commission recommendations to the Workers Compensation Board.
[1920]
I get many calls from workers who are very concerned about the pension suspension bill last year -- not only those who have already been affected, but those who fear they are going to be affected if and when the government expands those provisions in the public sector. I get questions about the lack of a secret ballot in certification and about union accountability.
Certainly overarching all this is a dramatic concern about the economy of British Columbia, which has gone from being the best performing in the country to the worst performing during the watch of this government. Unemployment is high; youth unemployment is devastatingly high, and it's very demoralizing to young people. Government workers and workers across the province are really upset when their young people have to move out of British Columbia in order to get a start in the working world.
So I think that it has to be appreciated by this government that not all is positive in British Columbia by any means. If the government has a role model responsibility, it isn't fulfilling that responsibility to the satisfaction of many of us. I'd like the minister's comments on whether or not she feels that this government is fulfilling that responsibility as a role model.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Chair, I seek your guidance on some -- in fact, on the majority -- of the issues that the member brought up in dealing with employee-employer relations, which of course this ministry is not responsible for. There is a minister responsible for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, and it's appropriate that those matters be discussed in those estimates.
I would note that this government has done much to bring forward positive solutions to all of the employer-employee relations matters that the member opposite raised. However, when those matters were brought to the attention of this Legislature, the Liberal opposition opposed each and every one of those solutions that had been negotiated through the accord process. So it is a bit
Is this government assisting in the growth of the economy? Absolutely. Have we done it in a way that has led to creative solutions? Absolutely. In the area of high-tech, being innovative and flexible in employment standards -- that was greatly received and helped the growth of the economy. We've done that in the film sector by providing for excellent new regulations that actually cut red tape in the area of employment of child actors, of whom there are about 5,000 in this province assisting that industry. We brought peace and stability to the negotiations between employers and unions in the film industry.
Recently we brought stability to the silviculture sector by having flexible and innovative employment standards. We've done the same in the taxi industry, in the agricultural sector, in the oil and gas sector -- all sectors that are now growing strongly as our economy is well within the range of the stronger economies in Canada.
Of course, it doesn't help when the myths are pursued vigorously by the Liberal opposition -- the myths about unstable labour relations or employee-employer climate in British Columbia. It is the antithesis of someone purporting to want to help to grow a strong economy when that same group perpetuate myths about labour relations in this province.
Do we face difficult issues amongst workers and the community? Yes, we do. Is our government working hard to resolve those issues? Yes, we are. But I would note that while the Ministry of Labour is a very important economic ministry, it is not the employer of the public service or the broader public sector.
[1925]
K. Krueger: No, we're well aware of that. But the ministry, as I said, did publish strategic goals and a business plan and a performance plan, so called, although I think performance plans should lay out objectives that are clearly measurable. But at the back of the document I referred to, the "Strategic Goals and Business Plan, 1998-2001," -- the last two pages include what are referred to by this ministry, in its document, as key success indicators. And key success indicator (c) is: "promote a healthy, balanced labour relations climate." And I submit that the examples I gave of what's gone on in the civil service of this government are not examples of a healthy, balanced labour relations climate.
The many concerns expressed by employers throughout British Columbia and employees also in the private sector indicate that we're far from a healthy, balanced labour relations climate. When we have unemployment at the levels we have, when we have an economy struggling the way we do, we don't have a healthy, balanced labour relations climate.
The member for Kootenay just gave an impassioned private member's statement on the public service and the value of our employees. We applauded that and responded accordingly, because those are things we believe, and those are things we should believe in. But I have given the minister a list of tangible cases -- individual cases, group cases, specific examples of public servants who don't appear to me to be working in a healthy, balanced labour relations climate.
I understand what the minister has said about her responsibilities in this ministry. She's also the Deputy Premier, of course. And if that is a key success indicator of her ministry, then surely that indicates some direct responsibility to ensure that civil servants are treated fairly; that they aren't suspended without pay for asking their peers to comment on a professional scientific document that they prepare, for example; that they aren't exposed to powdered glass in the air in their
[ Page 16595 ]
workplace; that they don't have to lift heavy patients, when the average age of a nurse in British Columbia is 47 and their bodies won't stand up to the load; and that they are provided with proper equipment so that they aren't subjected to that sort of thing.
I will move on, but I want to give the minister one more chance to respond, because I think that there is bitter disappointment on the part of our public service in the way this government has performed -- and specifically in the examples that I've given the minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is inappropriate for members of the Legislature to comment on specific cases that involve employee-employer relations. The hon. member knows full well that there are avenues of appeal for both employers and employees, either through collective agreement or through policies that deal with excluded employees.
The labour relations climate in this province is a healthy labour relations climate. The Labour Relations Board has a record of efficiency and productivity that's heralded across the country and continues to be very successful under the leadership of Stan Lanyon as it's a board that moves forward in transition to a new chair. And I might also note that in the course of collective bargaining throughout the past two years, the government has managed to use a viable collective bargaining process to resolve many of the issues around staffing, workload and recruitment -- particularly in the health care field -- and has done so by putting in place very creative solutions to deal with the issues of an aging workforce.
I might also add that these are the same accords that were opposed vigorously by the Liberal opposition. I also might note that, again, it just simply isn't going to be worthwhile for us to pursue a dialogue around the Ministry of Labour when the member opposite starts talking about the outrageous unemployment rate in this province, when the province's unemployment rate is indeed the lowest it's been in 20 years.
[1930]
K. Krueger: Unemployment around North America is at zero levels. Unemployment in a number of the U.S. states is at a negative figure. People from across Canada are in
Interjection.
K. Krueger: What is meant by negative unemployment, since the minister doesn't appear to know this, is that there are more jobs than people. That is certainly not the situation here in British Columbia. People are moving from British Columbia elsewhere across Canada and into the United States, because the jobs aren't available here. We hear constantly from constituents who are very aggrieved and angry and sad that their children have had to move away. I'm sure the members opposite hear that as well, because they do move away to get a start in the working world.
The minister refers to the opposition opposing vigorously the so-called accords. The accords were negotiated in secret, under the table, behind a veil. The opposition had very little opportunity to have input at all until the cost of the accords became public, after the fact. Once again, I don't intend to dwell on that.
But it's been part of the whole picture of failure to have open government, failure to be honest and forthright and say what this government is doing as it does it. It's a government that said it was holding the cost of increases to zero-zero-and-2 percent and indeed did that for a number of public sector employees but didn't do it for a whole bunch more. That has given rise to a lot of concern and anger in the public sector. I'm surprised the minister would bring up those accords, because it's a very clear example of how badly this government has done business over the decade that we've had the great misfortune to have the New Democratic Party in control of this province.
The minister introduced the staff who are on her immediate left and right when we began these discussions, and some other staff have joined us. Out of respect for them, I'd like to give the minister the chance to introduce these people as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Behind me is Bruce Smith, the manager of finance. To his right is Jan Rossley, the director of policy.
K. Krueger: Welcome, to the people who are here to assist us, one of whom is Mr. Penikett, who the minister introduced as her deputy minister. That's a relatively recent appointment. On the record, I'd like the minister to clarify what role Mr. Penikett will be playing in the Labour ministry and whether that will include continuing to be involved in the public sector policy accords.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Penikett is the deputy minister responsible for all administrative and policy actions of the ministry and supervision of the staff. As is the role of any deputy minister, he sits at the deputy ministers' council as well. The ministry will continue to facilitate orderly processing of all collective bargaining in this province.
K. Krueger: But the minister was drawing the distinction earlier between the responsibilities of her ministry and the ministries that are directly responsible for public servants. The negotiation and management of the public sector policy accords, as I understand it, was in the past a Ministry of Finance responsibility. I understand that Mr. Penikett was heavily involved, and I've asked if he will continue to be involved, in negotiation and administration of public sector policy accords.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I reiterate that the mandate for negotiations is, as the member suggests, under the auspices of the Minister of Finance. However, there is a role for the Ministry of Labour to ensure orderly negotiations in this province, and the ministry and Mr. Penikett, as well as I, will be facilitating that orderly process.
K. Krueger: I don't want to beat this to death, but I'd like a direct answer, then, to whether administering the orderly process will actually involve Mr. Penikett in being a negotiator on further public sector policy accords.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, you know, we can deal with hypotheticals. I'm not avoiding the question. Is there a set of negotiations that the member would be interested in? I'm unaware of anybody actually being at the bargaining table at this time. So this is hypothetical. Is bargaining done for the public sector either through the Crown corporations or PSEC? Yes. That's how bargaining is done, through the employer associations. Is Mr. Penikett part of the employer associations?
[ Page 16596 ]
No. Is his responsibility to facilitate deputy minister in any facilitation -- make that public at the time, if and when it occurs.
[1935]
K. Krueger: I thank the minister for advising the House that she isn't aware of any such negotiations currently underway. Of course, as I said, the government was far from forthcoming about the accords that were already negotiated. They were done very much under the table and behind the veil and under the guise of a zero-zero-and-2 cap, when in fact they cost much more. So we certainly don't know if other public sector policy accords are currently in negotiation. I accept that the minister is telling the truth when she says she doesn't know of any. Since she's the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Labour, I trust that there aren't any. But we have to ask these things because we aren't told as a matter of a government respecting its official opposition and including us in the agenda.
I'd like to move on to the Labour Relations Board. And I appreciated the minister's comments with regard to the search for a more permanent chair. We understand the appointment of Mr. Lanyon and appreciate his willingness to take it on as a temporary position. The minister touched on the process of finding a new chair, but I wonder if she would expand a little more as to how far the search is going, who the search committee consists of and what time line she has in mind for the selection of a new chair.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to challenge the member opposite when he makes the spurious allegations that negotiations were done in secret. All public sector negotiations that were concluded, whether they be collective agreement negotiations or accord negotiations, were announced with a public news release. If the member opposite didn't understand the contents of that news release, then that's his problem. There were no secret negotiations.
Any set of negotiations is done in private between employers and employees. That doesn't mean they're secret. That means that they're done out of the public eye, unless the parties themselves choose to bring the negotiations into the public eye. But they're not secret. Every single set of accord terms and collective agreement terms was revealed at the conclusion of those discussions. The Liberal opposition couldn't put them together and didn't understand what was going on, but that doesn't mean that they're secret. It means that they didn't get it -- that the accords were dealing with issues about recruitment and retention of employees, that they were dealing with issues around occupational health and safety, that they were dealing with gain-sharing matters that existed for the very first time in the public service. It's just not helpful to be so silly about saying that something's done in secret.
Now, on to the Labour Relations Board. As I said in my opening remarks, the search committee is Mr. Stan Lanyon, the current chair of the Labour Relations Board, and Mr. Stephen Kelleher, a noted arbitrator in the province. They make up the search committee. I've asked them to recommend to the government a new chair as soon as possible. They are currently in active search. All parties involved in matters of the Labour Relations Board have welcomed their efforts and are cooperating fully.
K. Krueger: Obviously there's a tremendous need for the Labour Relations Board to be neutral and impartial, and to be seen by British Columbians as being neutral and impartial. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the previous incumbent, Mr. Keith Oleksiuk. I'd like the minister to outline to the House the circumstances of his departure.
[1940]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was by agreement. He's gone; he has resigned.
K. Krueger: Yes, we know he's gone. We would like to know the circumstances as to why he resigned and how much it cost the people of British Columbia by way of severance.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to get that information and provide it during the course of estimates.
K. Krueger: If the previous deputy minister resigned and he's gone, as the minister said, why was a severance package provided at all? What is the reason for a buyout when a person either walks away two years before his appointment ends or is essentially released from employment? Why was a severance provided?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get all of this information for the member opposite. I gather that my officials weren't aware that you were interested in this. I know that you've FOI'd information around this, but we'd be happy to reveal all of the information that is legally possible, given the circumstances, given that this is a contractual arrangement. I'd be happy to provide it to the member opposite, as it is available under the FOIPPA.
K. Krueger: What performance standards does the Labour Relations Board work to, as far as its own time lines to make its decisions and publish its rulings?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I would note that the Labour Relations Board is an administrative tribunal, an independent board. But I'd be happy to give you what I know about the Labour Relations Board in that area. That is that in the past
K. Krueger: Certainly I get complaints from people who have matters before the board. I know the minister does too. I sent her one recently, an individual named Norm Norster, who works for a company called United Rentals, which had recently been certified. He has been phoning me regularly. It's taking a long time to get his result, and he's very unhappy with that. He feels as though I ought to contact the Labour Relations Board and berate them. Of course, I'm not about to do that. But I think it's essential for the reputation of the board and its credibility that it deliver prompt responses. Perhaps if the minister has an update for me on that individual case -- Mr. Norster's complaint -- on which we exchanged correspondence or would care to comment further, she would do so.
[ Page 16597 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, it's an independent tribunal, a quasi-judicial tribunal. And I wouldn't comment on particular cases before the Labour Relations Board. I'd be happy to assist the member in contacting the Labour Relations Board directly, although I would expect that the response, whether it be to me as minister or to the member as an MLA, would be the same: "We're an independent tribunal, a quasi-judicial tribunal. Thank you for your interest."
[1945]
K. Krueger: I'm sure all MLAs are perfectly happy to accept that, as long as there is performance and there aren't undue delays and people throughout the organization of the board accept that justice delayed is justice denied and that people expect and deserve a prompt response from them in fulfilling their responsibilities.
The matter of appointments to the board, again, has been subject to a lot of complaint over past years. When two people who were perceived to be appointees to the board from the business side of the spectrum in the province came to the end of their second term some time back, their terms were not renewed, and the government said that two terms were as many as people would receive as appointees. Mr. Hans Brown received a third term appointment, and that caused outrage on the part of the business community. What is policy presently? Will the government continue to follow the guideline of a maximum of two terms, or has that guideline been chucked?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, these are matters that occurred prior to this year's estimates. I know as a minister -- and now this will be my eighth set of estimates -- that rarely are the rules of the House followed. But really, if we could try to keep our questions to what's occurring in this year's estimates, it would be very helpful.
The policy for appointment of vice-chairs to the Labour Relations Board is based on the premise that the person will have experience, be balanced and fair, and will follow clearly the mandate of a quasi-judicial, independent tribunal -- that the person be independent. That's what's necessary for appointments. I am told that there is a Treasury Board guideline about limiting appointments in some way, but those guidelines are merely guidelines.
K. Krueger: I was actually asking what the current policy is. It sounds as though the minister doesn't consider there to be a policy in effect that terms will be limited to a maximum of two. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not willing to accept the member's premise that that was the reason for some lack of reappointment. I'm happy to take the question on notice and get back to the member with a full explanation.
K. Krueger: The current Premier, who is fond of referring to himself as the new Premier, just as the Deputy Premier is fond of referring to this as a new government, when they all look pretty much the same to me as they have for the last four years
There has been an ongoing process of negotiating parliamentary reform during this session. One of the things that the official opposition has determined must be included if there's going to be a genuine parliamentary reform is the tabling of legislation such as that -- which may well be controversial, certainly would be controversial, in those areas -- in the spring session so that the public and the people affected would have a chance to make comment, to have their input, over the course of the summer, before the matter is to be debated in the fall and the legislation is going to be dealt with.
I think I already know what the minister is going to say about my question. But I would like her to put partisanship aside for a moment and answer, as best she can, what the employer community -- and the employee community, for that matter -- can anticipate with regard to such changes coming in the fall.
[1950]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am meeting regularly with employers and unions, people interested in employment standards in this province, to discuss what, if any, changes are needed from a regulatory aspect or legislative aspect on the range of legislation that comes under my responsibility. I can assure the member that broad public consultation will continue and that no change will be made without broad public consultation. In fact, things will remain the same only if there's broad public consultation as well. There will be no legislation this spring.
K. Krueger: Does the minister agree that in the interest of that broad public consultation -- and if there's a genuine desire to listen to that consultation; I think there is -- it would make sense to table any anticipated legislation for the fall, even as a White Paper, so that people have a chance to really look at what we may be dealing with in the fall of the year 2000?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually haven't had anyone ask me to do that in any aspects of the community. Certainly it's not something I'm going to reject out of hand, but no one has raised that with me, in all of my consultations.
K. Krueger: It's my happy opportunity, then, to have raised it with the minister, and I'll ask her to do it. Will you do it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, everyone in the House is well aware that these questions are completely inappropriate, talking about future policy and legislation, which of course is what the member is trying to provoke when I answer a question saying that I'll consider it. And he provokes the question by saying: "Will you do it?" I've given a commitment, even though the question is inappropriate for estimates, to say that it may be one of the options. I am doing all sorts of broad public consultation on all options available.
K. Krueger: Just before we leave the questions about the LRB, I wonder if the minister could confirm what vacancies presently exist or are anticipated in the near future.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The vacancies at the LRB are
[ Page 16598 ]
business and labour community. I'm sorry -- I don't anticipate any vacancies in the future. There may be reappointments that come up that need to be considered.
Let me just reassure the member -- and maybe correct the record -- that there will be no changes to the Labour Relations Code this spring. But I do anticipate bringing in some changes to the Employment Standards Act to deal with variances, particularly in the silviculture industry, which have already been negotiated amongst the parties that require legislative change -- and perhaps some other interesting aspects to assist families under employment standards.
K. Krueger: That leads us into an area that we certainly are both anticipating discussing, which is the Employment Standards Act and the employment standards branch. The minister has referred with some pride to examples of variances that have been arrived at for several industries. There's the high-tech industry, silviculture and film production. The Premier also -- again, during his campaign for the NDP leadership -- referred with pride to some of those examples. What other sectoral variances are currently in negotiation or under strong consideration?
[1955]
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are discussions going on with operators of towboats, and with people who are in high-end commission sales. There's a pilot project going on in the area of car sales, and we've been approached by private investigators.
K. Krueger: Would the minister define "high-end commission sales," please?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The sale of objects such as heavy equipment, high-end RVs and yachts.
K. Krueger: It genuinely pleases the opposition to see the government willing to discuss these variances where it makes sense, since when they are negotiated, and the negotiations are concluded, the government always holds the successful accomplishment forward as an example of something that the government is proud of. People are puzzled why the government doesn't believe that the same approaches would be productive right across the economy, in all sectors. It would make a lot of sense to have employment standards where employers and employees were free to negotiate between them working arrangements that would allow them to truly be competitive in the global village of the year 2000 and forward. I know the minister heard this from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses, and she's heard it from many employers. People feel as though the straitjacket they consider themselves to be in prevents them from being competitive.
I wonder if the minister would agree that if it works for high-tech and it works for silviculture and it works for the film industry, it would work for everybody to allow freer negotiation between the parties -- to put themselves in that competitive position.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The employment standards regulations and the act are in place to present fair and balanced work conditions for both employers and employees. We're willing to work with any sector that comes forward, both employers and employees, to provide flexibility in a changing, growing economy that continues that fair and balanced approach between workers and employers. But we're not going to approach any change that's lopsided, that meets the needs of only one of those groups.
And of course, there is always the issue that if one joins a union in order to ensure a collective and fair approach to balanced working conditions
We continue to work with both the employer and employees. However, let me just say that it makes sense to do an evaluation of the effectiveness of these recent changes that have occurred. The member uses the example of the high-tech sector. There has been no evaluation done of the effectiveness of that either for workers or for employers. We intend to monitor that, determine its effectiveness. And based on what we learn, we can make further changes.
[2000]
K. Krueger: Certainly it wouldn't make sense to enter into such an arrangement if it was a totally lopsided situation. But people are pretty sophisticated these days. Certainly people know their rights as far as whether they want to form a union. Many people opt to do that, and more power to them. We're not asking the government to consider providing for any such injustices as the minister described or sanctioning those lopsided situations.
But across the board in B.C., employees would benefit by having the same opportunities that we've discussed in those cases of people who have successfully negotiated variances. It only benefits employees if their employers are not saddled by regulatory frameworks that actually prevent them from providing more hours or from providing more employment. I hope that the government continues to open the door, now that it has seen the successes of opening the door the crack that it has. There have been successes, and I want to acknowledge that.
There were concerns about the effect of employment standards legislation and regulation on societies that employ handicapped people. Mr. Martin was very helpful in our briefing meeting in talking about the government's efforts to deal with the consequences of those situations. I was sent a copy of the report of December 6, 1999. I believe a second report has been published since. I wonder if the minister would update the House on the status of those concerns -- for example, societies who work with mentally handicapped adults.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the government, both the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry for Children and Families, hired a consultant to meet with affected parties and make recommendations to government on the best course of action. The consultants, after their interim report, were asked to develop practical interpretative guides for government staff, agencies, clients and parents and to provide hands-on assistance to those agencies experiencing the most difficulty -- this is to how the Employment Standards Act applies to persons with disabilities working in achievement centres, the area that the member talks about -- and then also to standardize information and orientation sessions for employment standards branch and the Ministry for Children and Families staff. That report will be released shortly, and we'll be moving forward on it.
[ Page 16599 ]
K. Krueger: Again, that seems to be an obvious example of where a variance is the only reasonable thing to do. If people are fulfilled, are growing as individuals and are happy with their lives because they have an employment situation, but the employer can by no means afford to pay even minimum wage, because the products produced are not going to be saleable for any sort of a profit or even on a break-even basis if people are paid at those rates, then it's a shame to end that employment and that fulfilment for those individuals, who very much consider it a part of their lives. It's really not training; it's an opportunity to contribute and to do things that they know are worthwhile and to have the satisfaction of earning some income for themselves.
My understanding is that the government is willing to consider accepting a much lower rate of pay for these individuals, so long as there is no profit, even to the society itself, as a result of allowing that variance. I wonder if the minister would confirm that detail.
[2005]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, that is not the case. But variances will be considered on a case-by-case basis to deal with hours worked.
K. Krueger: Do I understand correctly, then, that the government will require societies working with handicapped people to pay a minimum wage or not allow them to employ those people?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said to the hon. member, the report will be released very shortly. It's a matter of great concern to both parents and people with disabilities and the achievement centres themselves. The matters are complex, and certainly the report is wide-ranging in offering solutions. We will make sure, on a case-by-case basis, that the regulation is applied in a way that meets the needs of all parties.
