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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 13
[ Page 16637 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me this morning to introduce students, teachers and parents from Mission, from Fraserview Elementary. Some are in the gallery watching us this morning to see how this place really works -- or doesn't. Another group is touring the precincts. I bid everybody in the chamber this morning to bid my friends welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the buildings today are representatives of the Canadian Diabetes Association, who are here to meet with members of the chamber and also to offer diabetes screening tests. So the opportunity is there for people in the buildings to do that, and I hope they avail themselves and that we make the members of the Canadian Diabetes Association welcome here today.
[1005]
THE GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING
PROHIBITION ACT
G. Clark presented a bill intituled The Grizzly Bear Hunting Prohibition Act.
G. Clark: This act prohibits the hunting, taking, trapping, wounding or killing of grizzly bears for sport. Grizzly bears are classed as vulnerable in British Columbia by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Grizzly bears once roamed much of North America. Now they are extirpated across the Prairies and in much of the United States and are listed as threatened in the United States in the Endangered Species Act.
Grizzly bears are a symbol of the wilderness of British Columbia, wilderness that we are very fortunate to have, wilderness that we have a responsibility to protect. This bill makes the fines and penalties for killing a grizzly bear equal to that for a threatened or endangered species in British Columbia. This bill does not penalize anyone when grizzlies are killed by accident or for the protection of life or property.
This act will help protect our grizzly bear populations before they become threatened or endangered and before we have to take drastic and expensive action. Grizzly bears have a very low reproduction rate and are extremely susceptible to overkill. It's important to act now to stop the decline of grizzly bears in British Columbia.
Finally, hon. Speaker, I'd like to thank Sean LeRoy, one of the interns working on the government side of the House, for doing the work on this bill.
I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. In Committee B, I call committee stage on Bill 22.
COST OF CONSUMER CREDIT
DISCLOSURE ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Plant: I wonder if I might take this opportunity as we begin the committee stage debate to ask the minister some questions about the bill that are of a slightly more general nature. One of the things that the bill does is change the existing statutory law of British Columbia with respect to the cost of consumer credit disclosure obligations, and I want to be certain of the extent of that change. Perhaps I could put it in the form of this question: does this bill replace all of the existing provincial statutory requirements with respect to the disclosure of credit costs?
[1010]
Hon. A. Petter: Let me just introduce staff who are assisting me in this. Seated to my right is Ann Preyde, who is director of the consumer policy and program development section of the ministry, and to my left is Reg Faubert, who is policy specialist, consumer policy.
The answer to the member's question is yes.
G. Plant: One of the things that the Deputy Premier pointed out in the course of her second reading remarks was that this bill relates to transactions with consumers as opposed to business dealings. I hope the minister will confirm that this bill does not regulate in any way the disclosure of credit costs in a business-to-business transaction.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, hon. Chair, I can confirm that the member is correct.
G. Plant: We will look at a couple of ways in which the bill goes beyond the issue of disclosure to affect some of the substantive obligations or rights and responsibilities that creditors and borrowers may have vis-à-vis each other. But as a general question, I might ask this: creditors often want to know something about the credit history of the person to whom they are thinking of advancing or offering credit, and I want to be certain that this bill doesn't in any way affect the rules, the rights, the opportunities and the restrictions that may exist around what creditors are entitled to do to determine whether or not they wish to grant credit to a consumer in respect of a particular transaction.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, the member is quite correct. This does not alter the capacity of creditors to seek the information that they currently are able to get and require.
G. Plant: I think this follows from remarks made in second reading by the Deputy Premier. The act is intended to
[ Page 16638 ]
cover all persons who may offer credit in a consumer transaction. But let me deal with two specific kinds of businesses that occasionally attract public attention, and that's pawnshops and cheque-cashing stores. Will the minister confirm that in so far as pawnshops and cheque-cashing stores from time to time engage in the business of offering credit, as this act defines it, will they also be subject to the disclosure obligations contained in this bill?
[1015]
Hon. A. Petter: I think the simplest way to answer the question is to say there's nothing in this bill that would exempt either pawnshops or cheque-cashing agencies. It would therefore be a question of whether they were extending credit. If they were simply cashing a cheque for a fee that would not be extending credit. If they were advancing money with interest accruing or charges, that would be extending credit -- by way of example.
G. Plant: The care with which the minister expressed himself in that last answer makes me want to pursue the issue of cheque-cashing stores just a little bit further.
One of the things that this bill does is that it takes aspects of financing transactions that some people might say are not really part of the cost of credit but are, rather, simply a fee being charged by, say, a broker for the privilege of entering into a transaction. It brings those fees into the transaction and defines them to be a part of the cost of credit so that the consumer gets a better sense of what the cost of the transaction is to him.
I don't want to restrain the creative ways in which cheque-cashing businesses do their business, but it occurred to me that there might be circumstances in which cashing a cheque and charging a fee for it might actually be properly characterized as a credit transaction. After all, a cheque is not
Hon. A. Petter: This is the way the legislation works: the threshold requirement is that there be a credit transaction; once there's a credit transaction, then all of the fees get rolled up. So the member's quite correct. If there was a credit transaction taking place, and if those providing credit had within their policy the charging of a fee for the cashing of a cheque, that fee would then get counted as part of the rolled-up cost of the credit transaction.
I gave the illustration; perhaps I shouldn't have. I like to be clear for myself and for the member's benefit. The example I gave was that there may be circumstances where it's not a credit transaction and there are fees; that would not be captured. But once there's a credit transaction that takes place, credit is being extended, then all fees get rolled up into the calculation.
G. Plant: I think that as a common-sense matter, that explanation is entirely helpful. Of course, we are dealing, though, with a marketplace that is increasingly famous for its creativity. If my recollection of the regulatory impact statement in support of this legislation, my recollection of the second reading speech of the Deputy Premier, and my basic understanding of what I see when I open the newspaper every morning are any kind of reliable indicators, that is part of the reason why this legislation is coming into place in the first place. It's a justification for this bill to try to achieve some sort of precision, standardization and harmonization, both for the benefit of consumers and for the benefit of credit grantors. I accept that public policy objective as being entirely laudable.
However, someone reading the minister's last answer, perhaps someone with less of an understanding than he has of the bill itself, might wonder if the answer invited the creation of a new form of financing transaction which did not on its face appear to involve credit but involved a large fee. Then we have an argument about whether credit is or is not being extended.
My guess is that if I have identified this question at 10:30 on a Thursday morning, people have got this question a lot earlier in this multi-year process. I wonder if the minister can just elaborate a little bit on what constitutes a credit transaction, so people won't have any reason to have the concern that I've just outlined.
[1020]
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I certainly don't want to underestimate the creativity of those who try to avoid regulatory protections of this kind. But I think if the member looks at the definition of credit agreement under section 4, it is defined in a way that is designed to be flexible but directive in a way that, hopefully, allows regulators and the courts to take account of attempts that are naked, or perhaps partially clothed, attempts to simply evade the bill.
What it says is "an agreement in relation." The credit agreement is defined as "(a) an agreement in relation to (i) a loan of money, (ii) a credit sale, (iii) a line of credit, or (iv) a credit card, and (b) a renewal of an agreement referred to in this definition." So it's going to be an interplay between purposive interpretation of that provision versus creative attempts to try to undermine the intent of that. Hopefully, the purposive interpretation will prevail. But as the member well knows, you can never fully imagine or contemplate all of the creativity. I think what this definition tries to do is, by being suggestive of the purpose but not definitive allow sufficient creativity on the interpretive side to capture attempts to evade that underlying purpose.
G. Plant: Let me give the minister one example of a possible transaction. I expect that he will be able to answer the question, and that will help anyone following the debate. If I were to go to a furniture store and want to buy a piece of furniture that is listed at the price of $500 and then say to the manager, "I'd like to buy this. Can I give you a post-dated cheque for $500?" he says: "That's fine. Post-date the cheque for two weeks, but there's a $50 fee, so you'll actually have to write a cheque for $550." It seems to me that that's extending two weeks worth of credit, and a fee of $50 is the charge for that extension of that credit. Really, we've now fallen inside the scope of this act. I wonder if the minister agrees with me.
Hon. A. Petter: I guess what I would say
[ Page 16639 ]
separation, there may be some exemption in that circumstance. But where there is a fee attached, that fee becomes a fee attached to a credit transaction and is clearly captured by the legislation.
[1025]
So I think the member's illustration actually helps, perhaps, in showing how difficult it may be to evade this, because the essence of a credit transaction, it seems to me, is where the payment is not due at the same time that the goods are provided. Then the question is: is there any fee attached to that? If there is, then that immediately draws the attention of the regulatory scheme in whatever form that fee takes.
G. Plant: Let me give one more example, and it will be the last one. I suppose there is a temptation to turn this into the third instalment of the advance course on sale of goods. But the example I gave a moment ago, I thought, was probably relatively straightforward. If we make the example slightly more subtle -- and I'm sure that my ability to achieve this subtlety pales in comparison with the ability of credit grantors to think of how they're going to live within this -- a not unusual situation would be where there is a list price for an item. Let's go back to the furniture store, and the sofa is listed at $500. I want to buy it, and I can't pay for it for two weeks. I suppose the possibility is that I could say to the manager: "Gee, if I could buy it now, would you sell it to me for $450?" The manager says, "Probably," and I say: "I can't, but I'll write you a cheque post-dated for two weeks for $500."
This statute, as I understand it, eventually engages people in a consideration of what the real value is of the good being supplied at the moment that it's being supplied. I'm not even going to go so far as to require or suggest that we need to get a firm answer to the second example. But conceivably the actual market price of that sofa is really $450, because that's all it would take to buy it and to take delivery of it if you pay cash.
Really, by delaying payment for two weeks, I'm paying a $50 premium over the actual market value of the sofa. It would seem to me there is at least an argument that that is a credit-granting transaction. It may even be more than an argument. If the minister is in a position to comment on that particular example, then I think that for my purposes, I'll have a pretty good sense of how this statute operates in general terms.
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, I think the example the member gives, in my view at least -- and we can provide the member a written form with how the legislation would interact with this -- is a credit transaction. It is the cash price that would be payable for the good at the time that provides the benchmark against which one determines whether or not credit has been extended. If one could show that the purchase price would have been $450 had the payment been made at the time of purchase and that that would have been acceptable, then any additional charge from that newly established price, whatever the notional advertised price was, becomes the benchmark against which one determines whether or not credit has been extended. Any amount above that, therefore, that is paid in exchange for the payment being deferred seems to me clearly fits the definition of credit within the meaning of the act and would, therefore, attract the requirements of the act.
[1030]
G. Plant: That is helpful. One of the definitions in the definition section of the act is that of associate. I think what the term "associate" is intended to encompass here is the possibility that the vendor of the product and the credit grantor may be related corporations but not one and the same. I suppose, reverting to my already tired example of a furniture store, if I want to buy the sofa on credit, it may be that the XYZ Furniture Store Ltd. has an affiliated company, which is the XYZ Leasing Corp.
I gather the way the act works is to try to prevent an avoidance of the disclosure obligations by the use of creating different corporate shells. This term "associate," when you track the way it's used through the act, is intended to ensure that even though the person selling the product is not, in law, the same person that is granting the credit, if they are associated persons within the meaning of this definition, then the obligations will be there in a meaningful way for the consumer's benefit at the time of the transaction.
Hon. A. Petter: I can do no better than to agree with all of that.
G. Plant: Let me ask a question that does arise specifically in the context of section 3 but is a general question with respect to the application of the act.
One of the aspects of the act is that generally speaking the act applies if the borrower is an individual. The borrower enters into the second aspect, a credit agreement for primarily personal, family or household purposes. Then we get a third aspect of the application of the act, which is that the credit agreement is, among other things, entered into by the credit grantor in the ordinary course of carrying on a business.