It isn't easy to just say that the hourly rate is going to be reduced or that the number of hours worked is going to be reduced. Each case will be looked at in determining the amount of actual work being done versus training, etc.
I hope the member will take the opportunity to await the report, and I'd be happy to have a full briefing at that time. I don't want to raise in any way any concerns by the member and I speculating on the outcome or the application of the report to a matter that is of such concern to families and people who work in achievement centres.
K. Krueger: I think the minister and I both earnestly desire not to make this a partisan matter. It is a matter that has been outstanding for a long time. If it takes a person 40 hours to build a little table, but they're satisfied that they're really contributing something, it's achievement for them, and their society sells that table for $50, obviously if the society has to pay $7.15 times 40 hours it can't remain in business. These are the real-life scenarios that people are telling us about.
The resolution is a long time in coming. We'll leave it at that, but I hope that the government moves expeditiously and does what it can to protect these arrangements and provide for that satisfaction for the handicapped people who benefit from it and enjoy it. I was about to move on, but I think that perhaps the minister wants to comment further.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly appreciate the member's point of view. I would note for the member that the act does not apply to a person with a disability who is involved in an activity that is considered therapy or rehabilitation; the member should take comfort in that.
K. Krueger: The previous Labour minister, who I don't think was ever actually in session as the Labour minister, had speculated about an increase in the minimum wage in British Columbia to $8 per hour. Is that something that this government intends to do?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, that's future policy, hon. Chair, and inappropriate for estimates. But let me reassure you that any change or no change will be part of broad public consultation. No change will be made without broad public consultation and lots of notice to the parties. There are interesting points of view from worker representatives and employer representatives on the minimum wage.
[2010]
K. Krueger: Well, to call it future policy when the previous minister has said it's going to happen, and the Premier has made public comment as well, including speculating or rather stating that the minimum wage should be linked to the inflation rate, puts this House in a position of being less informed than the public at large. The minister chuckles; perhaps that's a situation that she thinks is a good one.
I continue to hear from employers that one of the things that's hurting the economy of British Columbia is the fact that we're leader of the pack in Canada on minimum wage. Every time minimum wage is increased, employers who are already hard pressed to stay in business in the current economy have to respond by finding some way to protect their bottom line. Generally, because they only have a fixed percentage that they can allot to labour costs, they deal with that by cutting hours, by cutting jobs and by getting rid of value-added activities that were done in their operations.
For example, restaurants stop making their own sauces and preparing their own spices and rather import them from other countries. I'm told by employers that that has consistently been the result of increases in British Columbia's minimum wage: employment actually shrinks, particularly youth employment. These are people who look to the employer community to give them their start in the working world, to allow them to start building a résumé and to train them not even just how to do that employer's particular tasks, but actually how to work.
I'm just finishing the process of raising three teenagers; the last one graduates this month. And when they go to work in their first job, they consider it a real hardship to have to work four hours. They're just not used to being employed for that period of time. So the employer has to shoulder the responsibility of teaching a young person to actually be able to put in the time and be productive and so on, and they happily do it.
There is discussion of lower wages by some employers for young people starting out; the official opposition is not in favour of that. But we do recognize that these employers are hurting. And when they are hit with another increase in minimum wage for their workforce, they tell us that it risks putting them out of business. It actually does decrease the opportunities that they can provide to their existing workforce, by way of number of shifts and number of hours on
[ Page 16600 ]
those shifts. Does the minister accept that an increase in minimum wage likely reduces the number of hours and the number of jobs available to workers in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Why doesn't the member opposite take this opportunity to put his views on the minimum wage on the records? That would be helpful to us in conducting our broad public consultations. It is certainly interesting to note that this government has reduced small business tax to the second-lowest in the country. We have reduced red tape and regulation to assist small businesses in this country at an unparalleled level in the last two years, far more rapidly than has occurred in the last decade.
We're clearly on record -- the Premier, the Deputy Premier, all the government MLAs -- as saying that no change will occur without consultation. So it would be inappropriate for me, as a person responsible for guiding policy on this matter or keeping policy the same on this matter, to presuppose the outcome of that consultation. But it would be appropriate for the member opposite to put forward the views of the Liberal opposition on the minimum wage and assist us in our consultation.
K. Krueger: I'll remind the minister that in estimates we're actually supposed to hear her answers. But I'll happily put the opposition's point of view on the record, and that is that the minimum wage in British Columbia should allow employers in the province to be competitive within Canada. We do not look for any decrease in the minimum wage, but we think that an increase in the minimum wage anytime in the near future would only further damage an already seriously damaged economy.
I hope the minister has access to research from around North America. We spoke earlier about the fact that there is zero unemployment in most of North America. There is actually negative unemployment in some parts of North America, meaning that there are more jobs than people available to fill them. I'm told that in Texas the minimum wage is $2.15 an hour, but employers are having to pay $12.15 an hour to start people. They're competing for labour, because their economy is so robust. I'm told that on the eastern seaboard in some states, McDonald's has to pay $10 (U.S.) per hour to start people, and it has to bus them between two and three hours to get them to work. That's how competitive it is when an economy is robust.
[2015]
Interjections.
K. Krueger: I hear the members opposite heckling; they just can't believe that. But the fact is that when a government doesn't overtax its citizens and when it doesn't overregulate its citizens and its businesses, then an economy begins to thrive. A thriving economy creates employment. A government which continually fails to learn the lessons of its past and makes the same mistakes all over again is doomed to more of the same results. So certainly we counsel the government against an increase in the minimum wage in the near future.
I have to tell the minister that people are cynical about NDP consultation, because so often, it seems to be just going through the motions in somewhat of a charade -- a government that does what it wanted to do in the first place, having pro forma pretended to go through a consultative process.
This minister's predecessor indicated that she planned to increase the minimum wage to $8 per hour. I think the minister has just assured this House that she has no such intentions, because this consultative process is ongoing, and I'd like her to confirm that. I've answered the minister's request to put our position on the record. Will she as well? Will she assure employers in British Columbia that in the near future, perhaps for the rest of this year, there will be no increase in the minimum wage in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's the same question that the member asked me previously, and I gave my response: that it would be inappropriate of me to indicate one way or the other what future government policy is. But I did indicate that there will be consultation and that there will be no change without consultation. We've already indicated to the employer groups -- and I expect, because of the member's comments, that he's talking only to employer groups and that he's not talking to any employees about this matter; that's clear from his remarks -- that options are being prepared that will be subject to a regulatory impact statement and good public policy.
K. Krueger: The fact is that I and the members of the opposition speak with employees and would-be employees all the time. Many of them are looking for work. Many who are employed are underemployed. They don't get enough hours; they don't get enough shifts. They work several different jobs at the same time to make ends meet. It's a real tough economy out there. Businesses that have somehow struggled on through nine years of NDP mismanagement are going under day by day, because they can't hold on any longer. The last thing they need is for this government to continue to beat them over the head, and I hope that that doesn't happen.
The minister referred earlier to initiatives underway with regard to agriculture and employment standards. One of my colleagues has some questions in that regard.
B. Barisoff: The question I have that I raised in the Agriculture estimates is that
[2020]
Another one, Dick Cleave and Robert Goltz, who hire as many as 200 people to work on the vineyards planting and doing different tasks, pruning, planting and all kinds of things like that
[ Page 16601 ]
I guess the question that I have to the minister is that
Hon. J. MacPhail: I completely agree with the member opposite about the importance of agriculture to the economy of British Columbia; it is truly a success story in our economy. It is the fastest-growing resource-based sector and is viable and is changing and keeping apace with the times. So I think I join with the member in wanting to make sure that we do everything possible to encourage that healthy growth in agriculture. So we share that goal.
Let me answer the specifics of his complaint and just to note that there has been a history of farm labour contractors in the Fraser Valley needing to be attended to for compliance around bonding and fair employment standards, etc. So there has been a compliance and enforcement effort going on in the Fraser Valley.
The ministry has noted some of those same practices occurring now in the Okanagan. Hence the branch going in and looking at practices of employers that look as if they are now farm labour contractors, because as the member knows, there are specific requirements if one is a farm labour contractor, in the areas of bonding, etc. In the particular circumstances of R&R Contracting it was determined that they were a farm labour contractor. However, the assistant deputy minister responsible for the branch has asked that the branch go in and review that determination.
B. Barisoff: A $200,000 bond for R&R Contracting is something that they would have to get to a situation of probably putting a mortgage on their house. What I'm seeing
Now, these people hire in excess of 200 people. They would be looking at probably in excess of a $200,000 bond. In their estimation they aren't labour contractors; they're no different than other people that are working out in society today, whether they're roadbuilders or whoever they might be.
[2025]
What I'm trying to tell the minister is: when you put a $200,000 bond on somebody like R&R or any one of these other ones, who has to bear that cost? That cost is going to be borne by the farmer, ultimately, because they're not going to do it without passing those costs on to the farmers.
I agree with the minister on the fact that we have one of the few industries in this province that are actually going ahead. My concern is that what we're doing is that we're going to burden them down, whether it's with bonding, red tape or whatever else it might be. We're taking one of the few success stories in the province and starting to put enough red tape around it to make it so that it's not going to be successful either.
My question to the minister is on the fact that when you start declaring that these people are labour contractors, the impact that it's going to have is on some of these farms, because the farmers have to bear the cost. The minister has to understand from a farming standpoint -- and I'm sure that if the Minister of Agriculture was in the House right now, he'd probably indicate the same thing -- that those costs will be borne by the farmers. The impact is that we're going to drive more business out of this province. Would the minister comment on what the criteria are for making these people labour contractors?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me reassure you that the director who makes these determinations is independent. I'd be more than happy to provide a full briefing on this particular case to the member opposite, because we share the same goals in terms of growth of the economy. But of course, I think we also share the same goals -- or I hope we do -- that there's a balance in terms of the protection of the health and safety and working conditions of the people who actually do the work in the agriculture industry. The assistant deputy minister will make himself available as quickly as the member opposite wishes to have a full briefing on this. Also, under the understanding that there is a review going on, that should be encouraging news.
B. Barisoff: I do appreciate the fact of the minister offering a briefing, and I will definitely take the minister up on the opportunity to do that. It still is a concern that we're penalizing the good people out there that are working for farmers because we have some bad apples in the barrel. I would rather that we look at some kind of solution to deal with the bad apples, rather than dealing in the same manner with the people that are actually doing a good job in hiring and paying their workers a fair wage and making sure that the agriculture system of British Columbia continues to work in an efficient manner.
I'll pass on this for the time being. I'll take the minister up on the briefing and see if I can argue my points out at a different level.
K. Krueger: Referring to the matter of the backlog at the employment standards branch, which is a matter we raised in question period recently, I believe that the minister said in her opening remarks for these estimates that the backlog is 15 weeks. Would she confirm that that was the number she used, and also define what the backlog actually means?
Hon. J. MacPhail: My direct quote was "15 weeks and in some areas greater." And the member opposite knows exactly what the backlog is, because he FOI'd. Or I should say, he didn't need to FOI it. You have a letter from us dated May 29, where the backlog is outlined.
K. Krueger: I want to make sure that the minister knows what the backlog actually means. The letter's dated May 29, 2000; it doesn't actually spell it out. I would like the minister to confirm whether she accepts this definition: that the backlog is those complaints that have been received but are yet to be assigned to an officer to deal with. That is, they haven't even been assigned to a staff member. They're sitting in a pile, presumably; they're somewhere in limbo. But they haven't gone to any officer to begin working on them. That's what the backlog is that we're talking about. Does the minister agree?
[2030]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
K. Krueger: A year ago in these estimates with the previous minister, we dealt with this same issue. And at the time
[ Page 16602 ]
that minister agreed that there were files in the backlog where aggrieved workers were waiting for the phone to ring, waiting for their government to call them back from the employment standards branch. They were, as he referred to it, worst-case scenarios of 13 weeks. Now the minister has said that 15 weeks is her number, and she agrees that there are some cases that are worse.
Referring to the letter of May 29, 2000 -- putting the truth of this matter on the record -- in Vancouver, Richmond and North Vancouver, people are waiting 30 weeks for that return phone call. Of course, 26 weeks is half a year. So half a year and four more weeks and you'll get your phone call, which will only mean that somebody is starting to investigate your complaint.
Once again, justice delayed is justice denied. What is a person supposed to do if they have a serious complaint? They call their government, to which they've obviously been paying taxes if they've been employed, and they can't even get a return phone call. They can't get anybody assigned to work on the case. I submit that it's totally unacceptable. And there are 455 such cases in Vancouver, Richmond and North Vancouver.
In Nanaimo, people are waiting 27 weeks to get that first phone call back. Or maybe they don't even get a phone call for the first couple of weeks, because it just gets assigned to an officer. Then he or she presumably reads the file and probably wonders what in the world has happened to this file and to this worker over the 27 weeks they've been waiting for any kind of reply. There are 164 people, apparently, in Nanaimo in that position.
In Victoria, right here, 23 weeks is the backlog time, and 141 cases are waiting in limbo. In Terrace, it's 13 weeks and 38 cases waiting. In Prince George, it's 27 weeks and 168 cases waiting. In Abbotsford, it's 13 weeks with 39 cases waiting.
I submit that that is deplorable; it's utterly unacceptable. This government has moved way in the wrong direction if 13 weeks was a worst-case scenario, as the minister told me last year -- and he's here with us. I'm sure he meant that when he put it on the record. This year, 30 weeks is apparently the worst-case scenario. That's the worst that's been reported to me, but it's happening to 455 British Columbians in those locations alone. Those aren't numbers that I believe any government should be willing to live with -- absolutely not. So how does the minister expect that this matter is going to be resolved?
And I have to tell her that personally, I'm somewhat dismayed about the disparity in numbers we're dealing with. When the minister told me last year that 13 weeks was a worst-case scenario, I knew of telephone recordings on employment standards branch employees' phones that forewarned people who phoned in with a new case that they wouldn't hear back for four months. So I believe that the worst-case scenario was worse than the minister knew.
The worst-case scenario now may be worse than 30 weeks. That's what we're being told. In our briefing meeting on May 2 of this year, which isn't all that long ago, I was told that 22 weeks is the worst backlog, and that's in downtown Vancouver and Victoria. But by May 29 -- 27 days later -- it was documented to me that it was actually 30 weeks by then. So it had gone from 22 weeks to 30 weeks, but only 27 days had gone by. So what is it really? How bad is this problem? What a nightmare for everybody concerned. I'd like the minister to take this chance to say what she's doing about it.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The hypocrisy on this matter is just stunning. I could give a nice little bureaucratic answer to let the member know the things that he already knows, because he's been briefed on this -- that the backlog goes up and down because the backlog is determined, as he suggests, by the length of the oldest file of complaint that has been unanswered. It's not an average; it's the oldest file that has been unanswered.
[2035]
For him to sort of sit there and deny that we've done anything about it when he knows there's been $1 million put into the budget and 15 FTEs hired to deal with this situation -- and my apologies, I'm having an eye problem here -- is simple hypocrisy, when his solution for employment standards which they put forward in the last budget, was to cut significantly the employment standards branch. For him to suggest that he gives a whit about employees is simple hypocrisy, when his only aggression and advocacy around employment standards has been to cut the regulations, to lower the standards for employees, to ensure that employees aren't given any sort of increased benefits under employment standards. I can't even tell you how little I care about how he feels about employment standards, because it's hypocritical.
K. Krueger: That word "hypocrisy" is a word that I don't use lightly at all. It doesn't apply to me, and it doesn't apply to anybody on this side of the House. That word is a word that until I had the misfortune of working with the members opposite, I always felt shocked by when I heard a person apply it to another person because to be a hypocrite is a really terrible thing, from my point of view.
But here we have a government that holds itself forth to be the protector of the working person, that continually and falsely, as the minister just did, spreads spin -- false news -- about the platform and the policies of the official opposition. I already accepted the minister's challenge to put the official opposition's position on an issue on the record, when she wouldn't put her position on the record. She's just willing to have more so-called consultations.
The B.C. Liberals, the official opposition, are being very clear with everyone, time and time again, publicly and throughout this province, in expressing our intentions -- how we're going to fix this mess that this miserable New Democratic Party has plunged British Columbia into over the last decade, this NDP that has gone from riches to rags, that has reduced this province from being the best-performing economy in Canada to the worst-performing economy.
Here we have a classic illustration of the incompetence of this miserable government -- a government saying last year that 13 weeks was a worst-case scenario and now providing me with a letter saying, well, actually, it's 30 weeks. The minister says that's just the worst case in the office. I believe that's the first time I've ever heard that, and it's certainly not what this letter says.
Another thing this letter says that we haven't even touched on is that 10.5 percent of those files sitting in the backlog in the employment standards branch are due to bankruptcies. Doesn't that concern this minister at all, hon. Chair? Doesn't she think that that's an issue that might indicate that British Columbia's economy is in the tough shape that the opposition has continually described and tried to alert her to, rather than the rosy condition that she continues to spread false news about?
[ Page 16603 ]
British Columbians are hurting; 10.5 percent of the employment standards branch files -- and there are thousands of them -- relate to bankruptcies, companies going under, no longer able to do business in British Columbia. And these poor people in the employment standards branch are struggling to try and collect from a company that's gone under to pay employees.
Hon. Chair, the minister is having difficulty with her contacts, and I'd gladly agree to a recess for a couple of minutes, if she'd like.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, carry on. I'll cry for a little while.
K. Krueger: She says she'll soldier on and cry a little. I hope I'm not making her cry, hon. Chair. These are her results and the results of her government. It makes British Columbians cry, and we're really sad about that. I hope that the government is too.
One of the problems is that the government will not accept that these results are their results, because these results are their fault. These results are the result of their flawed approaches and their implementation of misguided ideology and philosophies. Until they change their ways, we will only see more of the same results. The hypocrisy in this chamber all flows -- oozes -- from the other side of this chamber -- a government that says one thing and does another, a government that argues that it will be fiscally responsible and indeed that it is. Then it blows money on all the wrong things, from fast ferries to every other boondoggle.
[2040]
In this case, we have a situation where we've gone from very bad last year to much worse this year. Even a two-week delay in getting a phone call back from the government would be unacceptable. Thirty weeks is absolutely appalling. This branch, the employment standards branch, is projected to have 148 employees in the year 2000-2001. It's the largest number of FTEs of any branch of this ministry.
I'm going to move that we take that recess, as the minister has to deal with that contact lens and is temporarily out of the room and obviously can't respond to me.
The Chair: We'll take a recess for a few moments.
The committee recessed from 8:41 p.m. to 8:42 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry.
K. Krueger: To the minister, there's no need to apologize for that. There are a lot more things to be apologized for in this province, and those are the issues that we're dealing with.
I was saying that this is the largest branch of this ministry, at 148 employees. And yes, the deputy minister confirmed to me that there was more funding in the budget, and certainly the estimates book showed us that. I was told that 13 new officers were being trained as of the date of our briefing meeting, May 2. But I submit that that is like sending out more firefighters to a forest fire that's blazing out of control and that nobody's getting a handle on.
This branch is out of control. People are not getting the service that they deserve. If 135 people couldn't deal with it and we have 30-week waiting periods, then I don't think 148 people are going to be able to deal with it -- because the job is too large, because of the way that the job has been structured and the fact that this government -- as it did with the Forest Practices Code, and as it's done in so many areas in British Columbia -- is taking such a prescriptive approach to the issues of employment standards rather than taking a results-oriented approach.
If this government would allow employers and employees to work out satisfactory arrangements between themselves and deal with any exceptions that came forward, perhaps it wouldn't have to deal with these huge backlogs. Perhaps people are indeed smart enough to negotiate arrangements between them without the help of Big Brother government so that these sort of problems wouldn't arise.
[2045]
I'm told time and time again by people who spend their careers advising employers that many employers across this province are operating in violation of the employment standards legislation and don't even know that they are. More and more problems arise. More and more people are aggrieved. And this government doesn't answer the phone, except with recordings that now presumably say in Vancouver: "Sorry, it'll be 30 weeks till you hear back from us." And as I said, that's just not acceptable.
The minister should consider for one moment that I might be right, that the problem isn't that she had too few employees, with 135 last year in this branch, but that she has given them an impossible task in this province through the NDP's prescriptive approaches to these issues. If the minister would consider that for a moment, I wonder if she couldn't agree that perhaps the government needs to take a serious second look at whether or not employees and their employers in this province are capable of getting along without the kind of Big Brother approaches that the NDP continue to take. I'll give her a moment to comment on that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I was completely right. The Liberal solutions to enforcement of employment standards is to do away with employment standards. The member just said it. The way to solve the backlog is to do away with the complaint in the first place. If we just get out of the way, employers and workers could work it through. Well, guess what. They can't. So it's just simply ridiculous. Well, it isn't ridiculous; it's what we knew all along.
This Liberal opposition doesn't care a whit about employee-employer rights. Let the market prevail. Why don't we have final-offer selection? We have an employee making minimum wage and an employer, perhaps with a multimillion-dollar payroll. Let's have them work it through; let's have final-offer selection, and then we wouldn't need employment standards. And you know what? The backlog would disappear overnight. That would be the Liberal opposition's view of how a system would be in control.
Our system is one based on balance, fairness, equity and efficiency between employers and employees. Yes, it's true. My predecessor went out and toured the province with the know-your-rights campaign. She talked to employers and employees and said: "Here's what makes a fair and balanced workplace." Maybe that's what actually gave rise to the increase in people contacting employment standards for assistance. And because we've heightened the awareness of what
[ Page 16604 ]
makes for a fair and balanced workplace
An Hon. Member: Ten percent.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you very much. I knew that the NDP would get that. That's high math for the Liberal opposition.
So that's exactly what we did. Out of 13,000 cases, we added 13 new officers to deal with the backlog. We've enhanced our 1-800 number so that more people know about their rights and responsibilities, and we will continue to do that. I rue the day that the Liberal opposition has any control over the workplace, because what they would go back to is the wild, wild west where it's the survival of the fittest in a market-based society. We reject that out of hand.
K. Krueger: Talk about living in the past. I can't believe that this minister is blind to the fact that we are an island of despair, British Columbia, in a sea of prosperity in North America, because nobody else is living in her socialist past. Everybody else has embraced the fact that to do well in the year 2000 and beyond anywhere in the world, you have to have an effective partnership between employers and employees. You need to give your employees credit for brains, credit for the fact that they -- the hands-on people, the front-line people -- are the ones to know how to make an employer successful. You have to include them. You have to approach the business of being in business as a team. And if you have a government that won't let you do that, if you have a government that insists on imposing the rules from on high, you end up with these results. We see that day after day in the misery that British Columbians are subjected to by this government.
[2050]
Apparently we have a minister who continues to actually believe that they're doing everything right. She says they felt they weren't coping with 10 percent of the complaints, so they added 10 percent to the staff. And I can envision her, if we have the misfortune to still have this government in place a year from now, telling me the same thing: that they've added 10 percent more staff because the backlog is 10 percent worse again. It wouldn't have helped at all. Meantime, government would continue to have its credibility smashed, people would continue to feel tremendously cynical about this government and this province and nobody would be any further ahead.
So I ask the minister
And I've heard the minister in this House -- as I've heard her before -- trying to pretend that we have a prosperous economy in British Columbia. That is such a crashing insult to the unemployed and the underemployed people of B.C., to the people who are losing their children to other jurisdictions because our economy is so bad. And this same ministry has this goal; it says: "Ministry Goals and Key Strategies." Again, (b) is: "Promoting a prosperous economy that creates jobs and enhances workers' abilities to balance work and family responsibilities." This government manifestly isn't achieving that goal, and this branch is a really grim example of that.
But does the performance plan spell out anything concrete as to what's going to be done about this backlog? Apparently the minister thinks that if she's still got this problem or a worse problem next year, she can respond to it by adding more staff. It doesn't look to me like the graph's heading in the right direction, when we compare these results to last year's results. But this performance plan doesn't say: "We've got a goal to eliminate the backlog." This performance plan just gives the number of complaints received and so on. What is the minister's goal? Does the minister have a goal to eliminate this backlog completely? And if so, by when?
The Chair: Minister, noting the time.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, the plan is, as I've outlined, that the backlog is about 10 percent of complaints and that we're increasing staff by 10 percent. Of course, that will deal with the backlog; then there will be 10 percent more staff to deal with it. The elimination of the backlog should be within
[C. Hansen in the chair.]
But let me also note that the plan for dealing with the employment standards branch is to ensure that there are experienced officers to clear the backlog files, provide for new officers to tackle incoming complaints, allow for implementation of an intake function, continue the enhanced 1-800 line for employers and to support a proactive, preventive approach to regulation with much-enhanced stakeholder participation.
Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:54 p.m.
The House resumed; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
[2055]
Petitions
Hon. J. Kwan: I seek leave to present a petition.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Kwan: Today I have the privilege of introducing a petition to the House from Power-Pets of B.C. Residents.
[ Page 16605 ]
In recent years studies have indicated that pet ownership contributes positively to individuals' physical and mental health, as well as their general well-being. Seniors, persons with HIV/AIDS and persons with a disability are just a few of the groups that have found to benefit significantly from tending to and caring for their pets. Conversely, members of these populations are often excluded from accessing safe, affordable housing and from accessing public transit due to their pet ownership. Thus, through petitions signed by almost 7,000 B.C. residents, Power-Pets is advocating that responsible pet owners be able to legally reside in leased and rental dwellings with their pets, and that pet owners be legally allowed to access public transit with their pets.
This is the petition.
Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I would move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:44 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 29: ministry operations, $154,948,000 (continued).
Hon. J. Sawicki: I do have some answers to some questions that were raised yesterday that I could provide right now before we get started, if the hon. members would like.
The hon. critic had asked how many times somebody could be reappointed to the Environmental Appeal Board and whether someone could make a career out of sitting on the board. I can say that the terms are as follows: the terms of appointment of an individual to an agency, board or commission -- which would include this one -- would not exceed three years. The maximum number of times that they could be reappointed is once, for a total of six years.
[1445]
Secondly, there were a couple of questions, one on Deep Bay and another on the dollars that would be available on Crown land for knapweed or noxious weeds. I can give answers to those as well.
In terms of Deep Bay, we did finally track it down. We have confirmed that the Land Act tenure related to a well site was approved, and an offer was sent in March of this year. The tenure has been issued by BCAL for a two-year term from April 2000 to April 2002. The tenure is subject to survey. The matter is one that's handled by BCAL. It's noted that the BCAL staff
Finally, on the knapweed on Crown rights-of-way, there are three different situations, and they are handled differently. Firstly, if there is Crown land that's under active tenure, then the tenure holder is responsible for weed control, as they are deemed to be the occupier of the property. Where the Crown owns the land and the parcels to be marketed, the cost of weed control is incorporated into the development cost of the parcel. And where there's no intention to market the Crown land, such as abandoned rights-of-way, the province is responsible for weed control. Under the delegation agreement with BCAL, it's BCAL that has the responsibility to administer weed control of vacant Crown land. I understand that there is a contingency fund to cover that cost. The total appropriation is $31,000.
Sorry, there is one other small correction; I inadvertently misread a dollar figure that I would just like to correct for the record. In terms of the Eurasian milfoil equipment that was transferred to local government, I inadvertently said it was worth $1.9 million. I should have said $1.09 million -- just to correct the record.
M. Coell: Good afternoon, Chair and members. We finished up last evening dealing with some fisheries issues that the critic had dealt with. If we could return to a couple of forestry issues to start, both deal with the forest industry and pollution. One is beehive burners, and the other is AOX, specifically Skeena.
To start with, in the last couple of years of estimates we've dealt with the beehive burner program to decommission. What I'm looking for is just an update to see how that program is going: the number of burners that have been turned off, whether the ministry is going to continue to license the ones that are there and what the long-term prospect is for having them reduced as well.
Hon. J. Sawicki: As the hon. member knows, there is a regulation in place to encourage, if I might say, and require the beehive burners to be -- sorry, I'm searching for the word here -- eliminated. Right now there are about 22 tier 1 burners remaining. But if the hon. member will recall to the throne speech of this year, that was identified as one of the first pilot project tax shift efforts -- to try to hasten and encourage the remaining beehive burners in the province to be eliminated as quickly as possible and, actually, to encourage the evolution of more environmentally friendly technology to deal with wood waste.
M. Coell: Just following up on that, is there a time frame for that program to be initiated to do the tax-shifting part of the beehive burners?
[1450]
Hon. J. Sawicki: I would say that the regulation remains in place -- the regulation to eliminate beehive burners by December 31, 2000. But we are trying to work with individual mills that have these burners to help them find ways to quickly phase out their beehive burners, and certainly in terms of the tax shift discussions, I anticipate late summer, early fall.
M. Coell: Another issue that I've dealt with in the last two years of Environment estimates is AOX. In the past we looked at the amount of money that the Skeena mill would
[ Page 16606 ]
take to upgrade it to zero AOX. I also had the opportunity to see the results -- as I believe the minister probably has as well -- of the upgrading that mills have been doing throughout the province, with some successes in getting to 0.5 and 0.9. None, to my knowledge, have got to zero. I just wondered what progress the ministry is making and what efforts they're making in dealing with industry to achieve this by the time frame -- I think it's 2001 -- for zero AOX.
A Voice: December 31, 2002.
M. Coell: Sorry, 2002.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I think that the hon. member has been alerted to the fact that we've already made tremendous progress over the last decade on AOX. It's been a huge, Herculean effort by everyone involved, and I think that we can really celebrate the massive reduction in AOX emissions that the mills have achieved. Most of them are at or close to 0.5. However, there is the regulation in place that they are to reach zero by December 2002; that remains in place. I want to assure hon. members that my staff continue to work with the mills to help them reduce all of their effluents and emissions.
G. Abbott: Can the minister advise the House what socioeconomic analyses the ministry has done with respect to the social and economic impact of attempting to go to zero AOX? I understand from people who are knowledgeable in this area that there are no plants in the world that are at zero AOX and that when you go to zero AOX, you produce a product that in fact the world is entirely uninterested in. Has the minister explored what the consequences of this are going to be for the dozen or so pulp mills in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. J. Sawicki: Certainly I am aware of the socio-economic data that is available and the Valley report that did explore all aspects of the forest industry, including the implications of reaching zero AOX. But from our perspective in this ministry, our job is to try to assist in every way possible not only mills regarding AOX but other industries to meet the regulations that are in place.
[1455]
M. Coell: With regard to Skeena, does the Ministry of Environment have a number or dollar figure that it would cost to take the province-owned mill to zero AOX? The reason I ask is that in looking at the data, it's by far the dirtiest of the mills in British Columbia. I just wondered if we have a dollar figure that it is going to cost the taxpayer in order to reach our goal.
Hon. J. Sawicki: Our ministry does recognize that the Skeena mill does perhaps have greater challenges than some of the other mills. They have been making investments in new technology and working hard to reduce their emissions. Our ministry will continue to work with them to encourage them on their way.
G. Abbott: I want to be entirely blunt with the minister. The ministry is living in a never-never land in terms of zero AOX. Frankly, Skeena Cellulose and every other pulp mill in the province are going to be shutting down before they go to zero AOX. That's just the blunt reality of it.
The minister can stand up in the House and say that remains the goal. Can she stand in the House today and tell us -- guarantee us -- that Skeena Cellulose is going to be at zero AOX on the government's deadline of December 31, 2002? Is the minister prepared to stand in the House today and commit to Skeena Cellulose being at that point?
As the critic has noted, Skeena Cellulose is the furthest of all pulp mills in the province from that goal at this time. The chances of them being even to the level of other pulp mills in the province by 2002, I think, are slim. I'd like to hear the minister tell the House today, guarantee to the House today, that Skeena Cellulose is going to be at zero in 2002.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I think it's fair to say that this ministry is not responsible for Skeena Cellulose as a plant any more than it's responsible for making commitments on behalf of other plants that are all challenged to meet the environmental standards that have been set.
Skeena Cellulose is generally in compliance with the level that is set right now at 1.5. I have said that this ministry will continue to work with all of the mills in B.C., because we remain committed to implementing the AOX regulation.
[1500]
M. Coell: I think what the critic for Forests and I are trying to do is flag a problem that government may not want to realize is there with its own mill. I think that realistically government is going to have to work within itself to find a solution to this problem. I guess there are a number of other problems with Skeena and pollution that will have to be addressed in the coming years as well.
An issue that I'd like to have some comment from the minister on is the offshore oil drilling. I know the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development has mentioned a couple of times in speeches that there's a moratorium right now that has been in place for some 20-odd years. I'd be interested in the Ministry of Environment's position on that offshore drilling at this point.
Hon. J. Sawicki: The hon. member has asked this ministry's position, and I can only say in a very general way that there is a moratorium in place. I haven't received any staff reports to the contrary. Right now my ministry's position is that there is a moratorium in place on offshore oil and gas drilling.
M. Coell: As I say, I've heard colleagues of the minister fly trial balloons, I think, and I just wanted to get her on record. I appreciate that.
There are a number of clean-air issues that the ministry has dealt with in the last year and more than that. The Kyoto protocol that we're attempting as Canadians and British Columbians to meet
Hon. J. Sawicki: That's a huge topic, and I'll try and give a short answer. Certainly my ministry -- and I have to say this is a personal priority of myself as minister -- wants to ensure
[ Page 16607 ]
that we do respond responsibly to the whole issue of greenhouse gas and climate change, with Kyoto or without Kyoto. Actually, here in British Columbia we have taken the leadership role in many ways including the composition, several years ago, of the Greenhouse Gas Forum, which has stakeholders representing various interests across the province. They make regular recommendations to us, and I, along with my colleague the Minister of Energy, tabled those recommendations for national action and, of course, also have an action plan for provincial action around the Kyoto issue.
[1505]
B. Penner: The minister will be aware that there is considerable concern in the Fraser Valley regarding a project known as the Sumas 2 Energy 2 Inc. proposal. That proposal includes the construction of a 660-watt fossil fuel-burning electrical power generating station in Sumas, Washington.
Sumas, Washington, is just immediately south of the border of Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley. Many constituents in the upper Fraser Valley, including Chilliwack, are concerned about the adverse impact on air quality should this power plant proposal proceed. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether her ministry believes there is anything for people to be concerned about in the Fraser Valley. In other words, does the minister think there's any environmental threat posed by the construction of Sumas 2?
Hon. J. Sawicki: This of course has been the subject of question period as well. I certainly can reiterate. Clearly I am very concerned about air quality in British Columbia, and the lower Fraser Valley is an area of particular concern. Our ministry has played a lead role in coordinating the agencies to respond to the draft environmental impact statement of the proposed project. But as the hon. member -- who I know has done a lot of work on this -- well knows, there are several jurisdictional processes going on here. Our ministry's interest is on the air quality, and we are working very hard to make those concerns known on behalf of British Columbians.
B. Penner: The minister noted that her staff have been involved in some way in preparing an environmental impact study. Can the minister tell us what her conclusions are? Does the Sumas Energy 2 proposal pose a threat to air quality in the Fraser Valley? I don't think she answered my first question.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I think it is fair to say that our ministry has not sort of reached any conclusions to the question that the member has asked. We have certainly consolidated the expressions of concern, expressed our concerns, have had various correspondence and communications regarding technical aspects of the proposal. We have met with the company to discuss ways of how some of those concerns can be addressed. We have met with the regional district. There are going to be public hearings around this project in July, and our ministry will be very carefully listening to the concerns that are expressed. But we are still in an information-gathering mode.
B. Penner: Well, this project has been known about for more than a year, and I presume the ministry has been in information-gathering mode for most of that time. How long will it take the ministry to gather the requisite information to decide whether this plant poses a threat to air quality? I note that the minister says that she has concerns. Do those concerns relate to air quality?
[1510]
Hon. J. Sawicki: When I used the term "information-gathering mode," I did not want to imply at all that this ministry has been passive in its involvement with this project. I want to stress again that our ministry has been in constant contact with the proponent, with the processes that are happening -- in another country, I might stress -- in terms of the technical information in the draft environmental impact statement. So we are doing our best to coordinate the information and the concerns on this side of the border, communicate those concerns strongly on behalf of British Columbians and ask for the response to those concerns.
B. Penner: I'm at a loss to understand why the ministry's having such a hard time coming to a conclusion about whether or not the Sumas 2 proposal poses a threat to air quality in the Fraser Valley. When does the minister expect to come to a conclusion about whether or not the Sumas Energy 2 Inc. proposal poses a threat to air quality in the Fraser Valley? Do you plan to come to a conclusion?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I hope the member would agree that there is the issue of due process. And surely he would not want me to stand here and say that we have come to a conclusion before there have even been public hearings to fully discuss the concerns around this proposal.
B. Penner: So does the minister plan to come to a conclusion -- yes or no -- on the issue of air quality?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I'm trying very hard to give the hon. member as much information as I can at this stage. But that's difficult, because as I said earlier, there is a public process that needs to go through. There will be public hearings this July. When we have all of the information in and we have monitored and heard the issues that are raised in those public meetings, then we will sort of compile our findings and our conclusions. I certainly commit to the member that we will be making them public at that time.
B. Penner: That sounds like a "sort of, maybe" in terms of an answer to the question of whether or not the ministry is going to come to a specific conclusion about whether the Sumas proposal is a threat to air quality in the Fraser Valley. I have to say that I'm disappointed in this minister, who portrays herself as a friend of the environment, giving every impression that she's trying to avoid taking responsibility for this file. I understand that it's an American project. My question is about the impacts on Canadians, and she seems to be very reluctant to take a position in terms of protecting Canadians in British Columbia.
Her comments stand in stark contrast to a letter that I've received, which was written on July 6, 1999, by the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro. This letter was directed to Deborah Ross, the chairperson of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council in Washington State. I'll quote from a paragraph in this letter: "This facility could have a significant negative impact on air quality in the eastern part of the lower Fraser Valley. We suggest that the significance of cross-border air pollution from the proposed facility should warrant a full review by EFSEC" -- that's the Washington State regulatory agency.
[1515]
[ Page 16608 ]
It seems that the officials from B.C. Hydro have no difficulty coming to the conclusion that the Sumas proposal poses a threat to air quality for British Columbians. Yet the Minister of Environment, whose role is to be an advocate for the environment and for British Columbians, has been silent. Yes, she's facilitating documents. Yes, she's consulting. Yes, she's helping the developer, the proponent. What is she doing to reflect the concerns of people in the Fraser Valley about air quality? Shuffling paper seems to be the answer. When I ask her for a specific question or time line as to when we can have a position taken by this government about the Sumas plant and whether it poses a threat to air quality, we get vague answers. If this was a skating rink, she'd be dancing around here on ice skates, trying to avoid the question.
Pardon me for getting exercised, but I can tell you that I receive many, many phone calls, letters and e-mails on this issue. It is probably the single biggest issue in the Fraser Valley now. Everyone, myself included, and my colleagues the member for Matsqui, the member for Abbotsford, the member for Langley, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove
I note that the deadline for filing with the NEB passed on Monday, June 12. I've written to them, I know the member for Abbotsford has written to them, and I think even the Chair has written to the NEB. I have asked for intervener status with the NEB. I know that Abbotsford city and the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce have asked for intervener status with EFSEC in Washington State. But when it comes to the province of British Columbia and the government and the ministry responsible for the environment, they're missing in action.
That's a huge disappointment for me. I just hope that the minister will direct her staff to get moving on this, to send us the reports. I don't know why it takes so long to come to conclusion. There have already been reports filed on the web site for EFSEC, apparently prepared in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment here, which predict among other things that this plant will result in the equivalent exhaust or emissions of 11,900 automobiles in terms of sulphur dioxide emissions. Now, that doesn't sound good for the environment to me. Does the minister disagree?
[1520]
Hon. J. Sawicki: The paragraph the hon. member read from B.C. Hydro says that the project could have impact on air quality. That is not the question the hon. member asked me. If he had asked me, "Is it the opinion of this ministry that this project could have an impact on air quality?" I would agree with B.C. Hydro that yes, it could. But I do take issue with the hon. member suggesting that this minister doesn't care about air quality, doesn't care about the environment and has been sitting on her hands. I have explained very clearly what the role of this ministry has been.
I believe it would irresponsible for this ministry, on behalf of all British Columbians, to start prejudging before we have all of the information and feedback and mitigative suggestions from the proponent on how they can deal with the issues that have been raised. I will commit to the member, as I think I have personally -- and I will commit again -- that this ministry does take seriously the potential impact of this project. That is why we are working hard on a scientific and technical level through the processes that are in place. I have committed that when the public meetings have happened and we have some findings and conclusions on the basis of all the information, not just part of it, we will be making that public.
M. Coell: I'd like to move on to recycling fees and Encorp in particular. I can remember sitting
At the same time, the government promised that the deposit fee would pay for the program, and that's not the case now. I know the minister has made some comments about it. I guess what I'm looking for is: has the province put its business lens on the deposit-return system that Encorp is running to ensure that it is working in the interests of being sustainable?
Hon. J. Sawicki: Well, I think everyone in British Columbia will agree that this has been a very popular and very successful program in British Columbia. I have expressed publicly that I am very disappointed in Encorp bringing in this extra recycling fee, and I want to make it really clear that this is an industry-imposed fee, not anything to do with government. The industry decided to do this without discussion at the Beverage Container Management Board, which was set up with all of the stakeholders to work out and advise the minister on the implementation of the program.
M. Coell: I understand that Encorp has provided the government with information that this program is not cost-sustainable under the current regulation, and I just wondered what the minister's response is to that recommendation from Encorp.
Hon. J. Sawicki: This is a stewardship program. The whole basis of a stewardship program is that the producers of the goods take full responsibility for their goods.
[1525]
The producers of beverages have a lot of choices there as to what containers they use and how hard they work to make sure that those containers can be collected and recycled and sold on the recycling market. They also have the benefit of unredeemed deposits, which have sort of helped to fund them until British Columbians really understood that the system had been expanded.
I have heard the arguments from industry. I don't agree with the arguments from industry, because I believe strongly -- and that's the basis of this program -- that the producers of the product must take full responsibility for both the product and the container. They need to make some business choices around how they do that.
M. Coell: Industry has argued that the excessive costs are inherent in the current system. I guess what I'm looking for is
[ Page 16609 ]
for the most part, are participating in and agree with. At some point, government made a promise that it wouldn't cost you anything; it could be paid for by the unredeemed deposits. Now, that's not the case. As I said, I'm being generous, but that's probably because of the success of the system. What I'm trying to get at is that government has set up regulations. It made a promise, and it's not working that way. How far do we go? Do we continue to add on taxes and fees to the system? Or do we find a way of making the system cost-effective and sustainable in that way?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I understand that our system that we have assisted industry in designing here in British Columbia is the second-lowest in Canada in per-unit cost and actually the lowest in Canada on per-population cost.
But I also just want to add here that what the deposit refund system, the stewardship model, is basically saying is that instead of all taxpayers having to bear the cost of handling these containers, it should be borne by the producers and the consumers of that product. Local governments, through their solid waste management programs, used to have to carry those costs of handling those containers. A stewardship program says no, those costs should be internalized as part of the cost of production. That's the principle of the deposit refund stewardship program.
M. Coell: I guess I won't belabour the point. I was involved in the blue box program when it came here, and I think minister Cashore was the minister at that time.
There are many ways of recycling. There are many ways that are very cost-effective, and there are ways that aren't. I guess the point that I'm trying to make for the minister -- and she can take it away and think about it -- is that this system has a potential of becoming more costly not less costly, in my eyes. We may have to rethink, as they're doing with the blue box all over the province -- what goes into it, how it's collected. The reason I bring it up is because the former minister had said a number of times, "This won't cost you a penny," and it is. And that's my point.
G. Abbott: I thank the critic for this opportunity to raise an issue that I have raised now for three years in this Legislature, and that's Hummingbird Creek and the issues we have there. Does the minister require any staffing changes to deal with that issue? No. I'll proceed then.