If you stop there, it would look to me as though the act would not apply to what are sometimes described as curb sales of automobiles by private citizens. It wouldn't apply to a garage sale transaction, where somebody paid more for an item at a garage sale by giving a bigger cheque. Generally speaking, the act is really intended to apply to credit grantors who are in the business of granting credit.
This section goes on, however, to talk about two other situations where the act will apply. One is where the credit agreement is arranged by a loan broker. That's really where an intermediary is inserted in the transaction. I will have a question or two about that when we get to those provisions.
The third instance of an application in the agreement is in this subsection 3(1)(c)(iii), which reads: "is a credit agreement, or is of a class of credit agreements, prescribed by regulation." This has the virtue that all modern statutes have, it seems -- that is, at first glance you think it means something, and then at second glance you realize it means almost anything, because the regulation-making power conceivably blows a hole in the side of the hull of the statutory language. I'm sure that's not the intention here.
Let me use the examples I've given to illustrate, I guess, a more general question, which is: having set out to legislate requirements that are primarily directed at people who give credit in the ordinary course of their business, does the government intend to use its regulation-making authority to change or expand that to include something like the garage sale transaction or the street corner transaction that I've talked about?
[1035]
Hon. A. Petter: The simple answer is: the government does not intend to use the power in clause (iii) to try to create
[ Page 16640 ]
new categories of credit agreement that are outside of the keeping of the intention of the act, which is to target business-type transactions. But as the member earlier alluded to, there are all sorts of creative mechanisms that are used. And we need, it was felt, to have the power through regulation, within the spirit and purpose of the definitions of credit agreement in the preceding two clauses, to be able to cover off any creative attempt to evade those clauses by having this regulation-making power.
G. Plant: We'll deal with the regulation-making power when we get there.
I appreciate the minister's answer. I next have questions with respect to section 15.
Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 15.
G. Plant: We are now in part 2 of the act, which is entitled "Rights and Duties in Relation to All Credit Agreements." These are provisions that apply generally, whether the credit agreement is a fixed-credit agreement, an open-credit agreement, a credit card or any of the other types of credit agreements or credit instruments that are later dealt with more specifically.
Subsection (1) of section 15 says that this section does not apply to mortgage loans. Apart from this exception, which is in the context of a section that, generally speaking, is intended to allow borrowers to prepay advances made to them without prepayment charge or penalty, that's something that's not typically allowed in mortgages. This section, I observe, does not change that basic aspect of life in the marketplace. But generally speaking, the act applies to mortgage loans for real property, at least within the constitutional jurisdiction of the province, to regulate the activities of the mortgage loan grantor. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
G. Plant: Okay. That's helpful.
All right. On to subsection (2), which reads: "A borrower is entitled to prepay the full outstanding balance owing under a credit agreement at any time without any prepayment charge or penalty." That looks like a substantive restriction on the terms of credit arrangements in respect of non-mortgage loans. That is, if you were to think of an example of a transaction, which I can't at the moment
[1040]
I think it is a substantive provision. I'm not certain whether it's new or not. If the minister is able to say, "This is just a codification of stuff that's already there in the law," then fair enough. But if it is new, then I would be interested in knowing the policy rationale behind including this in a bill that is primarily related to the idea of disclosure.
Hon. A. Petter: Looking at section 44 of the existing Consumer Protection Act, it appears that this simply is a restatement in somewhat different language of what is already there, as I read it. It talks about the ability to reduce the outstanding principal sum and the cost of borrowing calculated in advance of it, by prepaying at least the amount or percentage of the outstanding principal sum that is prescribed as being a right there.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Or the cost of
So I would say, based on very quick reference to section 44 and the advice that I am receiving, that this is really a codification of what is already provided.
G. Plant: The published documents around this bill, including the regulatory impact statement, talk about the goal of harmonization. They talk about the way in which harmonization is achieved and how in some instances there may be a difference in particular provincial legislation on a province-by-province basis in the context of the overall goal of creating a set of nationally applicable standards and rules. I believe the documents give a few specific examples of instances where Bill 22 does not exactly or slavishly follow the model of the Uniform Law Conference but does things which are consistent with the basic objective of harmonization and consistent with existing provincial law. I don't have a problem with that.
Is the minister able to say whether the prepayment restriction that exists in this subsection is an aspect of each of the other bills that are going to be introduced or have been introduced federally and provincially? In other words, is all this going to be standard across the country, or is this unique to British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: This section, I'm advised, is standard across the country.
D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: Thanks to my colleagues in the chamber for allowing this. Earlier today I introduced a class, a group, from Mission, from Fraserview Elementary. Now I have the opportunity and the pleasure to introduce some friends from West Heights Elementary. They're here touring the buildings, asking insightful questions and, I hope, enjoying the sunshine. I hope they'll enjoy the debate. It's an important piece of legislation in front of us this morning. So I bid the House make them welcome.
G. Plant: The provision in section 15 that we're looking at deals generally with the question of prepayment of credit; that is, what happens when you're in a position to pay off the loan faster than you thought you might have been able to at the time you signed the credit agreement. We've looked at two parts of it. In general terms, I want to deal with two different situations that I think are encompassed by the balance of this section.
[1045]
One is that you realize three months into the two-year contract that you can pay off the entire principal owing, and
[ Page 16641 ]
you do pay it all off. In that case, as I understand it, the way the act works is that you're then going to be entitled to a proportionate refund of some part of the credit cost of the transaction for the unexpired term -- that part that would be attributable to the unexpired term of the agreement.
Let me give an example to see if I understand how this works. The example that had occurred to me was brokerage fees. I know that's dealt with in its own way, but if you paid a broker a fee for finding the credit transaction of $1,000 and it's a two-year credit transaction and you pay the fee once, the expectation is that you're going to pay the loan off over two years. If after three months you're able to pay it all off, does that mean that you're going to get some of the fee refunded to you because of the operation of section 15(3)?
Hon. A. Petter: It's always dangerous to answer a question anticipating where the member may be going, but I'm going to try to do that. Frankly, I'm curious myself, which is always a dangerous thing; these debates can go on forever. But the principle of the act -- the principle as in the objective of the act, as I understand it; the way it works -- is to prorate the fees that are charged and then provide a rebate based upon the proration of that amount of the fee that would be allocated to the post-payment period.
However, it raises an interesting question: what if the fee that's been charged corresponds to a cost that was in fact incurred in association with that fee? Surely it wouldn't be fair under those circumstances, I say to myself, to prorate that fee when in fact that fee may relate to a upfront cost that was incurred by the credit provider or broker or whatever, which I think may be where the member is going.
As I understand it, within the act there is reference to a prescribed fee. There is therefore the potential, through regulation, to differentiate between fees that in fact are reflective of an upfront cost, which therefore one would not want to prorate, and fees that are simply fees that are another form of cost that can be attributed to the entire cost of the credit transaction. Otherwise -- and this is maybe where the member is going -- one might require a proration of fees that are a true attempt to capture costs that were in fact incurred at a time prior to the repayment.
G. Plant: The minister got it. Oftentimes the fees that are charged to borrowers at the beginning of the transaction are really just an attempt to capitalize the cost of the transaction itself, in the form of a fee. The mortgage broker has had to do the same amount of work to find the money for the borrower, and it's sort of an unforeseen accident that the borrower then comes along three months later and says: "Gee, I'm able to pay the whole thing off. Now could I have 70 percent of the fee back?"
[1050]
I will be interested to see how the regulation drafters achieve the goal that the minister talks about. I think it's not difficult to say in principle that all of the upfront costs of borrowing money should be included in a global calculation which we'll call the APR, which then becomes the standardized basis for consumers to figure out how much a transaction is costing. In reality, I think the world of credit grantors is not entirely filled with people who are simply trying to charge interest through other vehicles, but rather they do occasionally simply want to charge for the cost of the service they're providing.
This whole situation, luckily, doesn't get simpler; it gets slightly more complicated when we get to the last subsection of section 15. This is the situation where, after three months into the two-year deal that I'm using as my example, I believe what happens, according to this, is that I could pay, let's say, half of the balance off but not all of it. The example we gave before, or looked at, was what happens when the borrower can pay all of it off. This makes clear that a borrower is always entitled to prepay some amount, but unless the borrower repays the entire amount, the borrower doesn't get the refund that we've been talking about. Is that a correct analysis?
Hon. A. Petter: Indeed it is.
G. Plant: People might wonder why there's a public policy distinction between the two situations. Is there an answer to that question?
Hon. A. Petter: This has been a drafting exercise that has involved numerous jurisdictions and input, so to some extent I'm going to have to hypothesize and draw on the advice of my officials. I imagine and I assume that the reason is the complexity. One likes to protect the interests of borrowers as much as one can. This legislation aspires to do that. But if we got into not only prorations in time but prorations in amount, with all the added complications that the member has injected into the mix of fees that in fact represent the actual cost of services provided versus those that are an attempt to liquidate ongoing costs, I think the complexity of that regulation would be unmanageable for everyone. Therefore you have to make realistic choices, and the choice that was made here is to entitle the borrower to repay less than the full amount but, in that event, not to gain the benefit that the borrower would achieve by repaying the full amount in respect of the fees.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
G. Plant: Section 16 deals with what are called default charges, which would be charges over and above the cost of the good and the cost of the credit that would arise if the borrower failed to comply with the obligations to make payments. This section puts limits on the ability of the credit grantor to impose default charges; it limits the kinds of default charges that can be imposed. This, again, is a substantive provision; it's not simply a disclosure provision. Is this provision consistent with the legislation that will be, or has been, introduced by the other provinces, territories and the federal government?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it is.
Sections 16 and 17 approved.
On section 18.
G. Plant: Section 18 deals with the issues of acceleration clauses. Sometimes the borrower fails to make payment, and the credit grantor wants to have the opportunity to make the whole sum due and payable in the event of a default. So if you're three or four months into the two-year deal and you miss a payment or two, the credit grantor may say: "Well, if you can't make your payments on a monthly basis, then I
[ Page 16642 ]
want the right to get the whole amount from you." This section deals with that. It permits credit grantors to accelerate payment, and the credit grantor may do that when the borrower is in default or in any other circumstance provided by the credit agreement, which I think is probably not an unreasonable way of permitting free bargaining between the credit grantor and the borrower.
[1055]
I want to be clear, though, in my understanding of the relationship between this and the Law and Equity Act. My understanding is that this doesn't displace the provisions of the Law and Equity Act and the common law around forfeiture and acceleration generally. Am I correct in that understanding?
Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct, and I think the member can see why he is correct if he has reference to subsection (5), which provides that the provisions of other acts prevail in the event of any conflict.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
G. Plant: Now we're looking at what happens when credit is arranged by loan brokers. I think the two sections here in this division draw a legitimate distinction between people who are in the business of granting credit but who do so through the vehicle of loan brokers and people who are not in the business of granting credit but may end up doing that because of the work of a loan broker.
In section 19, as I understand it, if a loan broker secures an extension of credit for a borrower from someone who's not ordinarily in the business of granting credit, basically the obligations of the act, with respect to disclosure and other obligations, are moved to the loan broker. They rest on the loan broker rather on the credit grantor. Is that the general intent of this section?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it is.
Section 19 approved.
On section 20.
G. Plant: I'm not going to try to understand the
Basically, in terms of understanding the distinction between fixed credit and open credit, the Deputy Premier's second reading statements were helpful, and I am not going to explore the detailed aspects of those provisions. That takes me to part 5, "Leases of Goods," and section 44.
Sections 20 to 43 inclusive approved.
On section 44.
G. Plant: This act, in general terms, imposes obligations around advertising credit arrangements. Generally speaking, I think the principle is that if there is some advertisement in respect of credit -- if the car company advertises its leasing rate -- then there are obligations that kick in to deal with the details of the disclosures that are required around the credit rate. That's the basic structure of the act.
But I wanted to be clear about one issue that seemed to me to be engaged or created by the first words of section 44. The obligation of disclosure in respect of these credit matters is an obligation that lies on the credit grantor, primarily speaking, not, for example, on the newspaper that may be publishing the advertisement. I wonder if that is a correct, although somewhat general, statement.
[1100]
Hon. A. Petter: Again, the member is correct: it's on the lessor credit grant.
Sections 44 to 47 inclusive approved.
On section 48.
G. Plant: Section 48 talks about refunds of overpayments. It creates an obligation in certain circumstances for a credit grantor to refund an overpayment to a borrower. It doesn't give a time limit for that; it doesn't identify that obligation by reference to any time. It doesn't even actually have an adjective or adverb like "forthwith" or "promptly." It strikes me that that is potentially a defect in this provision.
I wonder if the minister can either explain why it's not a defect or why this provision has to be worded this way, or perhaps consider the possibility of changing it. May I, in that regard, say that I don't see anything here in section 48 that allows the issue to be dealt with by regulation. There may be something in the regulation provisions that deals with it. I'm not sure that would be an adequate remedy, but it might be better than nothing.
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that this language is common to the provisions across the country. I would hope that a purpose of interpretation of the provision would be that the refund should be made forthwith. But if there were some difficulty in convincing the parties or the courts that that in fact was the correct interpretation, there is the capacity through regulation to clarify what in fact the intention is, as I understand it.
G. Plant: I think it was merely implied in the minister's answer, but maybe I could get him to make it express. Well, maybe I'll just put it this way, because perhaps he did already say this. Would he acknowledge that repayment forthwith or within some very reasonably short period of time is the intent here? That's certainly the intent that the government has in putting this forward.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that's absolutely correct. The intention here, it seems to me -- I hope it's the intention of the legislation, but if it will help, it's the intention of the government introducing the legislation -- is that the payment be made forthwith -- in other words, as soon as it possibly can be made, given the limitations of the mail and the banks, etc.
Sections 48 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 52.
[ Page 16643 ]
[1105]
G. Plant: The provisions of this act that deal with compliance and offences create a variety of ways that the act can be enforced, which were expressed in summary terms in the second reading comments of the Deputy Premier. One of the things that this part does, a couple of sections on, is say that the remedies that this statute creates are in addition to and do not derogate from any other legal, equitable or statutory remedies.
I understand that the government is saying that this is generally a self-enforcing act. That is a good objective, to create something that is generally self-enforcing. However, I can't resist observing that for an act that is described as self-enforcing, it has quite a lot of provisions that look like quasi-criminal enforcement provisions. But time will tell, I suppose, how the act is enforced and whether it works more as a self-enforcing statute or as an act that depends, for its enforceability, upon the actions of the director of consumer practices or whatever that person is called these days.
I am particularly interested, though, in section 52. Section 52 says that, "Nothing in this Part precludes a court from awarding exemplary damages to a borrower" -- in respect of a deliberate contravention of the act, in any case where -- "the court considers that the conduct of that person justifies an award of exemplary damages."
There's a complicated body of law around when and if courts will award exemplary damage, and sometimes it depends on whether the conduct in question is a tort or a breach of contract or a breach of a statutory obligation. I wonder if the minister can tell me if it is the intention of this government, by introducing section 52, to change any part of the existing body of law that defines when and if and how exemplary damages will be awarded.
Hon. A. Petter: The intention is quite the opposite. It's to ensure that we do not inadvertently change the existing law with respect to the powers of courts to award exemplary damages where such damages are deemed appropriate. And it's to make clear to the court that their current powers in that respect attach to this legislation as they would attach to other legislation.
Sections 52 to 55 inclusive approved.
On section 56.
G. Plant: Section 56 is the regulation-making section. It has 20 or so separate kinds of regulations that can be made, including a regulation power to define the way in which the APR is to be calculated. The APR is really the fundamental tool of disclosure in the whole act. So by way of general comment, we have an act that says that there is going to be a standardized principle of disclosure. The tool used for it will be something called an APR, but the reader of the statute won't learn that much about what the APR will be, because that will be in the regulations.
There are two things that I hope the minister will be able to do for me here. First is to give me the assurance that in drafting and preparing the regulations contemplated by part 7 of this bill, the government will in fact consult locally -- that is, within British Columbia -- with the credit-granting industry, with consumer groups, with the people that would ordinarily be considered to be interested groups in connection with this issue.
The reason I ask that question is that there was very little, in fact, really no, consultation conducted by the province with respect to Bill 22, because the province relied on the national-level consultations that were undertaken as part of the national law reform project, which I'm sure included meetings or consultations in British Columbia, but they were conducted in the context of the national initiative. The government never took Bill 22, specifically, out for a walk in the business community.
[1110]
I can advise the minister that that's a fact that has caused some people in the business community some concern locally. I think one good way of alleviating that concern in the context of this bill, given the importance of the regulation-making power to the way this bill will work, would be to ensure that that consultation takes place while the regulations are being drafted. So can the minister indicate if it is his intention to undertake that consultation when the bill is passed?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, it's certainly contemplated that in the drafting of regulations and the like, there will be ongoing discussions and consultations with those who are impacted by this legislation. However, in respect of the APR itself, I just want to not lead the member astray. The discretion with respect
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, regulation power with respect to the APR is very much governed by what's in the act. In particular, the inputs in section 25 of the act set out fairly clearly what the inputs into the APR are. There has been, on a national basis, not only in respect to the legislation, but in respect of regulations, the development of hieroglyphic-looking formulae -- something like Albert Einstein might have understood -- as to how this all works.
So I don't anticipate that there will be an opportunity to influence the APR and its formula. But there will certainly be opportunity to talk about how it impacts and to understand it and make sure everyone understands how it works, so that they're not forced to look at a formula, as I have just done, and say, "What is this?" -- so it's clear and understandable.
Certainly there are issues in the drafting of regulations outside the APR in which the consultation will be informative in the other way, in which the input that we seek will help us in shaping the regulations. But on the APR itself, I think that will be a fairly standardized regulation across the country that has benefited from the work that has gone on across the country. The exercise will be to make sure that everyone who's affected by the legislation understands how it works in as simple and clear a fashion as possible before we enact the regulations, so that they aren't in any way surprised by them.
G. Plant: Well, I don't want to create a dustup where hopefully none is actually going to really be required. I get the minister's reference to section 25(1)(p), which talks about the APR. The regulation-making power, of course, is expressed as power to make regulations respecting the manner in which
[ Page 16644 ]
APR is to be calculated. That's pretty broad language. If the minister is saying that the regulation can't exceed or deviate from the basic thrust of the act, fair enough.
There are two other general questions, though, about regulations, I suppose. One is schedule for implementation -- that is, what's the estimated time of arrival of this statute? And two -- this was hinted at early in the minister's last answer: will there be some effort undertaken on the part of government to educate, train and inform people in the credit-granting industry about the obligations that they're going to have, the forms they're going to have to use, which I understand will be their forms but will have to comply with government requirements? If there's a timetable for that, I'd also like to know it. So those are questions around implementation.
[1115]
Hon. A. Petter: The target date for having the regulations ready to be promulgated would be the end of the calendar year. But I think the intention may well be to then promulgate them with an effective date that is a bit farther down the road than that, so that people have a chance to become familiar with the regulations.
The time frame between now and the completion of the regulations and their promulgation at the end of the calendar year is the time in which there will indeed be efforts made to engage with credit grantors and others who have particular issues and interest in the act, to make sure that there is a comfort level and understanding and that we benefit from information or concerns they may have in fashioning the regulations.
I think it's also important that consumers become aware. There will have to be an effort to try to communicate to consumers the impact and benefits of this act as it comes into effect and as the regulations come into effect towards the end of this calendar year and into the next year, depending upon the effective date.
Sections 56 to 79 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: In this House I call Committee of Supply. We'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.
The House recessed from 11:20 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.
The committee met at 11:22 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
Vote 52: environmental assessment and land use coordination, $14,891,000 -- approved.
Vote 55: green economy initiative, $5,000,000 -- approved.
On vote 30: ministry operations, $104,761,000.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a pleasure to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for this fiscal year. We will be joined by members of my staff, and I will introduce them to the chamber as they join us.
In Budget 2000, I set out a number of principles that will guide this ministry and indeed the government in the months ahead. Chief among those was the commitment to openness and transparency in budgeting and in financial reporting. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act has now been dealt with by this chamber. It sets in law the recommendations of the auditor general and the Enns Budget Process Review Panel and gives British Columbia the highest standard for openness in Canada. It will fundamentally change the way budgets are developed and ensure their consistent and timely delivery.
That act is just one of several measures which the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations has implemented recently to enhance transparency and accountability. Those include, of course, the implementation of many of the Enns recommendations in Budget 2000 and in work leading to it, including the use of summary accounts. It included revising and improving the format of our quarterly reports. It included designing the tax on income and tax relief strategies that not only lowered taxes but made it clear to British Columbians what their provincial and federal contributions were. We've now concluded debate in this chamber on that piece of legislation as well.
[1125]
More broadly, we've reported publicly on compensation for the broad public sector and most recently released the results of the independent review of the government's capital management procedures. That review by Deloitte Consulting attests to the success of efforts to date in improving capital management. It shows that practices in education and transportation projects, as well as on SkyTrain, are going well. But that said, there was clearly work to be done. When I released that report last month, I committed to accepting and acting on the recommendations pertaining to projects that bear the most cost and exposure to taxpayers. I agree with the authors of the Deloitte report that much of the risk in capital projects can be reduced through good, stringent management procedures and enhanced disclosures.
A similar effort to increase openness and transparency is underway with government ministries. We have adopted the Enns recommendation that each ministry produce a performance plan that will identify goals, strategies and achievements and make government's operations more transparent and accountable to the public. Last month I tabled a performance plan for all ministries in government. This plan is acutely relevant to our discussion of the ministry's estimates.
It indicates -- and I am sure the opposition has had a chance to peruse the performance plan -- that my ministry's
[ Page 16645 ]
activities are closely tied to cross-government needs. The activities include providing the corporate infrastructure for government, including revenue collection, purchasing, financial processing and banking, and providing the regulation and infrastructure vital for provincial commerce. This includes corporate and personal properties registries and financial sector regulation and providing analysis and advice to government through Treasury Board, the office of the comptroller general, the Crown corporations secretariat and the government policy and communications office.
What the ministry does to support government priorities is not new, but defining how the ministry does so in measurable ways does mark a new and, I would say, very significant improvement in accountability.
I'll just give a few examples. I don't want to prolong this, but among the six goals that the performance plan sets out is financial and economic information analysis planning and recommendations that strengthen the accountability of ministries and other government entities. Implementing the provisions, then, of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act that relate to the ministry is one of the primary strategies of this goal. One of the milestones that will define the ministry's success in this effort is the development of an implementation plan for the Deloitte report on capital management by the end of this month.
Another goal is efficient, effective, valued services and advice to all ministry clients. Our success there will obviously depend increasingly on accelerating the adoption of electronic commerce in government. In turn that shift will, I submit, save taxpayers money. For example, when we move to an electronic corporate registry from one that is still largely document-based, the ministry anticipates cumulative net savings to increase to $1.3 million per year within three years.
I mentioned the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act earlier. Beyond the performance reporting, I'd like to outline some other ramifications that this act will have, particularly for my ministry. The act creates an all-party budget consultation committee of the Legislature. As the first step in the annual budget process, this committee will receive up-to-date information on B.C.'s fiscal performance. It will consult with British Columbians on the budget and make public a report by December 31 of each year. That's one thing that clearly we must do.
[L. Boone in the chair.]
We've debated the other elements of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act in this chamber, and I'm not going to recapitulate that debate now.
Welcome to the chair, hon. Chair. Before concluding, I'd like to note a few of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations accomplishments over the past year.