On July 11, 1997, there was a catastrophic event that occurred at Swansea Point, which is near Sicamous in the constituency of Shuswap. It was, in the words of an engineering report by EBA Engineering done subsequent to the event, "the largest debris flow derived from granitic source rocks that has been documented so far in British Columbia: close to 100,000 metres of solids."
[1530]
It was a very dramatic event. I know I visited the area hours after the event had occurred, and certainly for the approximately 500 residents in that community it was a difficult event to deal with.
The EBA report also strongly recommended the construction of a debris basin on the upper part of the fan above Highway 97A at Swansea Point. They made that recommendation based on the following: "It is very fortunate that there was not a number of fatalities due to direct impact by debris, given the magnitude of the event, the high density of development on the alluvial fan and the erosion of the Highway 97A crossing." There was one fatality that occurred during the event, and that was a heart attack -- one of the people attempting to help out with the situation. As the report had noted, it was fortunate that there were not a lot more. The event occurred in the late afternoon. Had it occurred at night, it would have been, I'm sure, a very different situation.
The report also notes that: "It's very likely that high-magnitude debris flows will recur on the Hummingbird Creek fan, and that recharge has taken place in Mara Creek in the past 47-plus years since the last event, dated between 1947 and 1951. A debris flow mobilizing the stored material may be as large as the 1997 debris flow." Finally, the EBA report notes that: "It is beyond doubt that high-magnitude debris flows and debris floods will occur in this creek again."
I guess my first question for the minister
We've got an opportunity here to deal with this. Everyone agrees what needs to be done here, and that's the construction of a debris basin. Could the minister advise where we're at on that?
[1535]
Hon. J. Sawicki: I do very much appreciate that for the hon. member this has been a longstanding issue of concern for his constituency. As a matter of fact, I did meet with the regional districts and regional district representatives, who explained to me clearly the huge challenge of that $2.7 million price tag. I certainly acknowledge that it is a huge challenge.
I think that the member will not be surprised to hear me say that we have no current funding program within MELP that could deal with that challenge. I do also appreciate that my colleague in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways also has an interest in protecting Highway 97A. So by way of update, I can only say that I will continue to work with my colleagues and try our best to assist the regional district and the other parties here to deal with this risk. I know it's longstanding; it's also very expensive. We don't have the dollars to deal with it, and I can't tell him that in good conscience right now.
G. Abbott: I don't think I can begin to properly express to the minister the frustration that residents of Swansea Point feel around this issue. They are now in a situation where many of their homes and properties have been placed into a red zone where they can't build, they can't upgrade, they can't do anything. Others are in an amber zone that's slightly less restrictive, but nevertheless their property values have been enormously diminished by this, as one might imagine. There are families that feel an almost constant threat that a recurrence of the event could threaten their lives as well as their properties. This is a very bad situation, and I can't begin to express to the minister the frustration that people in Swansea Point are feeling.
[ Page 16610 ]
I have a thick file of letters on this now, probably an inch thick. Perhaps the minister's file is that thick as well; I suspect it is. I just want to quote very briefly from a couple of letters on this that I think give a little bit of the sense. These are some of the more recent letters I've received on it. This one, from March 21, 2000, is from Lloyd and Kaye Wannamaker, who are resident in the area. This is just a brief quote from their letter to me:
My second and final quote here, perhaps to convey a little bit of the feeling of the folks in Swansea Point: this is from Caroline Waugh, again of Swansea Point, just to quote briefly from her letter:"There is a definite need for a debris basin to be built so all our homes can be protected. Then we can get the value back of our properties and homes. It is not fair that we are held hostage by somebody sitting behind a desk, others taking surveys, and nothing is being done to relieve this situation. We cannot build, we cannot move, we cannot sell -- all due to the restrictions placed on us."
The people of Swansea Point are locked in what I can only characterize, as the author Joseph Heller put it, as catch-22. They're being told at this point that the prospect of a catastrophic event is not such that in the next decade it is likely to occur, yet it is almost certain to occur sometime in the next 125 years. Based on that premise, they're being told: "We don't have the funds to deal with your problem." On the other hand, they are being told that the danger is such that they can't renovate their home; they can't build on their properties; they can't do anything. They can only sit back and suffer the consequences of diminished property values and diminished safety in their community. I think it can only be characterized as a catch-22 that they're locked in."This year one year-round family has walked away from their home, losing all of their financial investment. Other families are held prisoner on their properties, unable to build, renovate or sell. We cannot continue to live like this. Our properties can be restored to their pre-1997 level of safety and value with the construction of a debris basin. We believe our safety and security has been on hold long enough. It is time to budget for and construct the debris basin that will restore our safety and sense of well-being."
[1540]
The minister said: "Well, there's no funding." In fact, there have been a number of efforts to try to put the funding together. There was, at minimum, some $217,000 in the disaster financial assistance program that wasn't expended and could have been. Apparently it was available until May of 2000 and may well now have been lost. I have spoken to the Ministry of Highways on numerous occasions about this. They need to do some upgrade work in there, and they could contribute to the project. I think there is a good possibility that the Attorney General, through the provincial emergency program, could make a contribution to this.
There is a good deal of debate about the cause of the debris flow. There is perhaps, at least arguably, the proposition that Forest Renewal B.C. might contribute to this. The Minister of Municipal Affairs told some of my former colleagues in local government in the Shuswap at the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Association convention that she was going to champion this cause. I'm presuming that she's prepared to make some commitment to the resolution of this as well.
I don't want to look back -- a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now -- and have a reporter sticking a camera in my face and a microphone up my nose saying: "Why didn't somebody do something about this situation before somebody got killed." We know it's a bad situation; we know dollars are hard to find. But that's not good enough. We've got an identified risk here. We've got a clear problem here, and it's time to do something about it. It's been three years now; I think that's more than enough time to start to come to grips with this.
So I leave the minister with this plea today: let's get on with it. We've got a clearly identified problem here. We can, I think, put together a package that would deal with this -- including, obviously, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. I believe they are prepared to come onboard with this, if they can get a financially feasible package that will work for them.
It's time to deal with this. I think people have been hanging out there to dry long enough. It's time to put something together, and that's my plea today to the Minister of Environment.
Hon. J. Sawicki: And I do hear that plea and know that it is sincere. I am sure that the hon. member is expressing the frustration that his constituents feel. Unfortunately, in British Columbia we have many environmental hazards: floods, avalanches and slides, etc., and we try to deal with them on a priority basis. That's why, very shortly, I'm going to be announcing the allocation of the $3 million that we've been able to put into flood control hazards of imminent danger.
But if the hon. member is asking if I will actively work with colleagues
I. Chong: The issues that I have to raise today are several, but I'm going to refer one particular matter to the minister and hope that her staff will look into it and get back to me. I don't necessarily need an answer today.
The issue I want to raise is the spraying of the gypsy moth, the aerial spraying issue. And I know it's not within this ministry, but a year ago it was a joint project by the Ministries of Forests, Environment and Agriculture. They were all involved in signing off, I believe, on the order-in-council.
My concerns are that this ministry works in cooperation with other ministries. As I've stated several times throughout the debates that I've participated in, interministerial cooperation is essential. People have no idea where they should be laying complaints to. It's also a health issue.
But in particular, in the environmental area, I would like to know what this minister's staff are doing in the area of aerial spraying. What conversations, what discussions and what deliberations take place with her staff and those in the other ministries to ensure that the Environment ministry is kept informed about this? In particular, I know this year's spraying was in this minister's own area. I received a number of phone calls -- even though they were not my constituents -- concerned about the quality of the water that would be affected, I suppose, with the lake. For the record, I would like the minister to provide an answer, if she can. If she isn't able to, then I'll be quite willing to receive that response by way of letter.
[1545]
Hon. J. Sawicki: I am not aware of any specific studies that are being done within the ministry at this time. But as the
[ Page 16611 ]
hon. member is aware, the proponent for the spray program was the Ministry of Forests. They applied to our ministry staff, who had the delegated authority to ensure that the application met all the standards and who issued the permit. And in this instance
I. Chong: I am aware of these appeals, and it seems to go back and forth. Now I think it appears that the citizens have lost faith in the democratic process, and that's unfortunate. But from this ministry's perspective, I would hope that there would be some effort made towards some kind of a study to deal with air quality, at least, and the effects on water quality after a spray, even though this was not an issue that affected the Health ministry.
My efforts in raising it last year at least required the capital health region, in this area where we were sprayed, to commission a study to determine the effects on health, which is another major concern. If the ministry hasn't done anything at this point, then I would urge staff to take a look at this. I know there have been a number of complaints not only to her constituency office but to adjoining ridings -- I believe Burnaby-Edmonds, etc. -- about air quality issues. If that's the responsibility of this minister, I hope she will consider that and get back to us by way of letter on it.
The last issue I would like to raise again deals with interministerial cooperation. Once again, as the Tourism critic, I'm receiving many calls from the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association, which has many problems. They've dealt with BCAL in the past, which used to be in this ministry, as I understand now, and with the Ministry of Agriculture. They're not pleased about what has been going on. I will forward to the minister a number of questions which they forwarded to the ministry before BCAL was moved out, in an effort to see whether there were any responses to that.
In addition, there was a commercial recreation policy that was signed off in May 1998, and there was an announcement that there was a two-year price freeze on all rates, pending the outcome of a pricing review to be undertaken in 1999. I would ask the minister to supply me, at a later date, with any information on that review -- whether that review has been undertaken, whether there are any results of that and if I might have those. I thank staff, in advance, for their cooperation.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I hope that my ministry is always cooperative.
In terms of the pricing review, though, I do have to refer the hon. member to BCAL, because that's their responsibility under the memorandum of understanding and the delegated authority. They deal with pricing and leasing and tenures of Crown land.
J. Reid: In French Creek near Parksville there is a sewage treatment plant that, when it was originally planned, had odour control as part of the plan, but in cost-saving measures, the odour control was scrapped. Residents have been fighting this problem for years now, and the odour control is also a health concern for these residents. There have been attempts, through the regional district, to find money to put towards odour control and a patchwork attempt to try to alleviate it in a manner that is cost-effective. However, it's still not very suitable.
[1550]
One of the concerns of the residents after they have been suffering with this for so many years is that they want to have the assurance that other people aren't going to have to go through the same fight. The question to the minister is: what is being done so that when sewage treatment plants are constructed, air emissions and odour control are a necessary part and not an optional part of those constructions?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I don't have specific information on the French Creek sewage treatment plant issue, but I was just getting some clarification here in terms of our ministry's role. Of course, there is a regulation in place that sewage treatment plants in all parts of British Columbia have to adhere to. There are permits, and there are standards. In terms of the operation of plants themselves, I believe that would be more the responsibility of the local government. If the hon. member can give us a little more detail, then maybe we can get back to her at a later time if there are specific aspects of this situation that I'm unaware of right now.
J. Reid: The question, then, is: with the requirements for sewage treatment plants, are there standards for air emissions and odour control? Along with all the other standards, but particularly with those, are there provincial standards that have to be adhered to?
Hon. J. Sawicki: I can say to the hon. member that no, our permits and standards don't actually take into account things like odour. Clearly our interest is to ensure that they meet the effluent discharge and the point discharge standards. That's this ministry's perspective on those plants.
J. Reid: There has been quite a bit of research. Looking into this issue, I have found that where there is odour, there are also air emissions from an incredible amount of other chemicals that are emitted from these plants. These residents are thinking that it's not just all in their heads -- that when they get sick with these odours, there are other reasons.
So the question, again, from these residents to the minister, is: as plans are developed, would the ministry would look at odour control and air emissions as being a health problem, a health concern -- that these should be part of the ongoing modernization of our standards, and that other people would be spared the health problems and certainly the huge fight that's gone into just trying to have a decent lifestyle when you have to live not even in close proximity but just in the vicinity of some of these plants?
[1555]
Hon. J. Sawicki: I would say to the hon. member that she may well be correct in terms of the perception that when there are odours, there are other things being emitted as well. Our standards and our regulations do expect that these plants are run efficiently and properly and, therefore, would meet the standards, and there shouldn't be odour.
But I hear what she is saying. She's actually saying that if our ministry doesn't look at odours as part of our review of
[ Page 16612 ]
the permits, then she is asking if we would consider doing that. I guess I'm responding that in this ministry we need to ensure that the requirements we put upon proponents for sewage treatment plants actually do address the environmental impacts. But I hear what she's saying.
J. Reid: I presume the minister is saying that when a plant is emitting these odours, then there is a problem with the plant, in which case the province would certainly be willing to get involved at that point. If that's the case, then I'll certainly provide her with this information, and we'll look forward to the province's help in solving the source of the problem -- so that we don't need these controls, because then there wouldn't be odours.
Hon. J. Sawicki: I think the best thing I can do at this stage is certainly commit to ask our regional staff to take a look at this particular plant and report back to me, and I'll do that.
M. Coell: I would just like to say that I've appreciated the minister's comments. I believe this is, as I said at the beginning, my third round at Environment estimates. What I've tried to do this year is structure the opposition questions and comments on a wide range of topical issues and follow up on some of the more serious issues that we had touched on in the last couple of years.
As the minister said in her opening remarks, this is a vast ministry that touches every aspect of British Columbia's life. And it's one that I think she is very lucky to have the job as minister of. I might say I'm a bit envious. But I must admit I have enjoyed being the critic and having the opportunity to look inside this ministry at what it does and what it attempts to do.
I think that one of the great things of the last couple of decades in Canada is our attempt to manage the environment and our effects on it in a sustainable way. Sometimes we succeed; sometimes we don't. I think the way we will succeed as British Columbians is that at least we try. So I thank the minister for her comments. If she'd like to make any closing comments, I won't move that we rise, report completion and seek leave to
Hon. J. Sawicki: I want to begin by thanking the hon. member who is the critic for providing such a clear list of the issues that the opposition members wanted to raise. It helped us tremendously to make sure that staff did have the information here and that we had staff here in a timely manner. So I am very, very appreciative.
I would also like to say that I welcome the very thoughtful discussions that we did have. Members did raise issues of real concern in their communities, environmental concerns. I do want to thank all of the members opposite for those questions and also thank the critic for the strong support he has expressed for the work that this ministry does and especially the work that the ministry staff do throughout this province.
Vote 29 approved.
[1600]
The Chair: We'll take a little recess before the next ministry comes in. This resolution will be reported out at the adjournment at the end of the day. So it's not necessary to move resolution and ask leave to sit again at this time.
We'll be recessed for 15 minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:00 p.m. to 4:18 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
COOPERATIVES AND VOLUNTEERS
On vote 23: ministry operations, $22,730,000.
Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, it is my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers for the consideration of the Legislature. I would normally begin by introducing my staff, but none of them are here, so I shall do that upon their arrival in the next interval -- although it looks like they might be just at the door now. There's my deputy, Hal Gerein, who's just coming in the door.
The Chair: Minister, we need a drum roll here.
Hon. J. Kwan: Come on over. Such is the nature of the Ministry of Community Development, you see. We are in good spirits and are working in cooperation with everyone in moving forward, working for the community.
Let me just move to another component before I introduce all of my staff, because they will be trickling through the door, and we'll wait for that. But immediately to my right is Hal Gerein, who is the deputy for the ministry. I want to clearly recognize the dedication of the ministry and the staff over the last number of months. The work that they do is important, I think, in all of the communities throughout British Columbia.
Hon. Chair, this is the first opportunity since the ministry was created to present the House with the ministry's mandate and its mission. However, I am pleased to advise this House that there have been a few earlier briefing sessions between the ministry staff and the opposition critic outlining the ministry's work. The member for Parksville-Qualicum has graciously acknowledged the cooperative nature of those meetings, and I'm pleased to hear that -- in terms of a cooperative nature in working together.
[1620]
The Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers was created in July of 1999 to promote, support and invest in community efforts to build and maintain self-reliant communities. The ministry was established to respond to and help with the community development needs of our various communities, including both economic and social development. Many of our communities, especially those with substantial ties to the traditional resource industries, have been hit hard by changes that have dramatically affected their local economies. The programs offered through the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers are part of the government's plan to help communities explore opportunities, diversify their economies and forge their own path to a more prosperous future. The ministry's role is to provide the tools and the support to do that.
Traditionally, the dedicated work of the people in our communities has been the cornerstone of our province, shap-
[ Page 16613 ]
ing our society and the potential within it. The ministry recognizes the importance of that work and is committed to securing it by supporting the role of the volunteer sector, assisting in community development and strengthening the cooperative sector.
The ministry has five key areas of responsibility: community development, community transition and adjustment, community enterprise development, cooperatives and volunteers. These areas of responsibility carry with them five community funding programs: the community enterprise program, Bladerunners, the community solutions program, the co-op advantage program and Involve B.C.
Even though the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers is a new ministry, I believe that we have achieved a great deal since August of last year. We're providing practical support for locally driven ventures to shape new diversified economies which will keep people working and living in the rural, coastal and urban communities. We're supporting the development of volunteer organizations to facilitate the dedicated work that is at the core of community life, and we're helping to strengthen the cooperative sector, which creates jobs, diversifies the economy and provides community services. One way we have done this is by amending the Cooperative Association Act so that it can be brought into force this fall. The new act will give co-ops greater access to capital and more control over their day-to-day operations.
The ministry was created in July of last year. It operated on a budget of $18 million for the remaining eight months of the 1999 fiscal year. The total budget estimated for my ministry, for the full fiscal year 2000-2001, is $22.73 million. Of this, $9.175 million will fund the community enterprise program, which provides resource-based rural and coastal communities with funding to develop and implement locally driven, innovative business ventures. Some $3.524 million will fund the community transitions and corporate planning branch. The branch provides strategic support to natural resource communities with immediate and major economic difficulties, through the community transition and adjustment program.
Some $5.16 million will provide support for cooperatives and volunteers through the cooperatives and voluntary sector branch. The branch administers the co-operative ad and Involve B.C. programs. Co-op advantage promotes the development and expansion of cooperatives that create sustainable jobs, diversify the economy and improve community services. Involve B.C. supports the training and development of the volunteer organizations that enrich peoples lives and help to sustain and develop communities.
Hon. Chair, my ministry also carries the Vancouver Agreement. The Vancouver Agreement is a five-year agreement between the federal and provincial and the city of Vancouver -- all three levels of government are working with Vancouver communities, with an initial focus on the downtown east side, to promote three main objectives: community health and safety, economic and social development, and community capacity building. Specifically, the partners will develop strategies to reduce substance abuse and related crime and to reduce preventable deaths and the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, through education and harm-reduction strategies.
[1625]
It is important to recognize that the challenges in the downtown east side affect all of us. This community has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS infection in North America. Each case of HIV/AIDS represents a tragic, preventable loss of human life. We know that harm-reduction strategies like needle-exchange programs help to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases. But these programs don't address the underlying issues of poverty and despair that lead to substance abuse and related health problems.
To help break the cycle, the Vancouver Agreement partners are committed to increasing the number of safe, secure and affordable housing units in the downtown east side community; promoting the training and hiring of local people for local jobs; and coordinating the efforts of police, health and social service agencies to reduce violence against individuals in the community, especially women, children, first nations people and people with disabilities.
Some $2.378 million will support the work of the urban community development unit. The unit works to support local action to enhance the socioeconomic conditions of communities through job training and education, such as the Bladerunners youth employment program. Some of the youth were here yesterday, and we honoured them. The ministry is also developing and promoting private and public partnerships, urban community development projects and other initiatives identified by community groups. Also funded through the community development budget is the community solutions program, which provides assistance to non-profit and first nations organizations for community-led development initiatives that focus on low-income, marginalized people and communities.
The ministry is responding to active community-building across the province by providing funding. This helps people develop ideas, implement plans and realize goals for themselves and for their communities -- whether it is the start of a new seafood industry on Vancouver Island, the expansion of tourism in the Kootenays or the creation of a new cooperative in the Okanagan. We're supporting locally driven ventures that will result in new jobs, stronger and more stable economies and the potential to shape a more secure future.
Hon. Chair, my ministry also carries responsibility for Four Corners Community Savings, a Crown financial institution. Through Four Corners Community Savings, the people who live in the downtown east side have access to financial services which so many of us take for granted. Four Corners was created for people who are underserviced by existing financial institutions -- people who are in a state of suffering, neglect and poverty -- and to serve the general community who share and promote its principles and goals.
Four Corners Community Savings opened for business on April 1, 1996, and currently has more than 5,000 customers. It offers a full range of financial products and services, including commercial and customer loans, RRSPs, utility bill paying and chequing and savings accounts. Four Corners also provides important social benefits to its customers. With their money safe in the bank, Four Corners customers are less likely to be robbed or to spend money impulsively. They have increased self-esteem and feel more financially secure, because they have greater control over their money. Four Corners is also a place where customers can network and learn about assistance available in the downtown east side.
There is a substantial need for the programs offered by my ministry, which is evident from the numbers of applications that we have received for funding to date. We have set clear criteria for making sure the ministry is contributing to projects that reflect and fulfil our mandate.
[ Page 16614 ]
Projects are approved on the recommendations of my staff, who undertake multistep reviews of every application. The applications are reviewed at least twice by program staff and by program management. Every application that is received is monitored through a contribution agreement tracking system, from the initial receipt of the application, to its approval or rejection, to the receipt of evidence of agreed-upon deliverables.
Approved projects become contribution agreements between the ministry and the proponent, setting the amount of the ministry's contribution and what the proponent will deliver with that funding. The agreements stipulate progress reports from the proponent which provide the ministry with basic data on the progress of each of the projects' objectives.
The ministry is determined to operate efficiently and cost-effectively. To this end, the ministry shares existing corporate services -- including accounting, human resources systems, FOI facilities and the executive financial officer -- the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Sharing these functions saves the ministry 12 FTEs and approximately $1 million per year.