You'll recall that last year in response to the work of the original Business Task Force, we introduced the Regulatory Impact Statement Act to ensure that the business impacts of new legislation and regulation were considered prior to their introduction.
[1130]
The new Business Task Force, which was established last September, is now monitoring progress on 19 major streamlining initiatives, including the implementation of the liquor policy review and one-stop registration for businesses. It is also monitoring progress on about 530 other streamlining projects, about 44 percent of which have now been implemented.
Next, provincial treasury completed a borrowing program that achieved close to $2 million in annual interest savings, relative to traditional domestic bond issues, and an expanded purchasing card program in government that resulted in savings of about $5 million a year.
Finally, expanded use of corporate travel cards and the business travel account program saved a further $1.75 million. Those are just a few examples of the efforts that the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations has made and continues to make in the interest of providing effective service and efficient service to its ministry clients.
In addition, the ministry is responsible for providing considerable analysis and advice. Treasury Board staff provide government with crucial economic and financial analysis in support of strategic priorities, like health care funding and treaty negotiations. Together with the office of the comptroller general and other areas of the ministry, Treasury Board staff have taken a number of steps to ensure and assist government in improving reporting to the public. They include the publishing of the quarterly reports on a fixed schedule and the financial reporting on the summary accounts basis. Treasury Board staff will continue to be an important source of advice and support as we further improve the budget process.
I'd like to conclude my opening remarks by thanking the staff throughout the ministry and the other organizations and agencies for which I have responsibility. It has been a real pleasure to work with the professional and very hard-working employees of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations since I assumed this portfolio last September. I want to thank them for their support in bringing me so quickly up to speed on some of the very challenging aspects of this very diverse portfolio.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
I also want to take this opportunity to thank my ministry and the diligent staff for their tireless efforts to deliver this year's budget under unique circumstances and very tight deadlines. I salute them today. It was a very, very significant effort. Their skill and diligence in serving this ministry will be crucial to our continued efforts to improve the openness, transparency and effectiveness of ministry budgeting and reporting activities.
With those comments, hon. Chair, I'm pleased to begin the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the budget year 2000-01.
[1135]
G. Farrell-Collins: I too, in opening comments this morning, want to echo some of the comments of the Minister of Finance with regard to the very deep and, I would say, ready well of professional people in the Ministry of Finance. They are certainly amongst the highest calibre of public servants that we see. They're very professional people, always helpful. And I certainly think that over the years they have always looked out for the public interest and have done an exceptional job and continue to do so. I want to extend my thanks to the minister for the time he's been there and his
[ Page 16646 ]
willingness to cooperate with members of the opposition, and to the deputy minister and also the multitude of very professional officials in the ministry who have been of great assistance to the opposition, which is always appreciated. I just want to open with those comments.
I think the minister sort of set the tone a little bit right towards the end of his opening comments, where he mentioned the difficult environment that the ministry officials worked in, in an attempt to put together this year's budget. I would agree with the minister. I expect it was extremely challenging to complete it and to complete it on time, given the political environment. I would argue that it's been a pretty challenging environment for the last number of years. I think we all know the trials and tribulations of the government in general over the last
I certainly don't hold responsibility for that at all to the officials who, as I said earlier, I have a great deal of respect for. But I must say that over the last number of years, they've had to work tirelessly under a series of ministers and a number of Premiers to maintain that professionalism and to maintain some semblance of cohesion and stability within government. In fact, I would characterize the problems the government has undergone over the last number of years as resulting from, I would say, deliberately reckless leadership, from the Premier's Office on down. I think the ministry itself has weathered that relatively well. But I think any analysis of what's happened over the last number of years would reflect my comments.
I think that goes, to a certain extent, for the opening comments, or the earlier part of the opening comments, that the minister made when he referred to some of the successes in this last year, in his opinion, of the Ministry of Finance and the progress that he feels has been made in budget transparency, in openness and in increasing accountability. Sometimes from the worst of storms the best things arrive. Sometimes the more severe the trials and tribulations, the better the product that comes out the other end. In life that's often the case.
I would say that as a result of many of the incidents of reckless leadership -- deliberately, in many cases -- over the last four or five years in particular, we arrive today where we are in this legislative session, where the government is bringing forward things that have been asked for by the opposition for a number of years: transparency in budgeting, truth in budgeting, greater accountability. Now we hear rumoured that there is a move towards balanced budget legislation, which I expect to have a bit of a discussion with the minister on here today. Those are all things that the opposition has been urging government to bring forward for some time; they are things from the opposition side which government has repeatedly ignored from the opposition side.
Only when they realized that they had a very, very severe political problem and a major disconnect with the public on honesty and accountability, truth in budgeting and balancing budgets, etc., did the government decide to act on those urgings. As we saw in the debate around particularly the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, there are still some significant holes that we feel need to be filled. They could be filled by legislation; we certainly urge the government to do that. However, more importantly, I think, they need to be filled by a change of behaviour of the government over a prolonged period of time. I don't think a year is
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have one fan here today, Mr. Chairman.
I don't believe that they're going to be filled in a short period of time. I don't think a year is going to be enough. One budget cycle won't be enough. It's going to take a number of years before the public starts to believe again what their government tells them with regard to finances.
[1140]
I suppose the review process that will probably take place this fall in anticipation of next year's budget will go some way to restoring that, although I expect we will find a significant amount of skepticism when we venture out around the province and talk to people about the budget. They have -- I think rightly so -- over the years become somewhat cynical. We'll see what their reaction is to that.
But there are some good things that are moving along. The pace is somewhat delayed from what most people would have wanted. The whole fallout from the 1995-96 budget started falling out in the fall of 1996, and here it is the spring of 2000, and we have budget transparency legislation. Four years is a long time to wait.
I suppose that was because, to this day, the government still denies that there was any problem with the '95-96 budget, other than some errors in forecasting. They're probably the only ones who believe that. But that's what the government's argument continues to be, up to this day and will continue to be, I would hazard a guess, over the foreseeable future, given that there is a court case which drags ever so slowly through the judicial system. I understand it should be coming up again shortly.
As I said, I do see some positive things. The performance plan by the ministry is a good step. It highlights some of the projects that are underway, some of the progress that's trying to be made towards those goals and the milestones that are listed as well as some ways of measuring them. It's a good first attempt. I think that as we move through this over the years, we'll develop a pattern of expertise in this. People across the ministry and across government will come to understand what the measures will be; they'll come to understand better what the milestones and the expectations are.
It's a good process to move towards. A certain amount of credit for that goes to my predecessor in the role as Finance critic, the deputy Leader of the Official Opposition, Fred Gingell, who left us just under a year ago now. He certainly pushed this issue as something that he believed would make a big difference to the way government worked and the way it was delivered to the public. A great deal of the credit for this goes to him as well. I know he worked for years with a variety of ministers and deputy ministers to move that proposal forward. So I'm glad to see that.
As I said, it's a good first attempt, but I expect it will be beefed up and will start to flow into the crevices of government so that everyone understands where we're headed and can move toward that direction. Therefore, when government
[ Page 16647 ]
embarks upon dramatically different policy initiatives all of a sudden, it will also become a little more apparent to people that policy is perhaps being made on the back of an envelope instead of going through some sort of process and evolving as policy initiatives.
We've seen a fair bit of that over the last four or five years, although I must say -- I was just thinking of it now as I was speaking -- I don't recall seeing in the performance plan the process that's in the measures and milestones for the balanced-budget legislation. I don't know. Are they in the performance plan? Perhaps the minister can nod or shake his head. I don't think they are. Maybe that's one more indication of where that policy decision came from. I expect it was decided on a Thursday as the speech was being drafted for the Saturday provincial council of the New Democratic Party.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah. My colleague says maybe it's handwritten on one of the backs of the pages, but I don't see it there. Perhaps, as well, that's an indication for us all of just how much depth of preparation and thought have gone into this whole idea of balanced-budget legislation from the government and the Ministry of Finance and the Premier. We can certainly look at that, as I said, sometime later.
[1145]
I do have a couple of general questions for the minister which I don't think require staff, but if they do, I'm willing to move them to a later time in our debate. The minister spoke about some of the things that are in the performance plan, and one of them was the capital planning initiative and the fact that the implementation plan will be ready about two weeks from now, more or less. I think he said by June 30, at the end of this month. Can the minister tell us what the status of that is and if he intends on hitting that June 30 deadline?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the critic for his opening comments as well. It is going to be an interesting year as we look forward. I agree with him that the budget consultation process in the fall will be the real watershed of how we move forward in design of budgets and consultation on budgets.
The only thing I take slight issue with is that I'm not sure that what the committee will find will be so much skepticism as real conflict about what priorities of government should be. That was surely my experience -- and I think it's reflected in the budget documents -- when we did a consultation document last fall and sent it out, did a variety of meetings and got electronic responses, mail responses, fax responses. Priorities of British Columbians do differ: more spending, more tax relief, faster movement towards elimination of deficit and dealing with debt. These are not priorities easily accommodated within one view. It will be an interesting process for members who sit on that committee.
The member talked about the pace of change within some of the central systems that the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations leads in both putting budgets together and reporting on them. I'd agree with him that some of the change has been too slow. I'm very pleased with the progress we've made since Mr. Enns delivered his report last September. I'm not sure I want to push the pace too much faster, or we will have an excellent chance of doing serious damage to some staff, who are really looking at the amount of change they've been participating in the last eight months as quite significant.
I guess the only thing I'd point to as a bit of change that I regret we haven't been able to move forward on is the reform of how we deal with budget estimates in this House. We're now engaged in a very traditional way of doing estimates here in British Columbia. The former Finance critic, Mr. Fred Gingell, had some very strong views on ways to improve the effectiveness of the debates process here and felt that the current process could stand a real overhaul. I do regret that we weren't able to implement some of that in this session.
[1150]
As the member knows, the government chose very deliberately not to include those proposed changes in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, seeking instead to move forward in a consultation process with the official opposition. Regrettably, we were not able to achieve those changes in this session. I do hope that we can come to a broad agreement on ways of reforming this process, because I think it is an important part. I mean, as we shift to performance plans and outcome measures, it's quite clear that this process will have to change. We are not leading the country in how the Legislature itself deals with estimates. As a matter of fact, I would submit that we are, in many cases, trailing.
Having said that, I agree with the member that the performance plan we have in front of us from the Ministry of Finance is, I would call it, a very good first attempt at such a thing. I must say that when the drafts of this were presented to me, I was very impressed both with the format of it, laying out some very clear measures for each of the strategies that are presented and very explicit milestones that will then be reported on next year as to whether they were met or modified or exceeded
I was also very pleased to see what I would say is a writing of it which may not be totally common language of the street, because there are very complex concepts in here, but I did find it far more readable than some government documents I've seen. I think it sets a good hallmark in saying that this is a ministry that wants its objectives and measures and milestones to be understood by the general public, and it sets that out, I think, in some pretty plain language.
The member asked about one specific strategy, the capital planning response to Deloitte. The short answer is yes, we intend to meet the June 30 deadline for a formal response to it. This is a fairly comprehensive piece of work. We have established a steering committee to work with the capital division of the Ministry of Finance. We're not just going to develop a best-practices model within the ministry and then spring it on the rest of the public sector; we're working with them to develop a best-practices model that meets the hallmarks that the Deloitte study set out for us. That steering committee includes representatives of both ministries that have social capital, Crown corporations and all agencies that are now captured in the summary accounts. Under the amendments that we have in Bill 18, which we'll be debating later, we'll now have an increased reporting relationship with the ministry on capital projects.
The Chair: The member continues, noting the time.
G. Farrell-Collins: We'll probably try and squeeze the last five minutes out of this today, if we can. I'm not sure that
[ Page 16648 ]
we're going to get to our sinking funds. I thought we would have started a little earlier this morning. We'll have to come back after lunch and perhaps do that.
I do want to ask the minister a couple of questions in response to the capital management plan. Can he tell me in general, first of all, what the current status is of the awareness, in the Crown corporations in particular, of this report and their requirements to live within those guidelines? I know the report is recent. Has the intent of government to quick-pace the implementation of those recommendations been communicated to the Crown corporations? Are they going to be held accountable to that plan?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, Crown corporations are quite aware of it. I communicated formally with Crown corporations on the desire to have an implementation plan prepared for Deloitte by the end of June as the formal
[1155]
G. Farrell-Collins: When the minister says that representatives of Crowns are there, is that all Crowns? Do all the Crowns have a representative participating in this, particularly the larger ones -- B.C. Hydro, ICBC and others? Are those ones represented?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The steering committee, which really manages the overall work, includes representatives of Hydro, Rail and the Transportation Financing Authority, so you have some of the really significant ones. The working group that's actually doing some of the nitty-gritty of specific elements of the Deloitte study and developing the response to them includes representatives of, it would be fair to say, most Crowns that have any major capital. They will now be required to coordinate far more closely with Treasury Board.
G. Farrell-Collins: I didn't hear the minister mention ICBC. Are they part of this plan? Do they have representatives involved?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, they've been invited to participate in the working group.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure they've been invited. Have they RSVPed? Are they attending? Are they participating? Do we know?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The latest meeting of the working group was yesterday. We'll find out for you by this afternoon.
G. Farrell-Collins: One last question on this: have those Crown corporations been advised? I think the minister said that they had been advised that this implementation plan is being developed. Obviously if they've been invited to these meetings
The Chair: Minister, noting the time.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will be brief in reply. I'll be pleased to provide the member with a copy of the letter sent to all the Crowns regarding the Deloitte study and the expectations for an implementation plan for the Deloitte study. I don't have detailed knowledge of what each individual Crown has done to date since April, when it was released. I would suggest that it might be part of estimates discussion with the ministers responsible for them. Maybe this afternoon we will have some folks in the chamber that are more directly responsible for capital within the Ministry of Finance.
With that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:59 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
[1200]
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:10 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
COOPERATIVES AND VOLUNTEERS
(continued)
On vote 23: ministry operations, $22,730,000 (continued).
J. Reid: To revisit one issue, when we were speeding through yesterday evening on Bladerunners, I just want to clarify the amounts: 120 people enrolled last year in the program at a cost of $1.2 million. I asked how much per person; a
[ Page 16649 ]
figure of $7,000 was given, not $10,000. Could the minister explain where -- if you do the straight math, it's $10,000 -- the discrepancy in that comes in?
Hon. J. Kwan: My apologies to the member. Yesterday I was remiss in not also accounting for approximately 35 senior Bladerunners who would be part of the program. Those seniors receive a component of the subsidies as well -- sorry, not subsidies, but support.
I should actually just take a moment to introduce my staff that are around me. We have John Hill, who is the vice-president and general manager of the Four Corners Community Savings. You recall Stephen Learey, here in anticipation that there might be another question about the Bladerunners program. Behind me is Katrina Elliot, the vice-president, corporate services and corporate secretary of Four Corners Community Savings. And of course, you remember Doug Callbeck; I call him the financial person. And finally there's Hal Gerein, my deputy for the ministry.
J. Reid: So with Bladerunners, with the 120 people, does that include the people who have gone through the initial program? Is that a total? If you could just give me some clarification on that.
Hon. J. Kwan: I guess if you include
J. Reid: The senior Bladerunners' support -- is that partially for wages? What kind of support is this? Is this living allowances? How is this support defined?
Hon. J. Kwan: No, it's not wages or living allowances or anything like that, but rather support and contact with the coordinators to assist them with whatever challenges they face after they have completed the initial phase of the Bladerunners program.
J. Reid: Then that money is part of the administration cost of supporting these people, and it's not support that these people get themselves. Okay, then let's go on.
I want to talk for just a moment about the social alternatives unit. Trying to follow the social alternatives unit through the government has been interesting. It was in the Ministry of Social Development and then was transferred, returned to the ministry, this spring. Can the minister explain why Jim Green and the social alternatives unit have been moved back into this ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: We felt that it was a better fit under the Ministry of Community Development, particularly with my responsibility for the Vancouver Agreement, which very much deals with the work that the unit does. Also, the folks working in the community there know the community very well and have been working with the ministries across government as well as with the city and the federal government. So it was just simply a better fit.
J. Reid: What is the budget for the social alternatives unit?
Hon. J. Kwan: About $220,000.
J. Reid: How many people that are involved in the social alternatives unit are on the payroll of the ministry?
Hon. J. Kwan: Three.
J. Reid: Where does the unit operate out of? Is it out of Vancouver? Is there a storefront office? Is there direct public access? Are there direct services to the public?
[1015]
Hon. J. Kwan: They operate out of Vancouver. There is an office in Vancouver. It is not a storefront in terms of direct access. Oftentimes what staff do is actually go out to the community, as opposed to having the community come to them.
J. Reid: As of September 1999, Jim Green was paid at management level 7. Is this still the case, or has his position been upgraded?
Hon. J. Kwan: It's still the case.
J. Reid: Jim Green, we know, has a strong relationship with housing in the downtown east side. Does the social alternatives unit have a formal relationship with the Ministry of Social Development or B.C. Housing? Is there a formal relationship there? And are there financial transfers between the two bodies?
Hon. J. Kwan: There are no financial transfers. Jim Green, amongst many other duties that he has, is also the lead negotiator for the province on the homelessness file, which falls under the Vancouver Agreement, through which we have been negotiating with the federal government, on which they've made an announcement, etc., etc. But there's no formal relationship other than that housing clearly falls within the rubric of the Social Development and Economic Security ministry. As I said, we were negotiating it under the rubric of the Vancouver Agreement.
J. Reid: Talking about housing issues and homelessness, would the minister advise us as to her ministry's recent activities with respect to the possible sale of the Woodward's Building?
[B. Goodacre in the chair.]
Hon. J. Kwan: The latest with respect to the Woodward's Building, as we understand from information from the city of Vancouver -- although they are not able to provide us with the name of the developer in question -- is that the private developer Kasseem Aghtai is negotiating for the sale of Woodward's to a potential buyer from the United States. In the meantime, the province, along with the city and the federal government, has been negotiating on the issue around Woodward's as well, with a potential partnership between the levels of government.
Those negotiations have been on and off. The reality is this: Kasseem Aghtai is, in my opinion, asking for an unrealistic price for the Woodward's Building. So to that end, the province and the other partners have not been able to secure
[ Page 16650 ]
Woodward's, although we see Woodward's as an important initiative for the downtown east side community. From the community's perspective, they see it as critical to the future of the downtown east side community.
J. Reid: Then it would be my understanding that there aren't any active negotiations going on at this time. Is it still a situation of looking to see if there are any other possibilities? It seems that the province would be out of the running, then, as long as the price remains and as long as there's someone who is interested in the building at that price.
Hon. J. Kwan: We're constantly looking to see whether or not there are opportunities to engage in a partnership with the developer and other levels of government with respect to the Woodward's Building. We have been engaging in those kinds of hopes and dreams for the community, with the community, for a long, long time. We would not give that up until the bitter end, I suppose.
One thing that's important to highlight, as well, is that right now there isn't yet a purchaser. There are potential purchasers of the building; they're engaging in those negotiations with the developer. My understanding is that the potential purchaser has not yet made an application to the city of Vancouver with respect to the development permit.
[1020]
I have spoken with Mayor Philip Owen on that issue. The member will recall that -- I guess it was several weeks ago -- in the Jericho lands in West Point Grey, the city moved very rapidly to ensure that there is a rezoning process in place, even though the proponent of the development does not necessarily require rezoning because it's the same use for the site of Jericho in West Point Grey.
I have spoken with the mayor with respect to that and asked for equal treatment for the downtown east side in that light -- that is, to say that even though there may not be a requirement for rezoning for the Woodward's, should the potential purchaser come through with the deal with the developer, there be a public process required to allow for the say of the community. The same treatment that has been given to West Point Grey is the one that we're now seeking for the Woodward's Building.
I have not received a reply from the city of Vancouver. We're hoping that there is still a glimmer of hope for the community with respect to the Woodward's project.
J. Reid: With regards to the Vancouver Agreement, we touched on this a little bit yesterday with the downtown east side Vancouver Agreement, which doesn't necessarily exclude other areas but is, initially anyway, focused on the downtown east side. Is there actually a plan for the downtown east side that exists separate from the Vancouver Agreement?
What I'm saying with regards to that is that because the Vancouver Agreement is looking at the three parties involved and having to work out the contributions and the participation of those three levels of government, does the ministry or the provincial government look at the downtown east side separately? Not just saying that the only things they can do have to be through the Vancouver Agreement, but is there the opportunity to look at initiatives that are separate from the Vancouver Agreement?
Hon. J. Kwan: There are opportunities for all levels of government to continue their work in the community. The Vancouver Agreement does not preclude any level of government engaging in their activities on an ongoing basis. Oftentimes, where the pieces within the Vancouver Agreement
J. Reid: We're a year into the Vancouver Agreement, and there was promised an implementation schedule. Is there an implementation schedule that exists for the Vancouver Agreement?
Hon. J. Kwan: The three levels of government are engaging in negotiations with respect to the implementation schedule. In the meantime, the communities are working hard consulting with each other and also prioritizing for government areas or initiatives that they deem to be a priority. We're anticipating that the three levels of government will have an implementation plan later on this summer.
J. Reid: Certainly when the announcements were made about the Vancouver Agreement and the five-year agreement, we were all led to believe that an implementation schedule for the first year would be produced very quickly. In fact, the press release said that the implementation schedule for the first year -- including activities, time lines and commitments -- would follow shortly after the September release. Have we seen any implementation schedule for the year that has just passed?
Hon. J. Kwan: With respect to the implementation schedule, it is absolutely critical that we work in tandem with the community. In speaking with the community, they came back and said to us and expressed very clearly: "Please don't come in and do things for us. Work with us, include us, and let us tell you what it is that we need as a component of the initiatives."
[1025]
I have personally met with some of the community leaders with respect to that, and they advised us: "Don't be in such a big rush. We know that these are big challenges, but they also require and need consultation with the community, and the community needs to be at the table with respect to that." So the three levels of government respect that. In the meantime, while implementation is scheduled per se, there isn't a full one until that process is complete.
What we do have in place, though, are the initiatives that we announced prior to the implementation schedule of the Vancouver Agreement. A series of announcements were made last year, which is why I say that those are the initiatives that are in the spirit of the Vancouver Agreement, while not part of it. While we're working on getting the implementation schedule and consultation and all of that where negotiation is completed, we weren't halting the work that needed to be done with all three levels of government.
J. Reid: How does the budgeting process work for the Vancouver Agreement? It's a five-year agreement, and it's
[ Page 16651 ]
obvious that many ministries will be participating in it. Is there a budget set for the Vancouver Agreement, and how is that budgeting taking place?
Hon. J. Kwan: To also just highlight for the member's information, the Vancouver Agreement was signed off on January 25, 2000. We had a draft Vancouver Agreement done last summer; the final agreement was actually signed off in January. We're anticipating that the implementation plan will likely come out sometime this summer.
In terms of expenses for the Vancouver Agreement, it breaks down as follows: $560,000 in contributions from other ministries and $87,000 from my ministry, for a total of $667,000.
J. Reid: With the Vancouver Agreement, part of it is that it would be done at a fairly high level -- that the discussions would take place between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. In fact, in the agreement itself it says ministers or designates. I was just wondering how many meetings have been held, if any, with the federal minister, the provincial minister and the mayor, not their designates.