[1630]
My ministry welcomes public interest in what we do, and we're eager to make detailed and up-to-date information about our programs readily available. The ministry's web site provides step-by-step direction on how to apply for funding and clearly outlines the criteria for each of our programs. We've had overwhelming responses from funding through our programs. It shows us that we're on the right track in providing support of this kind. It also shows us how great the need is for assistance and how much work there is to be done to secure our communities and to build on them.
The ministry's mission has received positive feedback from community development groups as well as volunteer groups. They have acknowledged the value of the grassroots approach to the work that needs to be done, work that they had to do previously without such practical government support.
The Canadian Cooperative Association, B.C. Region, has publicly outlined the importance of the Co-op Advantage program to its sector. In a letter to the ministry's opposition critic, the regional manager of the association, John Restakis, points out:
Mr. Restakis goes on to say:"This particular assistance to cooperatives is justified because cooperatives often provide important benefits to communities that conventional businesses do not. Cooperatives are locally owned, address social objectives that extend beyond purely commercial gain, such as hiring hard-to-employ individuals, and redistribute capital in communities at a much higher rate than do conventional private businesses."
The ministry supports community efforts that encourage all British Columbians in all walks of life to build healthy communities. We're working hard, and we'll be working closely with people who are determined to take an active part in the changes that will affect their lives and the lives of their children."It is time governments recognized the benefits cooperatives bring to the communities, and it makes sense that programs should be put in place to support their development, just as it makes sense for governments to promote the growth of conventional businesses."
I look forward to the estimates debate, and I trust that we will have a productive session. I welcome any questions from the members opposite and particularly from my critic, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.
J. Reid: As a new ministry, this is the first opportunity that exists to receive clarification on the mandate of this ministry, on its goals and objectives and on its accountability measures. I would question the minister's suggestion that the need for the ministry has been demonstrated by the number of applicants for funds. I would suggest that if the government is going to be giving away money, they would be guaranteed to get a great number of applicants for that.
So we do have to scrutinize what is being done by this ministry; we have a responsibility. I know an awful lot of people in this province who are struggling to make ends meet. I'm looking at this ministry's estimates and the spending and providing of these dollars to different community groups as though these people were here in this room. We're looking at the money that's been taken from their pockets and been given to these other enterprises.
We want to make sure that the province is going to get its goals satisfied for the money that's being distributed. This is the ministry that is distributing a very large number of smaller-sized grants to the communities. It is very broad in its reach and does carry a lot of responsibility to many of these communities. I'll be looking for the facts and figures, of course, and the statistics backing up the statements of the minister.
I would also have to say that I believe that part of the problem this ministry is trying to address with these projects is a result of the atmosphere in B.C. that has not been conducive to investors. As communities struggle for these alternatives, until we're able to see more investment and a better investment climate in B.C
[1635]
Initially, I'm going to be going through the performance plan of the ministry and then through the different specific areas that the ministry has responsibility for, ending up with the Vancouver Agreement at the end of the estimates. I would like to start with the performance plan. I will give some page references as we go through this. Before I actually deal with the particulars in the performance plan, there is one question with regards to the ability of this ministry not only to spend the money of the ministry but also to draw funds from other ministries for community-based projects. As this ministry has the capacity to oversee projects, I would ask the minister for clarification of the role between this ministry and others in using funds from other ministries.
Hon. J. Kwan: As mentioned in my opening statements, the places where we do share expenses, if you will, with other ministries or work in partnership with them is through our staffing. The staff that I had listed out in those areas through the Ministry of Employment and Investment is shared through the ministry. In terms of programs and levering other dollars within government, the ministry does work to try to lever moneys, not only from within existing government programs but also from the federal government, from the municipal government, and from non-profit agencies such as Ecotrust Canada, which is a non-profit group. We do as much
[ Page 16615 ]
work as we can to try and bring more dollars to British Columbians for programs under the ministry by using different approaches with respect to negotiations and leverage.
J. Reid: In the reporting again, looking at this as a new ministry and being able to track these funds and these projects where dollars are being brought in from numerous sources, it is going to be quite the challenge for the ministry to be able to present clear statements of the costs of projects and where the funds have been accumulated from. I would like to know what procedures the minister and the ministry are proposing in order to clearly define where dollars are coming from -- from what ministries -- over what time frame -- not at the completion of projects but on an ongoing basis.
Hon. J. Kwan: The stipulation, in terms of how to account for where the dollars come in from, where the dollars are spent and how the dollars are spent, is actually a direction that comes through Treasury Board.
J. Reid: As I have had difficulty -- and we will canvass this later on in estimates -- getting some of this information from the government as far as projects go, I would suggest that this ministry take a look at how they're going to be accounting for those dollars and be able to keep track of them on a project basis, where that information is going to be readily available.
Going ahead into the performance plan, I'm looking at page 5. There are the comments that this ministry is going to be dialoguing with the federal government. Obviously the minister already mentioned that part of the job is to be able to coordinate efforts on these different projects. Exactly what formal, established relationships exist with the federal government? What dialogue has taken place? What are the plans? With whom is the minister dialoguing?
[1640]
Hon. J. Kwan: There are a number of areas in which we are engaged in discussion, particularly with the federal government in this instance, on the issue of homelessness. I am the government lead in negotiations with Minister Claudette Bradshaw on the homelessness file. We are engaged in discussions with HRDC. As well, we are engaged in discussions under the Vancouver Agreement with Minister Hedy Fry, who has the Vancouver Agreement responsibility, and the Privy Council, as well, on the volunteers component the federal government has.
There are other areas, as well, in terms of funding programs. The Western Economic Diversification program is one area where we do look to see whether or not there are programs in which we can engage and therefore do matching programs with them. WEPA is another area. So there are many areas.
I want to say, though, that these are ongoing discussions and negotiations. In some instances, they are formal establishments in terms of their relationship with a particular minister, because there's been a dedicated minister for that. In other instances, what my staff do is really a broad-spread approach, if you will, and they go out there and look for as many areas as there are. Where it is appropriate for that formal relationship to be established, we come in and do that.
There are still other instances where the formal relationship may not necessarily rest with my ministry but may rest with another ministry within government, and then we approach them and have them undertake that work as well. We don't sort of take the position of saying that this is all of our responsibility but rather take the flexible approach of saying that there are pots of moneys and partners that are out there. Wherever they are, we will endeavour to try and find them and to see whether or not we can solidify and create that partnership.
J. Reid: Going on the performance plan on page 6, on impacts on communities, there is a statement that through the land claims process -- the results of treaty negotiations -- they will have an impact on many communities throughout B.C. over the next several years and that these are trends with implications that the ministry is looking to address. Would the minister explain what the impacts are that this ministry sees that will take place on communities because of the land claims process.
Hon. J. Kwan: In terms of the treaty process that the member references, I believe that all of the detailed impacts within the communities on the different aspects within the treaty process rests under the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. That would be the place in which you can explore all of that.
Broadly speaking, of course the treaty process does have ramifications for each and every one of us in our different respective communities.
J. Reid: This performance plan addresses it. This performance plan says that this is part of what the ministry is looking at. They're looking at impacts on communities as a result of settlement of land claims. The question is: what are the impacts that this ministry is anticipating and is working to alleviate in those communities?
Hon. J. Kwan: This ministry recognizes that there would be impacts in terms of the treaty process -- as does, I think, every British Columbian recognize that the treaty process and unsettled land claims issues have ramifications for all British Columbians.
So in that light, the performance plan recognizes that there are impacts. But I go back again to the specific aspects of what those impacts are, and they really fall all the way through different ministries. The Aboriginal Affairs ministry takes the lead in dealing with those issues. Others have ramifications. Take, as an example, forestry: the Ministry of Forests has the responsibility for that, etc.
So I would not want to overstep the bounds and talk about what all those impacts are for every other ministry, especially when we have a ministry that deals with those specific areas and is the lead of that, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
[1645]
J. Reid: Certainly I'm not asking the minister to talk about all the specifics of all the impacts across the province. But it does address it in the performance plan, so I'm quite willing to settle for a few generalities. This ministry is looking at addressing concerns within the communities, of making programs and being proactive, so there must be something behind these words. A few generalities would be quite acceptable.
Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, take as an example
[ Page 16616 ]
there are communities that are resource-dependent. The use of and the access to licences -- whether it be forestry, fisheries or whatever the case may be -- have ramifications within the community.
The other things that would have ramifications would be tourism. The partnerships that potentially could be created for ecotourism, as an example, would be another example. Land use has ramifications that impact all communities and so on. So the list goes on and on, which is why I'm reluctant to go into each of them. As I said, they fall into all the different ministries throughout government, with the lead minister under the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
J. Reid: Under "Supporting Peer Learning and Development," it says that the ministry can play a strong role in enabling communities to talk to one another about best practices and about how to address challenges. What is the ministry's role in enabling communities to talk to one another? What would be the action plan on this item?
Hon. J. Kwan: Some examples would include facilitating meetings, community workshops and developing web sites so that people can share the information. Some of our grants actually provide for exactly that sharing of information and the creation of partnerships, and it's directed at
J. Reid: So am I to understand that this isn't a direct action on the part of the ministry? The ministry is expecting that other people will take on this role, and they will enable them. Would that be correct?
Hon. J. Kwan: I just want to point out, for the member's information, that these items listed under page 6 are trends that have been identified -- the external trends that have implications for the work. So on the one hand, what work do we do in terms of facilitation, etc.? We clearly do some of that work. But there are other forces external to what we do that would have ramifications as well. And part of our job, of course, is to draw on the strength of that. Some of it is by program delivery; some of it is the day-to-day work of staff, where they go and facilitate workshops and engage in discussions with a group. And then with that, you get results and information back.
So it's really much broader than just what we do. We don't want to claim all the challenges but, as well, the successes, because it's a partnership.
J. Reid: Talking about trends and green business, under this section of trends, just to clarify, it states: "There are also a number of external trends which have implications for the work of the ministry." So in pulling through these, we're not just talking about general trends; we're talking about the implications for the ministry. That's what I understand it's here for. So with green business and the initiatives, I would like to know what the ministry has in mind to direct resources for green business and green products. Again, it says that the ministry can direct resources to support this, so I'm asking what the resources might be.
Hon. J. Kwan: The lead ministry that has responsibility for that is actually the Ministry of Environment. There is the green economy working group and the green economy secretariat who undertake that. Again, the work of some other ministries within government have ramifications, have impact implications and so on with our ministry. In some instances we work in partnership with them; we create the partnership or look for partnerships. One area where we have created a partnership is with Ecotrust Canada, where we have a loan program with them. That's a green economy initiative, if you will.
[1650]
J. Reid: There are talks about the growing trend with public-private partnerships and government initiatives with the private sector. There is a concern when the government is partnering with another group or supporting them financially that those initiatives would be in competition with existing businesses. Would the minister address this concern that businesses have and perhaps like to support it with examples of what is happening to protect existing businesses from unfair competition?
Hon. J. Kwan: I want to be clear in terms of the programs that the ministry provides for in terms of building partnerships, whether it be business partners, cooperative partners or others. Take, as an example, Ecotrust Canada, which is actually a good example of partnering with the non-profit sector, with the business community, with government and really, overall, with the community on the whole.
Ecotrust Canada is a non-profit organization. They received $1.1 million from the province by way of loans -- by way of dollars contributed to them -- with which they can, in turn, make loans to individuals in the business community. People apply to access those loans. The rates are what is out there; that is set by Ecotrust Canada. The requirement around that program, as an example, is that the applicants for the loans have to be conservation-based businesses -- something that is good for the economy but also good for the environment, in order to diversify the community economic base. The folks who apply for the loans would have to pay back the dollars to Ecotrust Canada, who then, in turn, will loan those moneys to other people over time.
So the question then becomes: are we creating an unfair competition for others? I would argue that we're not. We don't pay for the loan for them, but rather, they have access to the loan. It's a good way of getting business going. Businesses who wouldn't otherwise be able to get going will now have an opportunity to apply for dollars under the Ecotrust program that we're funding, as an example.
The cooperative program is another program. Perhaps there's misunderstanding around that. The misunderstanding may be centred around the notion that we actually fund a business in terms in the daily operation under the cooperative program. We don't fund the business for the daily operation, but rather, we provide them contributions in an agreement with them to assist them for setting up a cooperative structure for their business, whether it be in a web site, whether it be a business plan, accounting procedures -- whatever the case may be. That's what the government, under this program, does in assisting the cooperative sector.
We believe that the cooperative sector has contributions for our community broader than just an economic base, but
[ Page 16617 ]
also on the social side as well, in terms of a service side. There are statistics that actually show and demonstrate the cooperative sector in terms of their contributions, not just on the economic front.
Is that creating an unfair economic competition for some versus others? We don't believe that it does. And as is the case for government, there are a number of programs that are being provided for. In fact, for all of the businesses, in terms of tax breaks -- the small business tax and so on -- those are targeted areas for a sector of business, if you will. Is that deemed to be an unfair advantage? I would also venture to argue that those measures are not creating an unfair advantage.
J. Reid: Going further along in the performance plan, under ministry goals and objectives, we're looking at the goals of the ministry. Within the objectives of the ministry, under "Self-Reliant Communities," is greater awareness in communities of all potential vehicles for community development available, including small business, cooperatives and self-employment. I haven't seen very much, if anything at all, of what's coming out of the ministry as far as promoting small business and self-employment. It seems to be group-oriented -- and certainly other vehicles. Would the minister like to explain what the ministry is doing to provide a greater awareness for small business and self-employment?
[1655]
Hon. J. Kwan: The focus around community capacity-building is very much around self-employment. In some of those instances, it's beyond just one individual; it's a number of different individuals. And clearly, the more that we can support, the greater. We also supported the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture in their venture in supporting self-employment. They supported a fair wherein wholesalers would have an opportunity to showcase their products and goods to potential buyers at the fair. We contributed to that to assist self-employment in terms of making some dollars available to individuals, so they can get in there to showcase their wares.
Another example, is that in that instance we provided information to those who attended the fair: access to the development of cooperatives, or how they can find efficiencies; how they can work together with one another, especially for the smaller entrepreneurs; how they can work with each other to find savings within their approach, and so on. We participated in that. In that instance, we weren't the lead ministry; the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture was the lead ministry. We do have a ministry that focuses in that area, so we therefore work in partnership with them.
Community venture capital is certainly another program that is in place to do that. So there's a number of different ministries and different programs in place. And again, I do want to emphasize, we don't do it all, nor do we try to or want to do it all. Where there are instances where there are other ministry programs in place from government, we can work in partnership with them to try and get the same results.
J. Reid: Another objective is: "Improved access to local natural resources." This has certainly been a bit of a puzzle to me. I know there was an announcement made at the coastal communities conference that stated that the ministry was working on community-managed Crown resource tenures for local sustainable benefit and that resource-revenue sharing was also part of it. Could we have an explanation of what the ministry is planning to do to improve access to local natural resources?
Hon. J. Kwan: There are a number of areas that this falls in: community forests, the shellfish component in the resource sector. There are other trails even for the purposes of tourism, fish licensing. Those are some of the examples that fall under this. And again, the ministry doesn't work in isolation with respect to this. There are a number of other folks who have responsibility and have ramifications in these areas, including the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, depending on which aspect we're talking about.
Again, part of the job here is to pull it all together so that we can be effective in working with the community for the community.
J. Reid: Under programs and projects, it suggests that the ministry is looking at development of legislation. I understand there's been some work on a proposed community development act. I was wondering if the minister would talk about the direction her ministry is taking in respect of proposed legislation and where we're at with that and what would be the purpose and the plan.
[1700]
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'll draw the committee's attention to the rules of debate in committee. Legislation, or the need for legislation, is out of order for debate in estimates. If the minister can find a way to respond, or the member could rephrase the questions, it would help the Chair a lot, within the rules of order.
Hon. J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I certainly would not breach, or want to breach, the rules of the House. In that light, we're not talking about legislation, but rather that the ministry has produced a discussion paper. Through that discussion paper, which will be released shortly
J. Reid: Looking at the next part of the performance plan, we have a list of the different items, the different initiatives, that this ministry is taking on, with the dollar figures beside them. According to my calculation, these initiatives add up to $19.41 million, whereas in the budget it's $20.27 million. I was just wondering if the minister could explain to me where the discrepancy lies.
Hon. J. Kwan: I believe that where the discrepancy lies
[ Page 16618 ]
J. Reid: That was clear, that this isn't a complete list; this is just a list of the program dollars. But the program dollars listed in other documents from the ministry add up to a different amount. And we're still just talking about program dollars. We're not talking about transfers; we're not talking about the minister's office or anything else. It does not add up to other places. I would ask, perhaps, that as we go through here
All right. Well, I'll go on, then. The next item was on page 10 of the performance plan, where it talks about strategic research. I would like to know what the minister's plans are for strategic research.
Hon. J. Kwan: In terms of the research and development agenda within the ministry, we have a number of outcomes and objectives in current projects in place. Perhaps I can give an idea of where we're heading with respect to that, by listing some of the current projects that we have in place.
We have, under the intergovernmental relations and strategic initiatives, a learning communities research project underway, regional community development issues and best practices research underway, a community development research inventory seminar underway, and the intergovernmental relations strategy, in terms of
[1705]
In the area of community enterprise, a cross-jurisdictional scan of the community development legislation and government initiatives is looking at your other jurisdictions -- exactly what it is that they are doing, how they're doing it and what can we learn from them in that approach, as an example.
We are also looking at -- on another side, the flip side -- the challenges. As an example, what are some of the barriers in using resource tenures to support community development?
Those are just some examples of research development. We are exploring for new ideas, innovative ideas, but we also don't want to reinvent the wheel. Where some things have already been done by somebody else, we don't want to pour a whole bunch of work into doing the same thing all over again.
J. Reid: Following along on this idea about collecting information, on page 13 it talks about the ministry creating databases containing baseline information on current social and economic indicators. I'd like to know how the ministry plans on compiling this information for its databases, whether that information is coming from B.C. Stats and whether it's received whole or whether the ministry is manipulating it for specific purposes of the ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: We take the information from B.C. Stats, and we take the pieces that are applicable to us in relation to our work. So we do manipulate the information that comes through and don't use all of the information, because some of it is not particularly relevant.
J. Reid: Does the ministry have to purchase this information from the other ministries?
Hon. J. Kwan: Not unless the information that we receive is specially designed for us.
J. Reid: So is the ministry contemplating specially designed information? Is this going to be a cost to the ministry? Are they collecting strategic information databases that are specific to this ministry's use?
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm looking at my financial person, and he's shaking his head. So that means no.
J. Reid: Would it be possible for the minister to provide us with copies of the report that disclosed baseline social and economic indicators for communities receiving, say, transitional assistance? Is that the kind of information that's being collected? Or if it's not, if other information is being done, is it being put in the form of a report? Is it possible to get copies of that for use from the ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we can provide some of that information. Take as an example Gold River, one community where we do have information like that. We will endeavour to look into our database to see what information is available and provide that to the member.
J. Reid: Looking in the performance plan, it talks about a community lens. Well, I would like an explanation of what the community lens is and how the minister sees it being applied.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'm going to give my definition of a community lens. It may not necessarily actually match anybody else's. But nonetheless, in my opinion, a community lens would be that when you engage in a community program that you first and foremost focus in on what the needs of the community are. Sometimes those needs are not necessarily identified by you within government but rather identified by the community. Let them have the opportunity to define what their needs are.
Take as an example Gold River, where the government went in to engage with the community. They are going through major challenges within that community. Government didn't go in at that time with the approach of saying: "Here's what we think is best for you." Rather, we invited all the community interests and the stakeholders to the table to engage in a discussion with them, then we worked towards developing a plan to meet their needs and worked towards finding the financial resources from as many partners as we could to meet the plan's needs. So therefore for the community's interests, their vision of what their needs are and therefore the implementation of that vision, we then became the facilitator.
[1710]
That's one way of looking at a community lens. The community lens is therefore not fixed but rather is very static. It depends on the community and what its approaches are and what those needs of the community happen to be.
J. Reid: In the performance plan, it says: " 'community lens' policy tool to address impacts of government policies on community development." I appreciate the definition that the minister provided for me, but could she then explain how that provides any meaning to what's in the performance plan?
Hon. J. Kwan: The approach that I described is the approach that the ministry takes in working with the com-
[ Page 16619 ]
munity. What we try to do is to apply that approach and to get other ministries to apply that approach as well, therefore applying a community lens, if you will, throughout government.
J. Reid: I'm still struggling with how we would use this in a practical way. The impacts of government policies, then, on community development
Hon. J. Kwan: A specific example would be, as I mentioned earlier, Gold River, which is using the community lens in developing the plan of Gold River. Tumbler Ridge is another example that is now underway in terms of developing a plan for Tumbler Ridge under a community lens approach.
Another area outside of the ministry, although related, is the community forest pilot. That is another example of using a community lens approach.
J. Reid: Then this community lens has nothing to do with the business lens that was suggested, so that all new policies or legislation would be looked at from that point of view. It's not that government policy would be looked from the impact broadly on communities. It's that this has a specific from-the-community approach, particular to each specific community. All right, I'll carry on if I've got it clear.
Looking at page 13 in the performance plan, it states that part of the ministry's strategic activities -- of course, working in collaboration with other ministries -- is to develop and implement plans responding to fisheries communities. Could the minister explain what kind of involvement the ministry expects to have with respect to developing programs? How many people within the ministry are involved in this area, and what funds from the ministry have been allocated towards this work?
Hon. J. Kwan: We work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this one. Clearly within government, too, there are other ministers involved in that. The coastal communities economic action initiative
[1715]
There is another area that we work with DFO on, and that's the Pacific fish adjustment and restructuring initiative. Again, in some instances, we play an auxiliary role with other partners around government and with the federal government.
J. Reid: Part of the question is: are there staff devoted to that? I take it from the answer that no, it's a broader-based initiative. What about funds? Are there funds allocated towards anything to do with the fisheries in the communities?
Hon. J. Kwan: Not specifically, but we do look for opportunities where some things fit into one of the programs that we deliver. And if there are opportunities, particularly, where we can utilize our existing programs and then leave our further funds to create other partners, we do look for those opportunities, where they're applicable, to grow more dollars, to grow more support for British Columbians.