Hon. J. Kwan: I don't recall how many meetings we've had to date. We've had a number of different meetings. Where we don't meet in person, such as when we're sitting in the House
J. Reid: Under the Vancouver Agreement, three committees were going to be established: policy, management and community. What's the progress on those committees?
Hon. J. Kwan: I am guessing that the member is referring to community directions in terms of the community meetings and committees. If that is correct, my understanding is that those meetings are progressing well. The communities are also meeting regularly, in terms of getting input from each other and in prioritizing the policy direction that they would like to see government take.
J. Reid: In the draft agreement it actually said that there were going to be three committees struck: a policy committee, a management committee and the community committee. Have these committees been struck?
Interjection.
J. Reid: They have been meeting; all right.
It said in the draft agreement that was signed off by the minister that the initial implementation schedule would be developed within three months of the signing of this agreement. If it was signed in January, then obviously we're already behind schedule. Why would the minister agree to an implementation schedule within three months and sign off on that, and then find that the ministry wasn't able to deliver on that?
[1030]
Hon. J. Kwan: Initially the three levels of government had wanted to move forward with the implementation plan as soon as possible. As I said earlier in consultation, the draft Vancouver Agreement was sent to many members out in the community to ask for feedback. It was posted on the web site and so on. The feedback that we got from the community is that the community wanted to take some ownership in terms of this process. They wanted to engage and discuss what their priorities are; they wanted to do an inventory.
So there were a number of things that came back from the community in terms of how we proceed. The three levels of government wanted to respect that. It is important to respect that, because these are the initiatives that are being worked out with the community, impacting the community. Therefore their say and their direction or advice to the three levels of government were taken seriously. As such, we opted to respect that.
J. Reid: In reading the Vancouver Agreement, it talks about crime; it talks about health concerns; it talks about housing. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in it anywhere is mental health. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the role of mental health is in the overall project.
Hon. J. Kwan: In the agreement it talks broadly about these categories. Under health, if you will, is really a range of health issues. As the member knows, in the downtown east side community there are many people who have mental illnesses -- but not just mental illnesses. As well, many of them are either dual-diagnosed or multi-diagnosed. Those are the challenges of the downtown east side. So in that light, mental health is a huge component within the work of the Vancouver Agreement, recognizing that the population base of the community is fraught with many challenges ranging from mental health to, as I said, multi- or dual-diagnoses.
There are other components as well, which we didn't specify outright necessarily. But they are critical components within it as well. Again, that's a reflection of the demographics of the downtown east side community, whether it be first nations community issues, whether it be women, or women with children or people with a range of different challenges and so on. So we don't necessarily highlight those as specific categories, but it is broadly understood that those are the challenges that are inclusive in the target and objectives that we need to meet.
J. Reid: Then I'd ask the minister in her capacity to direct this for the province: what priority is she placing on mental health? What would she like to see achieved for a mental health plan in this area?
Hon. J. Kwan: The mental health plan is one that falls under the Ministry of Health. Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, the demographics of the downtown east side community are many people with mental illnesses, if you will, but not just solely in that rubric but rather broader than that, who are multiply diagnosed. So we're looking at, under the Vancouver Agreement, a comprehensive approach in trying to address these challenges, which is why the Vancouver Agreement touches on issues around housing in terms of stability. Whether a person has or does not have a mental illness, they need stable housing, as an example.
[ Page 16652 ]
People need employment training initiative opportunities to develop their potential and be offered choices. That's another aspect within the Vancouver Agreement. We're also looking at substance misuse as a huge component, because many of the folks in the community, once again, whether they have a mental illness or not, are dealing with substance misuse challenges. Many of them are dual-diagnosed or multiple-diagnosed, so we looked at that as a category within the health of individuals and the health of the community as well.
Those things also tie into crime and safety, impacting the community more broadly. Many people, as I know the member can anticipate, exploit members of the community, especially those who are faced with challenges, mental illnesses or otherwise. So from a crime safety point of view, we're looking at safety for the community as well as the people from downtown east side, whether you are somebody faced with substance misuse or not.
[1035]
J. Reid: For the sake of saving time, hon. Chair, I think that we're fairly aware of these issues in the downtown east side -- what the minister is saying. Yes, we understand that those are the issues.
What I would like to ask here is if there are any specifics. Rather than giving general statements about these or all the components of the problems, what I'd like to know is: are there any specific plans or specific objectives that the minister is advocating for with a whole range of things? These are mental health, the homeless and the detox beds, and some of my colleagues will be canvassing these issues. So to talk in generalities about "We care about these things; we're looking at it as part of the plan" -- unless there's something specific, then we'd appreciate it being acknowledged that there isn't. We certainly aren't going to achieve anything by saying that we do have concerns and that there's a whole range of issues to be looked at.
So specifically with mental health, is there something that this minister is advocating for in this area with the Minister of Health?
Hon. J. Kwan: The specifics that the member mentions are the work that's underway under the implementation plan. All of the items that the member has mentioned -- services for people with mental illness, addressing the issue of homelessness, addressing substance misuse, employment and training opportunities, the whole gamut -- are the things that we are absolutely advocating for.
Not only are we advocating for it, the three levels of government recognize that there needs to be a comprehensive approach in addressing these issues. There's no single silver bullet that comes in to fix the problem just like that. And also, recognizing that the three levels of government need to coordinate, we need to draw on the resources and the strengths of the community at the same time. We need to recognize that we do, with the three levels of government, invest right now a significant amount of dollars in the community.
But we're not getting the results yet. The problem is actually getting more and more difficult. There are more overdose deaths in the downtown east side community. The number of folks who are infected with HIV/AIDS are increasing, and those numbers are horrifying. We want to look and see how we can effectively come up with initiatives that will deal with and address these challenges.
So the specifics -- definitely in terms of advocating for them, in terms of broad topics of what we're doing, in terms of the actual actions and what those might be -- are all under negotiations right now with the other levels of government. Once we have it all in place, it would be in the implementation plan.
J. Reid: This was an issue that we talked about yesterday, about this ministry taking a look if the projects within the downtown east side under the Vancouver Agreement were going to be financially tracked. And the minister gave the assurance that that is going to happen. I will be able to ask for the money spent in this area now that this Vancouver Agreement is going ahead, and I'll be able to get those figures.
With the housing projects, there are two provincially funded housing co-ops worth more than $28 million. Could the minister explain what those two projects are and how much money the province is putting in?
Hon. J. Kwan: When the member says that there are two housing projects, I'm venturing to guess that it would be the Sunrise Hotel and the Washington Hotel, although I would need a little bit more specifics to get an idea of what direction we are going.
J. Reid: From the news release "First Provincially Funded Co-ops for Downtown East Side. Two Co-op Projects. Lore Krill Housing Co-op" -- if that rings any bells.
But the figures that I have don't add up to $28 million, so I'm just wondering where that is coming from -- where the funding is coming from and how much the province is putting into it.
Hon. J. Kwan: These are the pre-Vancouver Agreement announcements. Those are the announcements that were made in the spirit of the Vancouver Agreement, and the contributions or the dollar figures that you're looking for were found at B.C. Housing within the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security.
J. Reid: I'm going to let my colleague ask a few questions, and then we're going to be canvassing the Four Corners bank.
[1040]
L. Stephens: I want to talk a little bit about the Vancouver Agreement. I know that Vancouver city council did quite an extensive study on the downtown east side and what some of the services were required down there. Housing was one; of course, drug and alcohol addiction services were another. Mental health services were another one. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not the sobering centre, which was one of the first initiatives that was announced, has proceeded. If it hasn't, why hasn't it? What are the plans to put that one forward?
Hon. J. Kwan: The member is right in that there have been numerous studies by the city of Vancouver, the province, the federal government, academics -- just hundreds and hundreds of studies -- done about the downtown east side. So there is no shortage of studies; let me just say that.
The sobering centre was a component under the Vancouver Agreement, and the sobering centre is not yet up and
[ Page 16653 ]
running. Part of the issue is with respect to a site in terms of locating a site. There was a site located. The city of Vancouver originally was putting forward the old, I would venture to say, drunk tank in the existing police station at 312 Main Street. Since that time, other issues have arisen. Therefore the site remains to be finalized and to be worked out. As soon as those items are resolved, the sobering centre can be well on its way.
L. Stephens: This has been ongoing for quite some time, and I know the city has been in discussion with the ministry about the costs of the facility and the location. Has there been a budget set aside in this particular budget for that project?
Hon. J. Kwan: The budget is actually set aside in the Ministry for Children and Families, MCF. The budget is set aside, being held, for operating the sobering centre. Initially the city actually came forward with the site, and they were going to contribute the site to a sobering centre. But since that time there have been issues that the city has identified, and those need to be resolved. But the operating moneys are set aside for it.
L. Stephens: How much are those moneys?
Hon. J. Kwan: To my best recollection, it's about $700,000, but I stand corrected if my memory does not serve me well this morning.
L. Stephens: One of the other issues that's come up repeatedly down there is the services for women, particularly aboriginal women, and that crosses all of these areas that we've been talking about. Is there a strategy that the ministry is developing under this agreement to deal specifically with aboriginal women? Is it complete? If it is, would the opposition have access to a copy of it?
Hon. J. Kwan: All three levels of government have recognized the need to address the aboriginal community and particularly women. So to that end, my interests, Minister Hedy Fry's interests and the mayor's interests have been strong in this area. We are, within the implementation plan, taking into consideration the need for that. I should also highlight, though, that details of that plan would be outlined in the implementation plan at least for the first year, and it would ultimately be a five-year implementation plan. But we are working to bring forward the first year of the implementation plan shortly.
L. Stephens: I'm presuming that the implementation plan is in stages. The first stage, if I understand the minister correctly, will be one that is going to announced shortly.
[1045]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. J. Kwan: We're hopeful that we can have the first year of the implementation plan of the five-year plan available sometime this summer. As I said earlier to the opposition critic, the three levels of government are working hard on that along with consultation with the community.
L. Stephens: The consultation with the community -- I know the critic was canvassing this. What are some of those organizations in the community that are being consulted with and on what kind of a regular basis? The reason I ask this is because this has been ongoing for a long time, and I know the minister is aware of that. She's been very active in advocating for these services on the downtown east side. We've got the provincial health officer, and the minister herself said that a number of studies have been done repeatedly on the issues that affect the downtown east side. There's nothing but talk, talk, talk.
There isn't any action coming from the government at all. And now we're talking about an implementation plan that
Is the problem here money? Is it because the government doesn't have any money to spend? Is that why they're dragging their feet? It's certainly not because they can't get cooperation from the local government or from the federal government either. There has to be more action on these issues than what the minister is telling us right now. So if she can add anything else to this discussion, I'd be happy to hear it.
Hon. J. Kwan: In terms of the consultation, the process actually was one where the three levels of government had agreed to hire a community person, who will then in turn draw input from the broader community, whether it be community groups, residents, businesses, etc. That group is headed under an umbrella called community directions.
They have regular meetings -- they're too numerous to even venture to say how often they meet -- to bring their opinions and thoughts and priorities together. That work has been underway. It's actually funded by the federal government, but an agreement, again in the spirit of the Vancouver Agreement, has been put under the umbrella of the Vancouver Agreement.
In terms of action in this area, I would venture to say that it's false to say that there's been no action. There has been action, and a lot of that ties into announcements predating the Vancouver Agreement. However, they are announcements that are made in the spirit of the Vancouver Agreement. The Vancouver Agreement was signed in January of this year, and the draft agreement was signed last summer.
The intent of the draft agreement was to send it out to the community to invite input before any actual actions are taken. And through that feedback from the community
What are some of things that we have done? If we talk about housing initiatives predating the Vancouver Agreement, I mentioned a little bit earlier the Sunrise Hotel and the Washington Hotel, which are funded by a number of different partners. Within it there are other initiatives as well. The Portland Hotel will be opening very shortly. The Lore Krill Co-op is also funded by B.C. Housing. Those are some examples.
There are other examples through my own ministry in terms of funding initiatives and employment training. Common area concerns comes to mind. FarmFolk/CityFolk is a very innovative project for creating a community garden in the downtown east side, which is very short of greenspace. But the community garden is actually not just about a garden
[ Page 16654 ]
but rather draws in multicultural communities in bringing their skills in the areas of gardening -- not gardening just for the sake of gardening but also being practical, on the other side of it. That is, gardening with produce that could be used for residents of that particular building, as an example.
So there are many, many examples -- too numerous, really, for me to account for -- of all these actions and activities in the community, in trying to meet some of the challenges there.
[1050]
L. Stephens: The opposition meets with the groups from the downtown east side as well. I just want to put on the record what they've been telling us the gaps in service are down there. I'm sure the minister knows this as well, but I want this on the record.
More beds needed for transition homes, more follow-up programs for mothers and children after leaving transition homes, more detoxification beds for women, more substance abuse treatment centres for women
The specific gaps in service, as well, are supportive recovery programs for women, emergency shelters for women and emergency shelters for women and their children. That is another issue. I know this falls under the health and safety component of the agreement. Many people there also believe that some of these services should not be located in the east side of Vancouver. I'd like to know if the minister feels the same way -- that some of these services for people on the downtown east side should not be located on the downtown east side. That's the first question.
The second one is: how many detox beds are there on the downtown east side, and how many treatment beds are on the downtown east side? I appreciate that Children and Families, Health and some of the other ministries have direct responsibilities for these programs and services. However, because the Vancouver Agreement is overarching, if you like, on these kinds of issues, I expect the ministry and the minister to have those kinds of numbers for her decision-making ability when she's dealing with this particular agreement.
Hon. J. Kwan: Just to correct the date, actually, the Vancouver Agreement, after the draft on the January 25 date that I mentioned earlier -- this was actually not the day on which we signed the agreement. That was when the final agreement went public. The signing date of the Vancouver Agreement was actually March 9. So I just want to make sure that I didn't create confusion on the issues around date.
The question around whether or not services should be provided in the downtown east side is a longstanding debate within the community. There are segments of the community that say: "Yes, there needs to be more services in the community." Yet on the other hand, there are folks in the community who say: "Well, no, we have too many services already." Therefore some of those services need to be outside the community.
From that point of view, I am looking to the community for direction in terms of what they feel is appropriate for them. I know there's almost unanimous opinion with respect to the need for housing. I think almost everyone, including myself, agrees that there needs to be more affordable housing in the downtown east side community, because there are some 7,000 people who live in the SRO hotels. These hotels -- I don't need to tell the member; she's nodding, and I'm sure you've seen them -- are just deplorable derelict buildings that are not really fit for housing anyone.
So we need to work towards replacing those units and getting those units upgraded. That's in the downtown east side community. Along with my colleagues in Vancouver-Burrard as well
In terms of other services, it is a debate that goes on. On the one hand, the community argues that there needs to be more detox services; but on the other hand, people say that they need to have the detox outside of the downtown east side community. There are actually different opinions with respect to that, and that's a matter that needs to come to resolution.
Certainly some members of the community are advising me that there can be some need for some detox service in the downtown east side community. But equally important, there needs to be detox services, recovery homes, etc., outside of the downtown east side community. To that end, I know that the Ministry for Children and Families actually announced last year close to $10 million in detox services, almost all of it outside the downtown east side community. There are a couple of beds that were reserved for the downtown east side community targeting youth, more particularly.
[1055]
In terms of the actual number of beds and where they are located, I actually don't have those numbers readily available with me. But we can provide that information to the member, with information from the Ministry for Children and Families. I don't have those numbers off the top of my head.
L. Stephens: I want to thank the minister for her answers today. I somewhat sympathize with her, because I do know that there is some toing and froing in the community. At the end of the day, what is probably going to be required is for the minister to make a decision, to just take some leadership and do what she and her government think is appropriate. There are some very strongly held views of organizations down there. I think everyone knows what the problem is; the discussion is around how to solve it. That's, I think, squarely in the court of the minister.
So I encourage her to do that, to make some decisions and take some leadership and try to provide those services for all of those people on the downtown east side that require it so desperately.
J. Reid: I'd like to ask some questions about the Four Corners bank. To start off with, the initial question is: is there an up-to-date business plan for the bank?
Hon. J. Kwan: The Four Corners Community Savings has actually prepared a business plan. It just recently went to Treasury Board, so upon final approval by Treasury Board, that business plan would be made available.
I. Chong: Last year I pursued this matter with the former minister. There were a number of matters that the minister was to provide to me, which I don't believe I've received to date. I'll continue to press on to see whether we might be able
[ Page 16655 ]
to receive those this year -- in particular, the financial statements. The most recent I have is for March 31, 1999 -- the year-end being March 31, of course. For the year 2000 we have not yet seen that financial statement; we have asked staff for it. In the past, I've seen it issued in May. In fact, the auditor's report for the '99 fiscal year-end has May 19 as the issue date. We're a month behind this year in having the statements out. I'm wondering if there's a problem, or where we might be with that.
Hon. J. Kwan: The financial statements -- the audited financial statements -- are due at the end of the month, so we're not late for the financial statements in terms of meeting the expectations of the targeted date.
For the member's information, there's a draft financial statement which is going to the board, I believe, some time this week for their approval. I imagine that the final work, in terms of it being finalized with the audit, will certainly be ready prior to the end of the month.
I. Chong: I was not suggesting that you were not making your target goal. In fact, if you just set your target goal far enough, you will always make it. It's just that in the last two years we have seen them issued in May. As I say, looking at the auditor's report of March 31 '99, May 19 was when it was issued. I just thought perhaps there might have been a problem. Change of accountants sometimes creates a delay. If those are not part of the problem, then I would suggest to the minister that it's not a difficult statement to prepare, from what I can gather. There aren't a lot of categories; there aren't a lot of issues. It really shouldn't take that long. But as I say, if there are other internal problems, then so be it.
I am concerned that if we move it right to the expectation deadline of June 30 being the date that it should be issued, then we're taking advantage of the time frame given as opposed to trying to provide it on a timely basis. It makes it very difficult for estimates. We're at this time of year when we are always looking at the financial statement.
Having said that, I would like to ask some questions. Perhaps if staff have the draft financial statements with them, they can answer. It's very difficult going into the year 2000-01 not even having the actual statistics for the year '99-2000. I will try to ask the question in the context of where we might be going, given the restrictions I have.
In the area of term deposits, last year there had been a substantial increase. I'm wondering what the anticipated term deposit asset value might be. In '99 it was $28.5 million; in '98 it was $26.3 million. Where are we in this particular year, as an estimate, if possible?
[1100]
Hon. J. Kwan: The date which I have referenced is the legislated date for which the statements are to be audited and completed. We don't anticipate any problems in meeting that time line at all.
As to why the statements are later this year than they were last year, I can assure the member that it's not because of problems with the statements at all. It's just that procedurally that's how it worked out. The staff were always under the impression that the deadline they must meet is end of the month. The change of auditors might have delayed the process, but it really is not as a result of any problems in that vein.
The term deposit number that the member is looking for, the unaudited number, is $20,502,688.
I. Chong: So that's an $8 million decrease from last year, in terms of the term deposits on hand. Can the minister advise whether
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.
I. Chong: In the area of loans and mortgages receivable, again, from the 1998 year to the 1999 year, there are a number of substantial increases. I'm wondering where we are in the year 2000, just ended.
Hon. J. Kwan: It's $3.6 million.
I. Chong: So loans receivable and mortgages receivable have jumped up to $3.6 million, where in the past they had been around $300,000. That's a substantial increase. Without the benefit of even reviewing the draft financial statements limited to those criteria, I'm wondering: with these loans, are aging analyses prepared? Are there criteria set out to ensure that if any potential risks exists, those are measured in a timely fashion to ensure that there aren't write-offs, doubtful accounts and things of that nature? If so, can the minister advise what those criteria are?
This is a special bank; I recognize that. It is to deal specifically
Hon. J. Kwan: I thank the member for recognizing the importance of Four Corners Community Savings. It is, I would venture to say, not just a financial service agency to some 5,000 people in the downtown east side community who could otherwise not get banking services that we all take for granted. Certainly I've taken it for granted since I was nine years old. Yet I've seen that in the downtown east side, many of the folks -- adults, children, seniors, women, whatever -- have had difficulty accessing this service for many, many years. To that end, it is an important service.
Moreover, I would venture to say that the Four Corners Community Savings is not only a place where we provide a service but a gathering place for the community. It provides for services that cannot be accounted for financially. I cannot highlight the successes of the bank from that point of view.
Just most recently, a celebrated component of Four Corners Community Savings is the fact that the corporate lawyer for Four Corners Community Savings is a person with disabilities and was a person on income assistance. He was called to the bar and has successfully completed his studies, and he is now the lawyer for Four Corners Community Savings. That is not unlike many of the stories in the downtown east side community and the work that Four Corners Community has actually done. Many of the employees there are people who were once upon a time on income assistance.
[1105]
[ Page 16656 ]
Also, in attracting other community services in the spirit of celebrating the community, really celebrating the strength of the community, and bringing the social fabric of the community together, we have folks who come in to volunteer, to have operas and different things like that at their expense, at Four Corners Community Savings.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Kwan: I see that there's a member who's annoyed with this information. But I'm providing this information by way of backdrop. I feel that Four Corners Community Savings is very important. Yes, all members in the House are allowed to express their opinions, as too am I as the minister. I want to express the importance of the bank, and I thank the member for acknowledging that.
In terms of the effective management of risk in Four Corners Community Savings, it is a high priority for the institution. The monthly financial reporting system includes prudent asset and liability management, careful monitoring of the liquidity, capital adequacy, loan safety, investments and matching to ensure that all regulatory requirements are being met. This information is shared on a continuous basis with Treasury Board and FICOM. In addition, the investment and loan committee utilizes a prudent approach to lending activities, which ensures not only that risk is minimized but that profitability and ethical lending practices are maintained.
I. Chong: It's important to note those criteria for the record, so that we will be able to monitor and measure that.
Given that the loans for
Hon. J. Kwan: No loans were written off. The loan loss allowance is less than a quarter of 1 percent.
I. Chong: I note, comically, that the minister stated that since she was nine
In any event, I also notice in the financial statements for 1999, under the liability section, that we have RSPs, registered savings plan deposits, another new function that the bank is providing. Can the minister advise what the year 2000 participation is for RSPs?
Hon. J. Kwan: For the member's clarification, when I was referencing that I have enjoyed banking services since I was nine, the point was that I have been able to access banking services -- unlike the folks in the community of the downtown east side, until Four Corners Community Savings opened.
On the question around RSPs, the total amount is $180,000.
I. Chong: In the RSP program, to determine its effectiveness I would presume that these funds are managed by professionals and that the moneys may be received by the bank. Or are they in fact moneys that are
Hon. J. Kwan: They're GICs.
I. Chong: In the area of share capital, I note that in 1998 it's $7 million and then $10 million in 1999. I believe I posed the question to the minister last year to find assurances that there were no changes. I'd like confirmation that the share capital structure is still at $10 million.
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.
[1110]
I. Chong: In the area of losses, can the minister advise at this time what the projected loss for the year 2000 will be? I'm presuming it will be a loss.
Hon. J. Kwan: It's $920,719.
I. Chong: The last two years they were running around $700,000, so that's a $200,000 increase this year. I recognize that there could have been issues such as year 2000; we are seeing that in all financial statements as an additional cost. Was that extra $200,000 loss a result of any other extraordinary expenditures?
Hon. J. Kwan: Part of it is because the Four Corners Community Savings did not have the approval from CMHC for the loan component until the latter part of last year, so there was a delay that impacted the bottom line. There was also a 2 percent staff wage increase and the comptroller and marketing rep's salaries. A number of those factors came into play that impacted the bottom line.