J. Reid: Another point in the performance plan that isn't clear from reading it is on page 14, item No. 5: "Evaluate the pilot community capacity-building program
Hon. J. Kwan: The community capacity-building falls under the community enterprise component of the programs within the ministry. Therefore the evaluations that we utilize for community capacity-building are the ones that we apply to community enterprises as well. Each of the evaluations, as I mentioned earlier in my opening statements, would go through the same procedures as is the case for community capacity-building for any other programs.
J. Reid: The community capacity-building, I understand, is a pilot. Again, with the evaluation, it doesn't seem to be quite the same to me as the other programs. The objectives are a little bit more subjective. Perhaps if I'm wrong in that regard, the minister would clarify what the objectives of the community capacity-building pilot program are. If there are direct objectives, then it would be much easier to understand how those are being evaluated.
Hon. J. Kwan: The target
So they're really, by and large, microenterprises, if you will. They're very, very small in their nature but important in and of themselves. Some of it may well be cooperative developments, and some of it might not be under that structure. But we're trying to target a group that normally you wouldn't think would be the group that would have economic or entrepreneurship abilities. Therefore that's why it's a pilot.
[1720]
J. Reid: The ministry is planning to develop and implement a community development fund. I would request an explanation of what the community development fund would be.
[ Page 16620 ]
Hon. J. Kwan: That's a work underway under the Vancouver Agreement. We're trying to establish opportunities and partnerships with other levels of government, as well as with the community, in creating a community development fund. So that's work underway.
J. Reid: In the overall funding of the ministry, in looking at the budget of the ministry, the $22.73 million, we have approximately $12 million going to grants and contributions and $10 million to -- I'm not sure if you could call it administration -- the workings of the ministry. Part of the ministry's mandate is certainly to see a flow-through of funds directed. Is the minister happy with this percentage, or is she looking at trying to reduce the percentage that would go towards the ministry rather than flowing through to grants?
Hon. J. Kwan: One of the things that I do want to highlight is the amount of work that staff puts through in trying to create these partnerships, looking for these partnerships and growing the funds and also the amount of time that staff spend with respect to working with the community -- all the workshops, all the time they spend with a particular community to find out what their vision is, to help them and to facilitate and develop and build that vision. It takes an enormous amount of time in community building and community development. And because that is our vision of what community development is, that investment has to be made by staff time and administration time.
Just to clarify in terms of the actual numbers -- programs versus the actual moneys for operating -- the total program budget is $20.27 million. That excludes a component that falls, as I mentioned earlier
J. Reid: Just so the minister knows, I'm quoting figures that I received from the ministry office in that question.
I'm going to leave the performance plan. I want to talk about some general questions with regard to the ministry before we go back into specifics about some of the different programs. We received an agenda for a briefing book that was provided for the minister, and there are some items here that I just want to canvass. One of those items on the agenda is ICBC investment. I was wondering if the minister could let us know what connection the ministry has with ICBC.
Hon. J. Kwan: As mentioned earlier, we look for all the places where we can try to create partnerships and grow the dollars for community projects and initiatives. ICBC was one of those places where we looked as well. There's nothing specific, nor are there any agreements out of that. But as I said, we look everywhere, under every rock, to see if we can find more moneys.
J. Reid: Is the Vancouver Island green enterprise loan fund proposal a proposal coming from this ministry or from another ministry, or does it exist?
Hon. J. Kwan: That's a different name for the Ecotrust program that we talked about earlier.
[1725]
J. Reid: There's also a collaboration with this ministry with the Institute for Cooperative Studies. Could the minister explain what the Institute for Cooperative Studies is and what the collaboration is?
Hon. J. Kwan: We are working in partnership with them on that in two areas. One is for them to research and look at cooperative models outside of British Columbia that could be applicable and used in British Columbia. That's part of the research and development piece that we're working on. The other side of it, I know, is that they're potentially interested in developing a curriculum within the university to make that course material for the university. But they, too, have to look for support elsewhere, because it doesn't fall within our mandate to fund them for course development.
J. Reid: If the minister could complete the explanation of who "they" refers to.
Hon. J. Kwan: It is the University of Victoria. Dr. Ian MacPherson is the director of the institute.
J. Reid: One other item on this -- again, a different topic. There was apparently a social benefits study -- results from a study done on the Four Corners bank. Could the minister explain what that study was, what it said, how much it cost and who funded it?
Hon. J. Kwan: There was a study on the Four Corners bank, and we'd certainly be happy to make that available to the member. It's actually a very big, thick binder. It looks at the social aspects of the contributions of Four Corners Community Savings and looks towards how it contributes to the community and, in addition to what they do now, how else they can contribute. There are a lot of things that Four Corners Community Savings contributes to the community that are not accounted for, because some of it is not measurable in dollars and cents. Therefore that was a study to look at what those social benefits are.
I'd be happy to make that study available to the member. It is an excellent study. It has some findings in it -- even for me, someone who was actually in the riding where the Four Corners Community Savings is situated -- on the benefits it yields to my own constituents that I wasn't aware of until I actually read the report. It's an excellent report with a lot of things for us to be proud of.
In terms of who funded the study, it's the bank itself. Part of their job is to continuously evaluate how they are doing. Part of that is the study that was underway. I don't have the exact amount of how much was spent on that study. I can endeavour to get that number for the member and provide it to her.
J. Reid: A study like this, I think, is very important to share for a couple of reasons. One is that the bank certainly has to be fiscally accountable. If all that we see is the financial statements -- and even those late -- it's hard to read into it the things that the minister might be talking about. The other aspect of it is taking a look at a study like that to look at what the study cost and what the benefit of the study is, whether it's just to give everybody a good, warm feeling or whether there is some very real value out of it, at the end of the day. So yes, we'd very much appreciate receiving a copy of that.
Again, in general discussion with regards to the grants, the moneys distributed by this ministry, I have requested the
[ Page 16621 ]
information. And ministry staff did provide me with the information, with a breakdown of money distributed by different regions. I'm wondering, at the beginning of the fiscal year, whether the ministry decides how much of its grant money should be allocated to different regions in the province.
[1730]
Hon. J. Kwan: To reference a little bit back about the Four Corners Community Savings, for the record, about the audited bank statements, I wanted to make sure the member knows that the statements are not late. They just follow the same fiscal cycle as any other organization. I want that on the record.
The other thing I can assure the member is that the contributions of the Four Corners Community Savings go far and beyond the financial contributions. I'd be happy, in fact, to extend an invitation to the member to come down to the Four Corners Community Savings and to my riding. I'd be happy to take her down on a tour, because some of the impacts and the contributions of that agency, amongst other agencies, and the strength of the community cannot be described in words. You really do have to see it for yourself to know what it all means for the community and how it works for that community. So I'd be happy to take the member down there and show her the challenges, but at the same time to celebrate the successes that we have in our community and the hard work of my constituents and those who work in that community.
The other thing is
A Voice: Grants and contributions.
Hon. J. Kwan: Oh, grants and contributions on the region. I'm so engrossed with my own riding that sometimes I forget. On the grants, on the regional question, "Do we decide how much should go where, etc.?" -- no, generally not. We have a notional idea of equity, in terms of wanting to be fair throughout the region, and use that as a guideline in terms of an approach. But we do not set a set amount to say: "Here's how much should go where."
Some of the things that we have to consider would include
J. Reid: I want to assure the minister -- again, our talk about the downtown east side will be later on in the estimates -- that I have been there, and I have done my homework in talking to the people and becoming familiar with the issues.
With the grants, with the moneys, if there isn't any formal method of being able to track the disbursing of funds, if it's done on a rather informal basis -- or perhaps I'm reading something into it -- is it actually done at all? Is it actually being overseen? If there's an area that the ministry would say isn't making application for funds, does the ministry have a plan in order to address that or to even out those kinds of inequities?
Hon. J. Kwan: Just to clarify it as well, the funds that we commit through community programs in most instances are contribution agreements to which we provide a portion of the dollars. Usually it's about 50 percent for the entire initiative or project or whatever the case may be. Therefore they are not grants per se but, rather, contribution agreements, in that sense, and that's an important distinction from my staff's point of view and from my point of view too.
The other thing is in terms of areas where perhaps applications may not be forthcoming, and they are perhaps slower in coming forward. The ministry does work to try to facilitate, to have workshops, that kind of thing, to see whether or not we can generate interest or, in some instances, simply just to get the information out. As well, the ministry staff work with groups that have applied. They may not be successful, and then we do work with them to see how they can enhance or improve their application -- why didn't they qualify? -- and to see how we can assist them along the way.
[1735]
We should also keep in mind, too, that there are a lot of people who are just being turned down because we don't have enough money. You could never have enough money for these kinds of programming. And so some people, simply because there's just not enough capacity to fund them
J. Reid: With the analysis that the ministry did and that they provided to me, was this an existing analysis, broken down to the different regions, or was this done because I requested it?
Hon. J. Kwan: The ministry keeps a record of the allocations, so that they can continue to compare and evaluate the notional allocations that they have set out to begin with and then look and see what is different or what is the same. Are they achieving what they have notionally estimated -- the kind of, I'm hesitant to say target, notional amounts that they identified at the outset?
J. Reid: So there's obviously a running tally on all the programs. The question is: is there a running tally for the different regions rather than for just the different programs? Is that actually for the regions? I'm getting a nod. I believe that's a yes.
Another fairly broad question: is there an advisory committee to the minister drawn from people outside of government?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we do. In some instances, community enterprises have something like four advisory committees, if you will, in different areas. There are a number of different advisory groups, if you will, that give advice to us.
J. Reid: Is this on a formalized basis? Is there a list -- that this is the advisory group in these different areas? Is this being made up as circumstances create a need?
Hon. J. Kwan: In some instances it is more formalized. In the case of the Cariboo Economic Action Forum it's very formal in that sense. In the areas that are less formalized, an example would be the volunteer sector with Involve B.C. We try to get representation from each of the volunteer aspects of the community throughout the province. It's not as formal as CEAF in that instance, but we try to get representation as best we can for them to advise us on how to proceed with the Involve B.C. program and so on and so forth.
[ Page 16622 ]
J. Reid: Are there actually scheduled meetings with these advisory groups? Are they actually scheduled and planned so many times a year?
Hon. J. Kwan: In the instances where they're a very formalized group, those tend to be with specific schedules. CEAF meets once a month, as an example, and so there's ongoing dialogue. With the other less formal groups we don't have formalized meetings. With Involve B.C. the role that the advisory group plays is to advise us of the priorities and the direction, how to evaluate the funding dollars that we have put in place and the outcomes of it. We just met with them recently in preparation for this fiscal, in terms of the dollars that we will be engaging in contribution agreements with community groups.
[1740]
J. Reid: For the groups that actually have a formalized meeting arrangement with the ministry, is it possible to get a listing of those groups so that we can see who has the ear of the minister, basically?
Interjection.
J. Reid: All right.
The next question I have is with regards to the coastal zone economic strategy. It's my understanding that you are building a coastal zone economic strategy. I'd like to know where this is at right now.
Hon. J. Kwan: In that instance, yes, my ministry has been asked to take the lead in this area of work. Again, it's one of those areas of work where it ties into a whole range of different ministries, partners and so on and so forth. So we're engaging in that format in this initiative.
J. Reid: Okay, so it's across ministries, and this ministry has the lead. Who would be joining in on that effort, other than the ministries? Are there outside groups? Again, looking at your advisory committees, would they be participating in this? Where would you be getting the business expertise side or the business input? We're talking about an economic strategy. I'd perhaps have to say that this government hasn't had the best record for producing business plans. So where are you going to get the business input in designing an economic strategy?
Hon. J. Kwan: We'll be looking to, clearly, the people who attended the summit and the leadership that arises from it. This falls out of the Premier's summit, as the member knows, I think. So we'll be looking to the attendees there and also looking at the Premier's summit advisory committee, as well, to see what leadership suggestions might come out of that.
J. Reid: Now, it's my understanding -- perhaps I'm incorrect with this -- with the different summits, the one in Campbell River and the Premier's summit as well, that the people are invited to the summit. It's not an open forum for anyone who wants to go. Therefore, if the government is choosing its people who are attending, we couldn't say that it has necessarily covered off the spectrum or that the business expertise indeed might be present at those summits, in order to be able to provide the feedback that would be necessary in devising something as huge and with such a significant impact as a coastal zone economic strategy.
Hon. J. Kwan: The ministry that actually takes a lead in providing and making sure that the names and the attendees at the summit, etc., are extended is through the Ministry of Employment and Investment. We take the information that they have provided, and then we work from there.
J. Reid: So this is to confirm that, yes, those people are invited; they have been chosen through whatever process. It isn't an open process of anybody who might want to attend. Therefore, if you're using them as your advisory committee, they could possibly have a built-in bias or a viewpoint.
I would certainly strongly recommend that with the development of this strategy you involve different groups, especially industry groups and business groups, right in the beginning in devising this. We're looking at what exists in the coastal areas. The people who often know what works and what doesn't work are the people who have been in business. So it would be my strong recommendation that right from the beginning, you look for a very strong advisory group or committee made up of these people.
[1745]
Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member for her advice, and I'd certainly be happy, as well, to take on names or suggestions if the member has any suggestions for our consideration.
J. Reid: I was going to let that go, hon. Chair, but I can't. There are so many different industry groups. They are well known, they are well established, and I'm sure they would be delighted to participate. I don't believe that this ministry would need me to supply a list of names of those different groups. I appreciate the invitation, but I do expect that the minister is quite capable of doing that. I'm glad to hear that she will be looking at that.
Going into an area, again keeping it fairly general, that's the area of accountability, with looking at the disbursal of funds through the ministry, whether we want to call them grants or call them by another name. Again, this is a new ministry, and I understand there have been people who have come from other ministries who brought that expertise with them. But in looking at setting up these programs, I'm certainly going to be pursuing some specific questions. First of all, I would like to know what proportion of requests are successful in obtaining funding.
Hon. J. Kwan: I wanted to go back for one second with respect to the invitation. The invitation is only extended by means of wanting to be inclusive and also in the spirit of cooperation. By no means am I suggesting that we don't have the capacity, nor do I have some other evil thoughts behind that extension of the invitation. Simply to say that if there are ways for us to work together to make sure that we can do a good job and do as good a job as we can -- I'm simply extending that invitation for that reason. I appreciate, though, the member's vote of confidence with respect to that.
On the issue around the exact breakdown of what percentage of projects or applications that came in that were successful versus the unsuccessful ones, I actually don't have that number readily available. My staff can endeavour to
[ Page 16623 ]
break it down by program and give you an estimate of that. The reason why I say an estimate of that is that we continue to receive applications to date, even though the deadline for previous applications has ended; we continue to receive them. So from that point of view we can provide you with an estimate of that figure.
The Chair: Member, minding the time.
J. Reid: Even though I would like to go on here, I am going back again, because this is, to me, such a serious initiative, the coastal zone economic strategy. I just want the minister's assurance that business groups and association groups are going to be invited to participate and that their input will be sought in the formulation of this strategy from the very early stages. That would be a direct question: will she be seeking out their input in this?
[1750]
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'll be very quick. In terms of the original summit, business representation was there, and that will continue to be so. Clearly we work towards working as hard as we can to get as broad a representation as we can. Is everybody there? The answer, of course, is no. But endeavouring to get as many representatives in as broad a representation as we can is certainly what we try to do. I'll certainly pass on, as well, the message to the minister who has created that list and so on, with the member's particular concern, to make sure that business representation is there. I can assure the member that business representation has been there.
Hon. Chair, noting the time, I move that the committee
The Chair: Hon. Minister, the motion we'd be looking for is a recess until 7 p.m.
Hon. J. Kwan: I was going to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. But we won't do that; we will simply move to recess until 7 o'clock.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 5:51 to 7:01 p.m.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
J. Reid: We left off talking about accountability measures, and the previous question had been the proportion of requests that had been received that didn't obtain funding. We've left that; the minister will provide an answer for that one.
The minister touched on this earlier -- the issue of businesses that are receiving help from the province being in direct competition with other businesses. At that time, the minister suggested this really wasn't direct competition because this wasn't for operating funds. I would suggest that whether it be setting up business plans or anything else, when an ordinary business has to fund itself -- web sites or anything -- that does give a business an advantage over an existing business. I'm wondering: when these applications come in, does the ministry make an effort to look at whether there are other existing businesses operating and providing the same service in the area of the application?
Hon. J. Kwan: Before I answer the question, let me first introduce my staff. Once again, to my right is my deputy, Hal Gerein. To my left is Greg Goodwin, the community enterprise development and regional operations director. Behind me is Doug Callbeck; he is the executive financial officer. Behind me, to my right, is Stephen Learey, who is responsible for the urban community development unit.
On the question around issues of competition and prior to signing contribution agreements with a particular community group, the whole point is this: we don't actually give or sign contribution agreements with businesses. We sign them with a community group or with an individual or individuals who intend to create a cooperative or enter into an enterprise under a cooperative model. So we don't actually provide for contributions to businesses.
J. Reid: We had two of these questions earlier on, and I'll use these examples because they've been discussed already. One was the bus tour company that was a pre-existing business that was in direct competition with other existing businesses. It was reformulating itself as a cooperative, but that didn't change the fact that it was already in existence and that the funds it would receive would give it an advantage over its competitors. There was that example.
There was the other example of the launderette in Victoria, where once again you could say it was perhaps a new business, in that it was three people calling themselves a cooperative while there are other business ventures in the area that have three partners that still exist as a business to do basically the same thing. Even though we could use the terminology that these are community groups, the fact is that there are businesses -- pre-existing businesses and new businesses -- operating in the same type of format, under the same competition. I do believe that does require some consideration on the part of this ministry.
[1905]
Hon. J. Kwan: Both of those groups applied under the co-op advantage program. We have signed contribution agreements with them. The dollars provided to them are for them to establish their venture under a cooperative model. For any operating or development of their scheme, they would have to engage under normal business competition, if you will, in terms of securing bank loans, and so on and so forth, to begin their venture.
Really, our ministry provides dollars for or enters into contribution agreements with community groups who would be innovative. We are also targeting communities, groups or individuals that are marginalized, so that they would have opportunities to expand, explore or enhance their potential. Again, perhaps this is where we disagree. We don't view the co-op advantage program as an approach that would create unfair competition. We feel that a cooperative is a legitimate venture, an important venture in diversifying economies within our communities. The program is to help groups to explore that option as an approach and to help them set up the infrastructure as a cooperative model.
J. Reid: Certainly with the bus tour company we know that part of the funds was to go to set up a web page. Now, a web page
[ Page 16624 ]
Again, that was an existing company, restructuring to get moneys from the government. The question, then, is: does the ministry, when these applications come in, make any effort to determine whether these applicants have an existing company, perhaps under a different form, where they're looking at restructuring to take advantage of the government's dollars for cooperatives?
Hon. J. Kwan: In the instance with the bus company, they did come forward and say that they were looking at exploring a different model and changing it into a different model. We don't question whether or not they should change into a different model. They come in to seek assistance from government, to get information to change that model: what do they have to do; what does that model look like; and how does it impact all of their operations, including the web site which they have in place? So to that end, a contribution agreement, after evaluation by staff, was entered into.
Once again, if any other businesses out in the communities want to switch to a cooperative model, they are welcome to apply for the program under the co-op advantage program. It would be evaluated just the same as any other application that comes in through the ministry, by ministry staff.
I should also note as well, in terms of cooperative ventures that exist in British Columbia, there are approximately 700 of them, in comparison to the small businesses that exist in British Columbia, which are about 350,000 -- quite a significant difference in terms of numbers. A small business venture under the cooperative model, as I mentioned earlier, is an important one and a valued one. It's not just a business venture; it's oftentimes a community service as well in the community. They have local benefits for the local community. Those are all the considerations that we have taken into account when we established the cooperative advantage program.
J. Reid: I will be going into some more detail, when I get to the cooperative section, about some of these details that the minister has mentioned. Going back to broad accountability measures, I understand that the ministry does not look at applications as far as competition with other businesses or being pre-existing businesses. In evaluating the proposal -- and I have seen the application forms -- does the ministry do any kind of background checks to verify the information that exists on the proposals?
[1910]
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we do do background checks. Oftentimes what happens is the proponent comes forward with the information for the ministry and for the staff to evaluate and consider.
J. Reid: Are there particular people assigned -- the ministry staff -- to do all evaluations of all proposals, or does everyone do part of it, depending on what programs they're taking on?
Hon. J. Kwan: The work undertaken is by staff within the specific programs. We also have regional staff as well. So it's not by one person for all the programs, but rather it's divided up amongst the programs and through the regions.
J. Reid: With the moneys that are given out -- let's talk about the grant moneys for this particular question -- is the money given at one time in one block, or is it given over a period of time, with some requirements for complying with the proposal in the intervening stages?
Hon. J. Kwan: The contribution agreements are entered into and they are legally binding documents. An instalment of the contribution is then made, and then the proponent who is successful will demonstrate how they have met the criteria as they are set out under the contribution agreement as agreed to. Then, upon completion of the initiative, a final instalment is paid.
J. Reid: Is there a set formula, or is it a case-by-case basis? Is there a set formula that 50 percent is given out initially and then another 25 percent with 25 percent upon completion? Or is it on an individual basis?
Hon. J. Kwan: Generally they're case-by-case, based on the application and the general need -- those factors are taken into consideration, and then a determination is made.
J. Reid: How does the ministry track successes and failures with applications? This is a broad question; I know with different programs there are different circumstances. Some of them are longer-term projects than others, but I believe the ministry would have set up a tracking system. And if it's for individual programs, then I'd welcome that answer now. If it's broad-based, then that would be great.
Hon. J. Kwan: There is the evaluation that applies for each of the different programs -- what we call performance measures. Each of them is clearly different for the different programs, because the programs are not the same. But generally speaking, the mandate of the ministry and the targets of the programs as they're set up and the contribution agreements that are entered into -- whether or not the expectation, or the deliverables, if you will, of that contribution agreement are actually met
J. Reid: Looking at last year's history and basing this year's forecast on it, how many agreements were completed last year? How many from last year is the ministry looking at completing? How many of those that have been completed have been tracked to find out whether they have completed what was agreed upon?
[1915]
Hon. J. Kwan: A lot of the programs, or the contribution agreements, were entered into last year, and some of them, actually, just before the fiscal year ended this year. So a lot of those have not been completed. Some of them are complete. So again, it depends on which program we're talking about and on a case-by-case basis, because some of them are longer-term and some are shorter-term programs. We don't have an exact number. Keep in mind, as well, that the ministry was established in August of last year, and the programs are fairly new in terms of going out the door.
J. Reid: Of the contracts that have been completed, how many of them are involved, then, in the follow-up and tracking to determine the success rate? If somebody violates that contract, what penalties are involved?
Hon. J. Kwan: In terms of evaluation, all of the projects would be evaluated -- and the ones that are completed and
[ Page 16625 ]
the ones that are not, as we're tracking them. The piece around
J. Reid: Would the ministry be compiling the statistics as far as completion rates or evaluations go, and when would a report detailing those things be expected?
Hon. J. Kwan: There will be a report, and we are tracking all that information. Again, in terms of when the completion of those reports is, it will depend upon the program. As I said, some of them are longer-term and some of them are shorter-term. Take, as an example, the community capacity-building program -- we would likely have the report sometime in the fall.
J. Reid: Another aspect of reporting might be to find out how many organizations are -- or, say, with the cooperative program, to track how many are -- still in existence once the contract has been completed in, say, a year or two years down the road. I would presume that that would be part of the tracking process.
Looking through the different grants given out, particularly in certain programs where the amounts are smaller, I find that it's very repetitive as to what people are asking for. An awful lot of those with volunteers and an awful lot to do with the co-ops seem to centre around activities of training and of leadership. The minister mentioned earlier that we don't want to reinvent the wheel here. Could the minister explain why it seems that this is so repetitive? Surely there are already the materials necessary to be able to train volunteers to support these organizations without them having to develop them all over again, almost for every single organization.
Hon. J. Kwan: Let's take training as an example. It might appear to be repetitive to provide funding and enter into agreements with the volunteer sector for training. Training volunteers is something that is required for almost every organization, virtually for every volunteer. In some instances, what we try to do to expand and to utilize the work that's done by that organization is that
[1920]
Now, you can't very well duplicate that for another organization, and so on and so forth. The need around that in terms of the training, as an example, is simply enormous. The small contributions which the government does provide for are, I would venture to say, only just barely beginning to scratch the surface of the needs and what the community is wanting out there.
J. Reid: There has been an identified need by volunteer organizations for training for their boards. It would seem that there would be certain economies of scale, since this is such a broad-based need. Rather than funding these individual organizations to develop their training program and getting their people and organizing it -- if this is such a broad-based need, and that has been expressed to me, certainly, and I am sure the minister has certainly heard this as well -- we could identify the basics that these grants, these moneys, are going out towards and be able to provide them in a more cost-effective manner.
Hon. J. Kwan: There are organizations that are provincewide; therefore they fit into our desire to share the information. They create best practices, and once they've completed that, they will make that information available by web site and make copies available to other people, etc. There are also organizations that may not necessarily fit into that picture, so there's a range around that, especially in the rural or smaller communities, as an example. Their needs may not necessarily meet the overall needs of the provincewide umbrella: as an example, my discussions with them, in engaging in their advice to me that we must recognize the regional differences and the community differences in trying to target and prioritize our initiatives.
I should also say that we do try very hard not to duplicate the programs but also recognize that there are differences and that sometimes those differences do require you to be more specific and more targeted.
J. Reid: Obviously I'm not privy to the different applications, to be able to see the details. The point is still about looking at the most cost-effective manner of giving the help to the greatest number of people. We see training that the government sponsors in all sorts of ways, and we don't make it targeted specifically. There are different options, different ways people can access that information. You could look at other ministries' examples, certainly in small business. It's not targeted specifically for every single business or every single community.
I suppose I'm not convinced that the ministry is looking after these needs; again, they are very, very repetitive. I've been tracking all of these announcements that come through. It's one thing to assemble people together in a rural area and give them some training if they're on a board, and it's another thing developing training. Again, basic training for volunteers is available. Those kinds of packages and those formats are available all across this country, all across North America. Making those materials available to people would not amount to this cost. Again, if I knew the details, the differences
[1925]
Another concern that I have with these is that the money that is going towards some of these applications seems to be hard to justify -- again, not looking at the details. Just to give another couple of examples, one group is looking for the best business organization for their group -- looking at studies. Well, again that information is fairly clearly available from a number of sources. So to have to duplicate that again
So there's a concern about duplication, and there's a concern that the dollars are not being spread out and used in a
[ Page 16626 ]
way that's going to reach the greatest number of people. Also there is a concern that an awful lot of these things are to develop proposals -- proposals where there's no guarantee that the proposals will go anywhere. So at the end of this year we're going to have a huge stack of proposals all around the province.
I guess the final question on this broad area of accountability is that certainly at the end of the day you can say: "This group said that they're going to develop a proposal. They've developed a proposal; it's sitting there. We can say they're successful." What is the ministry looking at doing to look at how many of these proposals actually ever come to fruition?
Hon. J. Kwan: On the issues around repetitiveness or duplication, one of the things that we learn from the sector, particularly the volunteer sector, is that the greatest need
Identified from that report -- and it's consistent with my discussions and with my staff's discussions and with my predecessor's, who first started this ministry's discussions with the community -- is that community capacity-building is one of the most important pieces. There are so many components to it that you can't even begin to think about the levels and the needs and what the involvement of government can be in that realm. There are so many kinds of volunteer efforts out there. There are different sectors in terms of volunteer efforts and therefore in the capacity to build. Then, of course, you account for the different regions and the different community needs as well.
By the time you calculate all of that, the training dollars that we do make available to the community, as I mentioned earlier, barely scratch the surface of what the needs and the demands are. There is, as I said, every effort to minimize duplication. Where you can utilize work that has been done by one agency, we work toward spreading that and making that available elsewhere. That particularly works well with organizations and agencies that have a provincial mandate.
There are some organizations, as I said, that don't have that provincial mandate and are in a smaller, rural or even remote community, so there need to be specific approaches to addressing their needs as well. We have to take into those into account. Perhaps the language through the press releases may seem repetitive to the member, because for the purposes of categorization, these things all fall in, as an example, training. But within the training category, there are many components. Perhaps those are the kinds of details that are not reflected in the press releases, so you may not be able to see the value of each of those individual applications.
On the issue around proposals, yes, our contribution agreements are provided to groups or individuals to develop a proposal. One of the things that we learn from the community and certainly from my own personal experience -- prior to crossing to the dark side of becoming a politician -- working in the non-profit sector is developing those proposals. You cannot imagine how hard that work is or the volunteer efforts that people put into proposal development in a lot of the groups -- whether it is for a cooperative venture, a small business enterprise venture, especially for people who are marginalized -- and the skills that you need in developing those proposals. Without basic support in getting those proposals off the ground, a lot of times people's dreams and visions don't become reality.
[1930]
We've heard from the community that you can't expect -- or, I suppose, you can expect
J. Reid: Now, looking at some specific aspects of the ministry and looking at the different programs of Community Development, one of the questions I have here is about the Sirolli Institute. I would like to know what connections this ministry has with this institute.
Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to that, we are funding in the Kootenays a pilot project in enterprise facilitation.
J. Reid: If the minister could expand on that and give a little more detail. How many people have been trained with the institute, and what does the pilot project involve?
Hon. J. Kwan: There are about six pilot initiatives under that program. We don't have the exact number of how many people are involved. In terms of what it involves, it's for enterprise development, looking for partners in developing enterprises and, again, trying to create partnerships and growing the community enterprise developments within that region.
J. Reid: On their web page there was a section congratulating different people who had been involved with this and involved with training. I counted about 43 from the province of B.C. I'm wondering whether these people have received training through this ministry or other ministries and whether this minister has any knowledge of how many people have received training through this institute.
Hon. J. Kwan: Those are, as far as we're aware, individual ministries -- their own work in that area. I should also say that this particular program is administered by the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
J. Reid: The minister might want to look up their web site then, because it mentions the Community Development minister and ministry, rather than Employment and Investment. I guess the question is: has this ministry trained any people at this institute?
Hon. J. Kwan: To the question of training: no, we haven't.
To the question on the web site: why is our name on the web site? This program, like many of the other programs
[ Page 16627 ]
within the ministry
[1935]
J. Reid: This is a good time to come back to a point that I made earlier about it being great that ministries work together. We want to see that; we want them coordinated. But there needs to be some way of tracking the funds spent on any given project. At this point in time, there doesn't seem to be that accountability. So even though a ministry can be the lead ministry, when it comes time to ask, "What kind of money is spent here? What is the budget?" then you're scattered off to whatever different ministry.
This is a great example of how, if this ministry is going to be the lead agency or coordinator and designated agency, then I do believe it has some responsibility to also have an understanding of the funds being spent under its umbrella, even if they're spent by other ministries.
Hon. J. Kwan: In our own ministry, we spent $385,000 a year. But in terms of other contributions from other ministries, we do have to report to Treasury Board, and all of that is actually documented -- whose contributions, in what area, etc. So it is tallied up within Treasury Board. Part of our submissions, when we go to Treasury Board on our evaluation
J. Reid: I was going to leave this question till later, but now seems a good opportunity. I put in a request to this ministry, who has a responsibility for the Vancouver downtown east side, as to the money spent in that area. The reply I received back was: "There's umpteen number of ministries that are responsible, therefore nobody has a tracking of the funds." Now I'm told that, yes, Treasury Board does track the funds, so the question would be: why was I not supplied with that information?
Hon. J. Kwan: I am responsible for the Vancouver Agreement. Out of the Vancouver Agreement, what we are trying to do is work together to try and meet some of the challenges faced by the downtown east side community. That includes both the municipal government and the federal government as well. We don't administer the programs, nor do we deliver the programs. They're delivered by all the different ministries throughout government, at all levels of government. Therefore we don't control that. What we are trying to do is coordinate our efforts within the three levels of government and between levels of government in addressing that.
I also want to say that I'm not the minister responsible for the downtown east side. I'm not responsible for an area. I'm responsible for the Vancouver Agreement, which is trying to target an area that faces tremendous challenges in that community. Those challenges are broad in their range, whether it be a housing component or employment training initiatives; whether it be substance misuse; whether it touches the people with mental illness; whether it's to do with diagnosis; whether it be seniors, aboriginal people, women, etc. It really is very broad in all the many challenges, and so within government and between the levels of government there are all kinds of initiatives that are going into the community trying to address these challenges.
The problem lies in this. There has been little coordination, particularly between the three levels of government, in the past. The three levels of government actually recognize that. What we wanted to do under the Vancouver Agreement was come together and work towards addressing the challenges in a coordinated fashion, in a non-partisan fashion, and identify the objectives and goals that we want to achieve in conjunction with the community.
[1940]
Again, that's also part of the community capacity-building that we're engaging in. So the priorities to be set by the community in terms of what needs to be done and then for all levels of government to come together to talk about how we do that.
We don't have all the programs for the downtown east side in my ministry -- not at all. But what we are trying to do is get a better understanding amongst all levels of government with the community and to coordinate those efforts and then hopefully meet some of the challenges that the community is faced with. So the information that the member has requested -- we don't have that information. What we're trying to do under the Vancouver Agreement is better coordinate, and to get that information it would have to be from the specific ministries themselves.
Now, I should also say that the community is trying to put together an inventory, if you will, of what services are being provided in the community in the downtown east side. Some of it is funded by the city; some of it is funded by the province; some of it is funded by the federal government; and some of it is funded by kind-hearted foundations that are out there. We are trying to get an inventory of what the picture looks like and then to assess whether or not we are targeting the areas appropriately, funding them appropriately or what changes need to be made. That work is underway in conjunction with the community.
J. Reid: I'm not wanting to completely change the Vancouver Agreement at this point, but the problem exists. This is a ministry that does not necessarily deliver the programs but has been very clearly defined as being a lead agency in bringing in other ministries, looking for other dollars. There is a responsibility, then, in any given project -- for example, what was done with Gold River. Those moneys were all accounted for -- being able to see where they came from, what ministries they came from. So I would say that this ministry, when it is a lead agency in a certain project, does have a responsibility -- not Treasury Board or somebody else -- to find a way of tracking those dollars and being able to do just what the minister said: evaluate for the money spent and make sure that the objectives have been achieved.
Looking at the matching funds with the community enterprise program that the province provides a portion of those funds, is there a formula for matching funds for the community enterprise program?
Hon. J. Kwan: On the question around matching funds, it's up to 50 percent for the CE program. For initiatives where
[ Page 16628 ]
the work is identified, we have pulled together all the different ministries and established a plan. Take Gold River as an example. We know that the contributions there are $7.9 million, and we know where it came from. For other initiatives that are broad-based everywhere for a community like the downtown east side, I can't even begin to suggest to the member that we would be able to identify all the sources, etc. What we are trying to do, as lead ministry under the Vancouver Agreement, is do that coordination with the other levels of government and with the community. We are trying to identify
I think the direction of wanting to move in that way is a fair one, and certainly it's a goal that we want to achieve. But to suggest that that's what the ministry should be doing now
J. Reid: With the community enterprise program and the community solutions program, if the minister wouldn't mind very clearly explaining the difference between those two programs.
[1945]
The Chair: Would the member repeat the question?
J. Reid: The two programs -- community solutions and community enterprise program -- if the minister would clearly give us a difference between those two programs.
Hon. J. Kwan: The community enterprise program provides communities facing economic transition and hardship with support to develop and implement locally driven new and innovative business ventures. Through the CE program communities will be able to broaden their opportunities for growth and diversify their local economies.
The community solutions program is one that is targeting funding to non-profit agencies, first nations and worker cooperatives for grassroots community development projects, focusing on low-income marginalized people and groups. The outcomes of this program include the stabilization or creation of housing, training and employment, public space, art and cultural amenities, and social, economic and environmental initiatives. There are essentially three streams of funding within the program, which provides funding for projects designed to identify community development needs, then develop those ideas into concrete proposals and, finally, provide funds for startup and initial operational funds.
J. Reid: I appreciate that detailed response. In the minds of most people, I think there would still be some confusion. If a person in a community was looking at a benefit for their community and wanted to apply for funding, how would they know which one of those they would fit under? With community enterprise, is it that the community itself has to initially be identified as a community with a problem before that funding is applicable?
Hon. J. Kwan: I guess the biggest distinction with community solutions would be that some of them may have an economic component to them, and oftentimes they do, but they also have a very clear social component. Take, as an example, housing. Housing could be economic in terms of really providing a venture for somebody under a housing initiative. But at the same time, it provides for safe, affordable housing and therefore has that sort of dual aspect to it, if you will.
Community enterprise is more focused around the economic side of it as opposed to the social component. Again, economic initiatives can have social benefits as well, although the focus may not necessarily be social benefits. Perhaps that could be a distinction.
Community solutions targets various groups. First nations, as an example, are a targeted group that we want to provide funding to, and that is not necessarily the case with community enterprise. It's not a targeted group for first nations. Marginalized community groups
We should also say that community enterprise tends to be towards communities that are in transition, and community solutions tend to be in communities that are entrenched with many challenges. There's a difference in terms of the community's difference and the profile of those communities.
J. Reid: Thank you for that clear explanation of the differences. With the ministry and the different programs that it has, there are a number of other ministries that also have programs to help communities in need. For example, Forest Renewal has a forest community economic development program. How does the ministry maintain its difference between programs, and what do you do to prevent overlap?
Hon. J. Kwan: We don't fund traditional forest or resource-type enterprises. Forest Renewal B.C. is targeted to the forest sector, so clearly we don't fund initiatives that fall out of the forest sector. They go to Forest Renewal B.C. That's an example of how we differ.
[1950]
J. Reid: This particular program is called community economic development. I would presume that the minister would be aware of this program, because it's community economic development, and would understand the difference between this program and Forest Renewal, where $5 million is dedicated to communities. Again, isn't there some overlap that exists in this?
Hon. J. Kwan: Let me try it another way. The Forest Renewal program funds projects or initiatives in the forest sector. We fund initiatives in a community that might be faced with transition to help them diversify outside of the forest sector. Perhaps that's the best way of making that comparison.
J. Reid: With community transition -- and we've had the example of Gold River and looking at Tumbler Ridge -- are there times when communities need to close up? Are there times when they can't be maintained? What would the indicators be?
[ Page 16629 ]
Hon. J. Kwan: I know that in the past there have been communities that closed or shut down, if you will. The whole purpose around the work that we do on the transitional piece on communities is to go and evaluate whether or not the transition means trying to diversify or the transition means winding down. That work has to be done and be evaluated, and then a determination is made. That was done for Gold River, and that work is underway for Tumbler Ridge.
J. Reid: What would be the indicators? How does the ministry evaluate whether a community is still sustainable or whether it has fulfilled a purpose and is no longer sustainable? So looking at, certainly, the spending of government dollars, what would the ministry be doing to try and make that evaluation?
Hon. J. Kwan: It would be looking at the long-term economic viability of that community and its ability to sustain itself into the long term. Again, that differs from community to community, so that evaluation has to be made with those two criteria in mind.
J. Reid: With Gold River and the Gold River transition plan, there was a contract to develop research designed to monitor and evaluate the impact of provincial funding on Gold River. I was wondering if that research has been completed and what the conclusions would have been.
Hon. J. Kwan: My staff advises that they're expecting to receive that design work in the next few days.
J. Reid: Is that the report that would be released in the next few days? Would the ministry be interested in sharing a copy of that report?
Hon. J. Kwan: We're expecting to receive that report in draft form. Once we have that material, we will then engage in discussions with other stakeholders -- municipalities, amongst others. Once we've finalized that report, it will be made available to the public. I gather from the question of the member that she would be interested, upon the final completion of the report, to receive one.
[1955]
J. Reid: Yes, the minister would be right in that regard. We would appreciate receiving a copy of that. Gold River
I'd like to turn our attention to the program with co-ops and look at what's being done in that area. I have some general questions about the nature of this program and the reasoning behind it. I certainly believe that co-ops have a place in our society. Indeed, they are sometimes the very best solution in certain situations. But I'm having a hard time understanding why this ministry has put such a focus on cooperatives and is so adamant in pushing them. Earlier on the minister quoted from a letter that was sent to me with regard to the nature of co-ops. But I'd like to know whether the ministry has factual information on co-ops and what kind of studies they would be using to justify this push.
Hon. J. Kwan: I'd like to introduce Gail Joyce, the director of cooperatives and the volunteer sector. To the member's question about the support of cooperatives, there is clear support from government, which is why we created a ministry called Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. We do very much believe in the cooperative model; we know that model works well in housing.
As an example, we know that there is -- although a small number in terms of cooperatives
The cooperative model, we know, in the past -- again, I'll take the housing sector as an example -- provides a return to the larger community. It's not just an economic return but also very much a social component. So those are all things that are good for a community in terms of community development on the whole.
Cooperatives and credit unions in British Columbia have assets in excess of $20 billion. There are approximately 1.8 million members in B.C. cooperatives. Cooperatives and credit unions employ approximately 13,000 people in the province. Between 1991 and 1999, cooperatives' incorporations show steady increases every year, rising some 36 percent from 525 in 1991 to 716 in 1999. The largest increases were in services other than marketing cooperatives.
Cooperatives also actually have more and more women getting involved in that. A lot of times in beginning a business venture, in terms of getting other people to support you and work with you, it is one that gives a lot of women the opportunity to enter into business ventures that they have never had the opportunity to do before.
Incorporations in other services rose from 82 in 1991 to 152 in 1999, or approximately 85 percent. Incorporations of marketing co-ops rose from 36 in 1991 to 63 in 1999, approximately 75 percent. Based on these figures, we know there are successes there, and that is a field that perhaps is yet untapped. Part of it may well be the lack of information. We ourselves in British Columbia need to do more work around looking at the models and learning what other models within the cooperative structure would be beneficial for us.
J. Reid: I was looking for some factual information or, as I said, some studies rather than: "We like them; we think they're good. More and more people are using them." Perhaps I can ask the question this way: have there been studies into looking at the main reasons for failures of co-ops?
[2000]
Hon. J. Kwan: The stats that I gave the member are statistics; they're not just feel-good statements. They are statistics that we rely on, from the Canadian statistics and statistics in other jurisdictions. The cooperative institute itself is also developing case studies for B.C.'s merging industries. When I mentioned that there are about 700 cooperatives in the province, it's not a lot to study from, but it's also a base which we can look into. In terms of cooperatives staying in existence, as far as we know, the information that we have gathered is that cooperatives tend to stay in business 50 percent longer than other businesses.
[ Page 16630 ]
J. Reid: With the model of co-ops, if the minister could explain why she would prefer to see co-ops rather than associations.
Hon. J. Kwan: We support cooperatives; we support associations as well. In terms of the focus of the ministry around the co-op advantage program, we do believe in the cooperative model. We know, as I said time and again, that the cooperative model is one that can have economic contributions and at the same time provide for social benefits as well. So when we consider both of those items and not one over the other, the cooperative model is a good model for government to support, and it's one that we do support.
J. Reid: My question would be: why has the government been actively pursuing associations and trying to encourage them to turn into cooperatives?
Hon. J. Kwan: We don't pursue associations and say to them: "You need to turn into a co-op." Associations come to us, and they say: "We'd like to explore the cooperative model. How do we do that, if we wanted to change our operation into a cooperative model?" Or for people who want to start up a new cooperative and want to get information from us around that, we provide that information and provide that support.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
J. Reid: I have been given the information from an association that they have been phoned by the ministry, seeking to encourage them to change from an association to a co-op -- trying to provide them with information. But it's still an encouragement. So it appears that in the desire to provide information about co-ops, one of the groups that the ministry is targeting to provide that information is existing societies and associations. The question stands: why an existing association that's functioning with members with one vote, with all the other attributes of non-profit association
[2005]
Hon. J. Kwan: Again, we don't prefer one model over the other in terms of the cooperative model versus the non-profit association model. I support both equally. I came from the non-profit sector association model myself, but prior to that, in that sector, I also worked actively in the cooperative sector. A lot of the goals are quite -- actually, I would argue very -- compatible.