I. Chong: When we get those statements, it will be easier and more clear to us as to what's happened.
In the business plan that was prepared some years ago, the Four Corners Community Savings bank was expected to earn a profit in the fifth year. I know that was revised such that the '99-2000 plan had stated that it was planning to break even as early as the year 2003-04, which is four years hence. I realize that a business plan is still being drafted. Is it still a feasibility that a break-even could be occurring within four years?
Hon. J. Kwan: It is feasible. However, we do also want to highlight that there are many challenges which the Four Corners Community Savings is faced with. The reality is that the more successful Four Corners becomes, in terms of ensuring that low-income people have access to banking services at no fees to them, the greater the financial challenge in terms of meeting the bottom line of a balanced budget on the Four Corners Community Savings. So in a way we're caught in situation where the more successful we become, the greater our challenges also become.
I. Chong: Just a few more quick questions. On bank indebtedness, a line of credit was authorized for $500,000; it was on the financial statement last year. No dollar figure was
[ Page 16657 ]
attached, so I presume there was no drawdown. Can I assume that for the year 2000, there was still no drawdown on that amount?
Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.
I. Chong: Also, in reference to note 11 in last year's financial statement, there was a data-processing contract. Can the minister advise who that contract was for, whether it was a government-related agency or an outside marketer?
Hon. J. Kwan: Outside contractor.
I. Chong: The last area that I'd like to canvass is related-party transactions. We raised this issue last year as to the amounts on deposit. Last year we found that of the $22 million on deposit, $13 million were from three major Crowns: FRBC, ICBC and BCTFA. Can the minister advise whether the numbers have changed as to the Crowns that are participating? And can we get a breakdown of the amount? Last year the minister didn't have the information with him; he said he would endeavour to get that information to me. I have not yet seen that. However, I note that in related-party transactions, there are a whole host of other items that are disclosed. Their being provincial Crowns, I can't see a necessity not to provide that information. I would hate to go through FOI for purposes of receiving it.
[1115]
In addition, I have endeavoured to canvass Crowns at times when I am available during the estimates, to ask them if they have made deposits in Four Corners. Quite often the CEOs of these Crowns just don't know, because it's not a detail that they carry in their heads, and I don't blame them. So if there is a schedule of breakdowns, perhaps I could ask this minister to indulge me and provide that to me as soon as that is available.
Again, if she would like to comment, fine. If she would just like to provide that commitment, I would appreciate it. I want to thank her and her staff at this time for providing me with answers today.
Hon. J. Kwan: What I can provide the member is the broad categories, in terms of the breakdown, within different sectors in their deposits in the Four Corners Community Savings, in which they get competitive interest rates and better secured protection for their dollars. We're not able to provide the individual deposits, because we're bound by confidentiality clauses both within government and within the financial agencies' guidelines.
I can give the member the broad categories; actually, I can give that to the member now. Relative to last year and this year, universities and colleges actual to date, $373,750; community organizations, $583,342; Crowns, $14,502,057; labour, $2,448,466; private, $2,595,073 -- for a total of $20,502,688. This is only up to March. I know that in the last couple of months we actually exceeded our deposit targets. In the last couple of months we yielded close to another $5 million that's not accounted for in these statements.
J. Reid: I would like to thank the minister and her staff. We're going to be eagerly awaiting the implementation schedule for the Vancouver Agreement, obviously. To discuss it has been very frustrating. There's been nothing forthcoming to be able to look at, to be able to discuss the merits of or the concerns of. I'm quite disappointed that it hasn't been ready and available to us at this time. So we do want to be kept apprised of that, and we do look forward to receiving it and having the opportunity for feedback. Once again I thank the staff for their cooperation.
Hon. J. Kwan: I too am anxiously wanting to have the implementation plan completed. As soon as we have that material available, we will gladly make it available to the member opposite and also to the broader community, because all three levels of government have been working hard on that along with the community.
Vote 23 approved.
The committee recessed from 11:19 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
On vote 25: ministry operations, $37,154,000.
The Chair: Are there opening comments?
S. Hawkins: I hope not.
Hon. G. Wilson: You hope not?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I'm certainly more than happy to waive that.
S. Hawkins: If the minister would accommodate this, that would be great. We can make our opening comments at a later date, but the member for Chilliwack has to be somewhere else this afternoon. So if we could start canvassing the area of trade this morning, that would be very helpful. If I could just add that I appreciate the cooperation and the briefings we had from the ministry staff, they were very helpful. Thank you.
B. Penner: I appreciate my colleague's indulgence. I do have a prior commitment for this afternoon involving the Big Brothers Association in Chilliwack. It's an annual event that I try to get to every year.
The first question to the minister is a question about the budget for the B.C. Trade and Investment Office. That is the division within the ministry that's responsible for trade matters on behalf of the province of British Columbia. Last fiscal year, '99-2000, the allotted budget for that office was $10.381 million. This year there's been an almost 20 percent increase, I believe, in the allotment for the B.C. Trade and Investment Office -- to $12.862 million. I note that the number of FTEs has not changed year over year. I wonder if the minister can explain to me why the almost 20 percent increase in the budget for that office.
The Chair: Before the answer, I recognize the hon. minister, and I would ask the minister to introduce staff.
[ Page 16658 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I was going to do that anyway. With me today are the deputy minister, Charles Kang; the assistant deputy minister, Chris Nelson; and also Doug Callbeck and Mark Lofthouse from the ministry.
Let me just quickly answer. The $2.5 million that you refer to is increased as a result of Western Star.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister can just explain a bit more about the $2.5 million. That's entirely funding that's going to Western Star, and it's not to assist in any other way for the B.C. Trade and Investment Office functions?
Hon. G. Wilson: No, it's the training component for Western Star.
B. Penner: For fiscal '99-2000, I believe the budget for ministerial travel -- that's travel related to trade trips -- was $82,000. That was the budgeted amount. What is the budgeted amount for similar travel in fiscal 2000-01?
Hon. G. Wilson: It's $82,000; it's the same.
B. Penner: Can the minister tell us how the ministry did last year -- in fiscal 1999-2000 -- in terms of living within that budget of $82,000? What was the actual amount spent?
Hon. G. Wilson: We don't have the actual number, but I'm happy to get you that actual number in terms of what the total was when the books closed.
B. Penner: During estimates debate last year on this item, we learned that in the year prior to last year, the ministry had overspent the travel budget by about 50 percent. In 1998-99 it had been budgeted at $82,000, and we were told last year that the actual had been $121,000. That's why I'm asking what the actual result was last year, just to see if the ministry's been able to get a handle on those expenses and live within that $82,000 allotment. Again, the relevance of the question goes to the likelihood of the ministry staying within the $82,000 budget for the coming year or the current year.
[1130]
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, it's a good question, and I will get you that answer. The member will be aware, from previous years, that the total number we're talking about includes all ministerial travel. We don't necessarily control where they go or the ministers who travel; we simply pay the bills. I am happy to get you that number, and perhaps we can revisit it.
B. Penner: I understand that these estimates may carry over to next week, so if the information can be provided by Monday, that would be most helpful.
The next item on my short list of topics relates to the investment office's budget; that's the budget for the various investment offices the ministry maintains in different parts of the world. I know that the number has shrunk over the years. Last year the budget was $1.25 million, I believe, for all of the different offices in their different permutations. How much is allotted this year to operate those offices?
Hon. G. Wilson: It's about $1.2 million.
B. Penner: Am I correct in assuming, then, that that's a $50,000 decrease from the previous year? I believe the previous year was $1.25 million.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that would be correct. We have wound down some operations overseas, so it would be a reduction.
B. Penner: Can the minister tell us which operations were wound down and where the savings resulted?
Hon. G. Wilson: Hong Kong. Dickson Hall has been wound down in Hong Kong, and there is also a marginal decrease in Taipei.
B. Penner: I'd like to move to the issue of incoming and outgoing trade missions. I believe that last year British Columbia hosted something in the order of 130 trade missions from perhaps 35 different countries. Is that number accurate? Does it represent an increase or a decrease from the preceding year?
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that we do try to differentiate between economic and cultural missions. So depending on how you define them, it's between 130 and 150 missions -- a significant portion of them from China.
B. Penner: I wonder if any trends have become apparent. Are we witnessing an increase in the number of trade-related incoming missions to British Columbia, or has that number been fairly static over the years? I seem to recall seeing some figures indicating that, if anything, we're maybe down slightly -- that perhaps a few years ago we might have had a high of about 150 incoming visits in a given year. I note that the business plan for the current year talks about 130 missions being the target. Again, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I believe that's down slightly from a high of about 150 trade missions in previous years.
Hon. G. Wilson: There has been a slight decrease from Asia as a result of the Asian economy. However, we are now seeing a recovery, and we anticipate that there will be increased trade missions from Asia. There is a substantial increase in interest from China. The difficulty is that we have to differentiate between those that are diplomatic trade missions, those that are cultural missions and those that are coming here particularly for investment and trade issues. Certainly we have 130 as our target, and we believe we'll hit that.
[1135]
B. Penner: Is there a standard process that the ministry follows whenever there is a trade mission or a visit that falls within those 130 that we're talking about? Is there a standard protocol that is followed, a standard form of a reception or a certain number of officials that meet with visitors to this province?
The reason I ask this question relates to a personal experience. Last year I met with a number of people from, I think, Guangdong province in China, who were in Chilliwack looking to set up a textile manufacturing operation on some lands known as Legacy Pacific, a small industrial park. To my knowledge, that contact had been arranged essentially on a private basis. I don't know if the ministry even knew that these people were here. They just happened to be driving down the highway when they saw the sign that said: "Call the mayor if you're interested in business." The next thing I knew I was invited to come meet these people on short notice on a
[ Page 16659 ]
weekend, before they left the country. That type of a visit may well be outside of the 130 that we're talking about, yet it's clearly related to potential economic development.
When you talk about these 130 visits, what do they mean? Does the ministry roll out the red carpet? What kind or level of service do we provide?
Hon. G. Wilson: There were several questions in those questions. It depends on who's coming, and it depends on what their status is within government -- if they're actually on an official government-to-government mission or if they're coming from within the industrial sector and therefore are sanctioned by government to come and are looking to meet and talk with members of government. It depends on who it is that's coming and what the status of the delegation is from the country of origin.
As to what kind of response they're going to get from us, there's a protocol arrangement, obviously. If heads of state or leaders or ministers are travelling to the province in a formal way, it means that we will set up meetings and try to host, where possible, their entry into the province. We will work to facilitate meetings, if they ask for them, with various sectors in the province.
We certainly don't control everybody who comes into the province. It is not unrealistic at all to anticipate that a group of business entrepreneurs may be entering British Columbia to see what opportunities there may be. There may be business-to-business connections that we are unaware of, and that's great. If we can expand and facilitate the expansion of the economy without our direct involvement, then that's much better.
B. Penner: That leads to my next question: what is the average cost to the taxpayer for these 130 incoming missions? Or to put the question another way, what is the total amount budgeted for the 130 incoming trade missions that are hosted by this ministry?
Hon. G. Wilson: I want to give you as accurate an answer as I can. I'd have to say that we don't have an average number. We can't put on a number that we can be certain would be average, because a lot of the costs incurred are staff costs -- the people involved in the international trade section who are going to give time to work with and meet with and facilitate the movement.
The estimate is that out of the total $10 million budget, $1 million may be connected, depending on who it is we're actually identifying as trade missions. That seems a little bit vague. But we don't account for each mission per se, because each has a variety of different expectations, a variety of different needs. If they were simply here to meet with businesses and we facilitated their entry into the province and helped them meet with businesses, the costs would be fairly minimal. If, on the other hand, you're talking about a head of state, and there's a formal reception and a series of protocol arrangements that are made around that, obviously the cost of that visit