In terms of providing information to people, we do provide information to people so that they have that information, and they can consider it or do whatever they want to do with it. But at no time do we go out to an association and say: "We think that you should change your model into a cooperative model." If that is happening
The cooperative model, from a benefits point of view
J. Reid: By the push that this ministry has towards cooperatives, it is having the effect of marginalizing associations. I want to use a very specific example of that. This is a health region newsletter. There was a caregiver support society that was making the presentation to the health region, and it says in here that the presentation was wonderful and there were certain questions asked. Then the person indicated they would be happy to explore whether or not there were further opportunities for working with this society, in this case. The director queried whether the group had looked into forming a co-op rather than a society, as there may be greater funding opportunities for co-ops. This woman indicated that she had not looked into forming a co-op but would appreciate any information that this director could provide.
So the reality of it is that when the government decides to fund one model over another, there is pressure put on these existing associations and societies that they should look at changing the way they are conducting their affairs in order to fit into the social engineering model that the government has proposed. I'd say that this is proof that the reality of the situation is that the government's being very successful in pushing the cooperative model. My concern is that it's at the expense of societies and associations that were functioning quite well.
I would ask, then: if the ministry is suggesting that this shouldn't be the case, what is the ministry doing to support the societies out in the communities on an equal basis, so that they don't feel this kind of pressure?
Hon. J. Kwan: The ministry has several components: community development, cooperatives and volunteers. Out of the co-op advantage program last fiscal year, the ministry funded 30 cooperatives, if you will, or 30 groups -- either they are starting up a cooperative, or they are an existing cooperative -- in further supporting them. Involve B.C., which is association-based programs, non-profit sector programs
I don't want to have the impression that the ministry prefers one model or one approach over another when it comes to cooperatives and non-profit association sectors. Both of those are equally important and have value in our community in their own way. The mandate of the co-op advantage program is to provide that information so that people can consider the information before them and then, hopefully, make an informed decision. But by no means are we supporting one over the other or do we prefer one over the other, because both of those models are valuable and contribute to and benefit our communities.
[2010]
J. Reid: Certainly it makes sense that with the volunteer programs, since there are far more societies than there are co-ops, it would follow that they would be receiving more funding than co-ops, because they don't exist in the same way. But
[ Page 16631 ]
if the ministry is not proposing to fund startups or proposals for societies to form, but is funding co-ops to form -- or the development of the co-op framework -- then obviously there is a bias there.
I would like to use another example of concern that I have with the push that the ministry is showing towards co-ops. This is an example, actually, from Vancouver Island, in Nanaimo. There is a co-op in Nanaimo, Mid-Island Consumer Services Co-op, that is in serious financial trouble. Certainly with the losses that they've been experiencing, there's real concern. It's about $2 million, I believe, in losses last year. The members have conceded that the membership in co-ops is aging and that younger shoppers simply are not attracted to co-ops.
They're also looking at the changing times. They're suggesting that the co-op model isn't flexible enough to change with existing times and that perhaps they have to take a look at the future. This might not be the model that is practical any longer. So back to the question about co-op failures and the very real competition in the marketplace. What does the minister suggest in the face of this kind of reality?
Hon. J. Kwan: For the member's information, the community solutions program funds associations. As an example, non-profits do apply under that program to start up, to do studies, to do proposals, etc. That's an example where we do fund startup in that program area.
In terms of the store that the member's referencing, it is my understanding that they have recently expanded the store and that they're looking at closing another retail outlet in Nanaimo to consolidate the operations and to reduce the losses. Part of that also is the nature of the market forces, because Mountain Equipment Co-op is very much a competitor within the co-op sector. Some of those pressures are a result of market forces.
J. Reid: In our discussions earlier with regard to legislation, even though we're not discussing legislation here, there were concerns with co-ops and concerns with the function of auditors with co-ops. As the minister is looking at regulations surrounding that, I just want to present a quote here. Presenting a petition signed by 1,900 members, this person asks the board for an independent forensic audit. This is a co-op that is in that situation of having the audits being done. Now that there's a problem, exactly the thing that was discussed earlier has been presented by the members of the co-op, saying: "We don't want in-house auditing; we want an independent auditor." So if the minister might like to comment on that.
[2015]
Hon. J. Kwan: They can get one. That's their decision to get an independent auditor. We don't prescribe for them to act one way or the other.
J. Reid: The concern was that because it was a choice that co-ops could make, this kind of situation would arise -- the concept of lack of independence. And indeed it has arisen and is very real in the minds of these people.
Another interesting story about co-ops, and to see whether there's any connection here or not: awhile back ICBC floated a story about becoming a co-op. I'm just wondering whether this ministry has had any involvement in discussions with ICBC along that line.
Hon. J. Kwan: Just to clarify the issue around audits, whether you're being audited by a federation or an independent co-op, just to say that the qualifications of an audit by the federation versus an independent audit
The other question was about ICBC. The chair or CEO, if you will, of ICBC did meet with myself and shared with me his thoughts around a cooperative model for ICBC. We received information and thanked the chair very much. I understand that they've had those kinds of discussions, as well, with the minister responsible.
On ideas around cooperatives, on ideas around models, on ideas around committee development, on ideas around the volunteer sector -- anybody who has ideas is welcome to come forward to meet with me to talk about them, and I often engage in all kinds of discussions with all kinds of people.
J. Reid: Obviously you're entering into this discussion, so that does include all kinds of people.
With ICBC, is it a continuing discussion? Were questions left up in the air? Was there: "Well, we'll have to get together another time on this"? Was there any indication whether, as far as structuring and looking at this ministry for assistance, any promises could be forthcoming?
Hon. J. Kwan: No promises were made. As I said, we keep our minds open to listen to suggestions from different people around different things involving our ministry.
J. Reid: I'd like to talk about volunteers for a little while and the role of the ministry with volunteers. I would like to know whether the minister sees herself or this ministry as an advocate for volunteers.
Hon. J. Kwan: What this ministry does is provide support to the volunteer sector through a program called Involve B.C. Our ministry recognizes very much and is very grateful to individuals in British Columbia who volunteer their time and contribute to our communities. We're very grateful and appreciative of the groups who do that work, who undertake to capacity-build in their community and to get people involved and caring about their community by giving back to the community in a volunteer capacity. So we work with them, we appreciate them, we recognize their work, we want to create partnerships with them. We want to also look at how we can address some difficult issues that they're faced with, with other jurisdictions and other levels of government, to share information and to strengthen and build communities.
[2020]
J. Reid: That sounds to me like being an advocate. I'm not sure whether the answer was yes or no on that. The minister then suggested that they would take on issues and help volunteers and the volunteer sector with different issues. I'd just like to talk about some of the issues that are facing volunteers to see what kind of participation and help the ministry is willing to give volunteers.
One area is to do with fundraising with different charities. Certainly, since the investigation into the Nanaimo
[ Page 16632 ]
Commonwealth Bingo Association, there have been a lot more rules and regulations around raising money in the communities. Some volunteer organizations have suggested to me that they've been flooded with red tape -- that having good rules is one thing, but that things seem to have gone to an excess. So does this minister have an interest in helping volunteer groups to improve that situation?
Hon. J. Kwan: I don't want to appoint myself as the advocate for volunteers or the volunteer sector. I want to say very clearly: I do, as does the ministry, support, recognize and appreciate their work. We want to work in partnership with them in contributing to our communities. By no means would I want to put myself out there as the self-appointed advocate for the community.
On the issue around the gaming question, not necessarily within this sector in terms of the issues associated with gaming or some of the concerns, the member mentioned red tape. Those are matters that are being dealt with by the minister responsible.
J. Reid: Earlier on in our discussion, the minister explained how important it was to work with the different ministries, to work together to be able to solve some of these problems. Well, here we have another issue where we have a group
Hon. J. Kwan: I want to clarify for the record that I'm not refusing to work with the volunteer organizations or sector on challenges that they have met with. Nor do I appoint myself to say that I am their advocate -- just like nor do I appoint myself to say I am the business community's advocate, or anything as such.
Where issues do come up and as they arise, when people do come and talk to me about it, I do share that information with my colleagues; I do try to work to facilitate, to get a meeting, to engage in a process to look at the matter and to make sure that the minister who has direct responsibility is working on those issues. So I will continue to do that, and that's no different for this sector. But I do want to make it very clear that I don't see it as my role to appoint myself as the advocate and then say: "I am the person who can solve all your problems." I don't believe that there's anybody who could do that. But where problems do arise and there are challenges to be met, we can certainly work with them and talk with them and, as well, get the people who have the responsibility involved in working toward common solutions.
[2025]
J. Reid: The minister appears to have a greater desire to be an advocate for co-ops than to be an advocate for volunteers.
Now, I've heard an awful lot about this issue in my own constituency office -- about the problems that volunteer agencies are having with government. I would have to presume that the minister has heard some of this. So what has she done to work with the appropriate ministry to try to alleviate some of these problems or at least listen to the concerns of these volunteer agencies?
Hon. J. Kwan: Interestingly, since I have become minister responsible for this ministry, the sector has not actually brought up that issue with me. If they should bring it up, I would be happy to engage with them, to hear what their concerns are and to get the relevant ministers, ministries, agencies -- whatever -- involved.
Just for the member's information, I think this may violate the rules, so I'm going to seek the Chair's advice with respect to that. Today, not as a minister but as an MLA for my own riding, I just so happened to meet with the Gaming Commission people to raise some of the concerns that the member has raised. I was not asked to do that in my capacity as minister; I was simply doing that in my capacity as the MLA. But that might have fallen out of the realm of the rules. I'm not sure, and I'll seek your advice on that, hon. Chair.
The Chair: My advice would be to recognize the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum, accede to the minister
J. Reid: With volunteers and with different problems, because I'm hearing these things, I'm wondering why the minister hasn't heard them or whether people have felt that there isn't help there. If the minister is willing to help volunteer agencies and organizations deal with some of their problems, then we certainly need to get that word out.
What about the role of volunteers in schools? What does the minister feel about that situation? Would the minister like to see an increased presence of volunteers in schools?
Hon. J. Kwan: On the question around volunteers for schools, I support volunteers in schools. In fact, when the issue first arose from the media, I approached Barry O'Neill, who is the president of CUPE B.C., about this issue and questioned their perspective on volunteers in schools. He advised me that they "welcome and invite parents to volunteer in schools." So to that end, I support volunteers in school. There's clearly a role to play. The lead minister in dealing with the conflict that has arisen out of that is the Minister of Education.
J. Reid: One of the reasons I'm raising this particular issue is that, with demographics, it's been well recognized that there is actually an increasing pool of volunteers -- an increasing pool of people who are going to be looking for opportunities to volunteer in the community, as right now with the large number of hours that are put in by people who are retired. As we see the demographics shift, there is more leisure time, more time for volunteerism. This has been well predicted -- that there is this increasing pool. Schools are one place where people volunteer. So it's a natural question that with an increasing pool of people looking to volunteer and expanding their role, is there a place
Hon. J. Kwan: British Columbia is blessed with community groups or individuals who contribute back to their communities. We received some 169 million volunteer hours
[ Page 16633 ]
in British Columbia last year, so that's actually very significant. According to my staff, with respect to actual volunteer numbers in the schools, in fact the numbers have actually decreased as opposed to increased, though the hours have increased. That is to say that the individual who volunteers is providing more hours, as opposed to the numbers of people who are volunteering at schools. But having said that, you know, that contribution is very, very important and valued certainly by myself and by government and by all community members, I would imagine.
[2030]
On the question around the impasse or the conflicts that do exist, a lot of them fall into different sectors, whether it be the school sector or any other sector, around work to be done by the union sector versus work that should be performed by a volunteer, and so on. There are parameters that are in place within the different sectors and for people to engage in discussions around resolution to that.
I have also engaged in discussions, particularly with funders -- although not just funders but volunteer agencies as well -- around the difficulty of that, not necessarily the issue around schools or anything like that, but overall some of the potential conflict that could arise on the issue around volunteers versus paid work. I sought their advice as to how one may engage in those discussions, how we may bring all the different partners to the table and whether or not there's an interest in bringing the partners to the table so that people can engage in a discussion around that to share information and to identify the issues and see how those issues could be resolved.
We have begun some of those discussions, and I'm testing to see whether the volunteer sector is interested in that. I've also spoken with the labour sector to see whether or not they're interested in engaging in those discussions. Then perhaps the role that we can play is to facilitate by bringing all these people together so that they can sit down and work through it amongst themselves. Again, that's taking the community development approach. It's not for us to say that we know what is best for you, but rather for all the different players around the table to come together, figure it out and work out a solution that is the best for all of us.
J. Reid: I wish this government had taken that approach earlier on, when different societies, especially those involved in health care, were taken over by the government, and that was seen as fitting. Another issue that happened in my constituency was a situation in a health care facility where there was a volunteer bus driver who was dismissed because it was deemed to be a union job. As that fellow was dismissed -- and certainly he was well qualified for driving the bus -- the bus was parked, because there wasn't anyone else to drive it.
With the minister's interest in being able to help volunteers resolve these kinds of issues and resolve these kinds of disputes, I'm sure that she's going to have a lot of opportunities. My next question would then be: when a volunteer individual or agency has a concern, is there a process within this ministry to be able to take in that concern and then process that concern as part of the function of the ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: Our ministry's role is not to engage in dispute resolution with one particular group and a particular employer in any way, shape or form. What I was referencing, in terms of bringing the sectors together, is a broad overall policy discussion that needs to be in place. We know that those kinds of conflicts do occur. When they do occur, it is good neither for the employer nor for the volunteer sector themselves. In speaking with folks from Volunteer Vancouver, they find it disheartening when these issues are politicized, because it's a disservice to their agency and to the work that they are doing. It causes concern for the volunteers as well as the employers, and nobody wants that.
[2035]
An approach in bringing the groups together -- and whether or not there's an interest in bringing the groups together -- is to talk about it broadly, knowing that these conflicts are occurring in our communities and how one might go about addressing that. Again, the solution is not for us to come in with a solution. The solution has to come in from the community and from the various folks around the table.
I should also say that, as part of Volunteer B.C., they are working to establish a broad issues watch to provide advice through this organization and other volunteer centres as well. The volunteer sector itself is actively working on this too, and we mustn't do anything to undermine their work, to devalue their work and, most important of all, to set back the work that they are progressing on.
J. Reid: I'd certainly encourage the work that they're doing in addressing those issues. I can appreciate that the minister is not interested, willing or capable to take on individual
Hon. J. Kwan: There is an instance that comes to mind, a fairly recent one. Take as an example where there was an issue with respect to volunteers in the community who drive people with illnesses or sicknesses to doctors appointments, to whatever -- that kind of thing. There was a conflict between the volunteers participating in that activity versus the regulations under the Motor Carrier Commission.
So that issue was brought to the ministry, as well as to my colleague who has responsibility for that. All the players were brought together to work towards a solution, and a solution was found out of that instance. So it's more of a broad base approach, as opposed to an individualized approach. We're not an advocacy agency in this ministry. But we do recognize that there are challenges there, and we do want to facilitate a way to address some of those challenges.
Again, the facilitation, I think, has to come from and within all the players who are involved, and it is not for us to impose what is the best solution.
J. Reid: I'm very pleased to hear that the ministry is able to work in that manner. I think all these groups
Now, with another issue that we talked on earlier -- about volunteers, about training -- that issue previously was talking about some of the funding for training. But looking at
[ Page 16634 ]
it in a different sense, for volunteers, it has been identified as one of the needs for volunteers -- that the nature of volunteering has changed. There are different kinds of pressures and expectations on volunteers than in times past -- accountability on volunteers and on boards, background checks that have to be done, a whole range of things. I'm wondering whether the minister is planning, has planned or has an approach to deal with this larger issue to help out the volunteer agencies where there is this common, identified, across-the-board concern, and if there is a plan on being able to meet that need.
[2040]
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, we are working with other agencies, the Attorney General's office, Volunteer Canada and agencies in the community in trying to address some of those issues. An example that does come to mind is the issue around liability -- a huge issue within the volunteer sector. People are very worried that they'll get sued. They'll be somehow liable should something happen, something go wrong or whatever. That was the question in fact involving the volunteer driver in that instance. There were liability issues. Anyway, there is a whole lot of those kinds of things.
Screening, as well, is a big issue -- more and more so now as we're learning that there are incidences that occur that are very troubling. So the screening issue is also one that is big and important as well. Those are a couple of examples. Again, Volunteer Canada, Volunteer B.C. -- those broad provincial or large organizations do work towards identifying these issues, as do we, in talking with them and then to see how we can work collaboratively and in partnership to find solutions to these challenges.
J. Reid: So I would take it that the minister is saying yes, the larger volunteer umbrella groups, associations and such are addressing those problems, and the ministry is looking at supporting that effort rather than taking it on in the ministry. By "support," is there financial support suggested?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes. The support that we provide is staff resources as well as financial. Again, what the volunteer sector themselves have said to us is that they don't want government in their agencies or in the sector doing their work or even to run them or direct them. Rather, it has to come from them and for us to work with them. Therefore we have to be very mindful of what role we play.
We know that these are the challenges. These are just some examples of the challenges, and there are many. We work with them in partnership in trying to find the solutions and provide support where we can.
J. Reid: I'm actually going to switch the topic quite dramatically in this short time this evening. Tomorrow morning we will have to take up the questions with the Vancouver Agreement.
I want to ask the minister about train service on Vancouver Island. I understand that this is part of her responsibilities, and there is certainly a provincial interest in this. I'm wondering what the major concerns of the minister would be with regards to the train service -- and in particular, the passenger train service -- on Vancouver Island.
Hon. J. Kwan: That area is actually under the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security.
J. Reid: Well, then, I would just venture to read something from Hansard. I originally started with the Minister of Transportation and asked, and he said that the responsibility lies with the Minister of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. I expressly asked at that time whether it was with the former minister or the present ministry. In Hansard, he thought that it was with the ministry and specifically said it wasn't with the minister. So perhaps the minister would like to pass that information on to her colleague. I'll have to see whether I still have an opportunity to ask my questions about passenger service.
All right, then. Since we do have a few minutes, I'm going to get back on track and talk about the Bladerunners program. The questions that I have around Bladerunners
Hon. J. Kwan: One hundred and twenty subsidized participants.
J. Reid: Could the minister tell me how many were males and how many were females?
Hon. J. Kwan: About 20 percent of the participants are female.
J. Reid: What was the total cost of the program for last year?
[2045]
Hon. J. Kwan: It was $1.2 million.
J. Reid: What would the minister say the breakdown would be for cost per person?
Hon. J. Kwan: It's a little over $7,000.
J. Reid: With the program for this coming year, I'd like to know what the proposed funding
Interjection.
J. Reid: It's the same funding.
And with the purpose of the program -- it's to teach work skills to disadvantaged young people. I'd like to know from the minister what kind of tracking is done to be able to determine the success of this program and how long the average employment is for these individuals.
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. J. Kwan: We don't actually track the participants themselves. Oftentimes, actually, what the participants do upon graduation of the program is stay in touch with us. After they graduate, they become what we call senior Bladerunners. A lot of them stay in touch with us, and we actually use them as models, if you will, for other new Bladerunner participants who are coming into the program. So from that point of view, I suppose that's the ad hoc kind of tracking system. Given that it's very costly to do a tracking program because
[ Page 16635 ]
with the Bladerunner and then over time the course of the program.
We estimate that about 75 percent of the Bladerunner participants are either employed with another employer or in an educational program or working -- not necessarily in the same sector, but perhaps in a different sector through the training that they have received. They might have found other interests and then developed that or had enough confidence to develop that. So about 75 percent of them are engaged either in work or in educational activities.
The Chair: I'm just going to test the waters with the member for Parksville-Qualicum. If this subject is close to an end, we could finish a question or two. Or if it's necessary, we could continue in the morning. But we're being signalled from the other House to draw to a close this evening.
J. Reid: Probably five minutes to finish Bladerunners.
The Chair: My understanding is that, well, the Chair is just forced into it.
J. Reid: The minister didn't answer how long, on average, a person would participate in Bladerunners.
Hon. J. Kwan: The subsidized component is 34 weeks. The Bladerunner has up to 18 months to complete that 34-week subsidized paid piece, and then beyond that, again, is what we call the senior Bladerunners. They report back; they engage with us -- on a volunteer basis, actually -- with respect to the program.
[2050]
J. Reid: Are there any other funds from any other ministries that support the work that this person is doing? Or is everything totally funded from this ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: There are no other ministries that provide funding to the $1.2 million that we provide for this program. On the subsidy side, the Bladerunner gets paid $10 an hour -- $3 subsidized by us, $7 from the employer.
J. Reid: In my notes I do have here that the ministry is developing and implementing a database on the Bladerunner program. If this isn't to do with tracking, what is the purpose of that?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, it's to do with tracking.
J. Reid: And the two-year longitudinal study -- is that part of the same thing, or is that a different study on this?
Hon. J. Kwan: It's all part of the information gathering.
J. Reid: Is this being performed in-house or by an outside contractor?
Hon. J. Kwan: Outside.
J. Reid: Has there been any past tracking on this program -- not fast-tracking, but past tracking on the participants?
Hon. J. Kwan: Not extensively, no.
J. Reid: With this review within the ministry, is there a person assigned to this program for tracking it and evaluating it? And are you looking at improving the program in any particular way?
Hon. J. Kwan: No, there's not a specific person. We work as a team under that program. The work and the information are provided. Again, the Bladerunners themselves coming back and the coordinator, who developed just a fabulous relationship with these young people, they then have a relationship and get that information, and so on and so on -- sort of like that commercial.
The Chair: Before we call a motion on this one
Hon. J. Kwan: Noting the time, I move that Committee A rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:52 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada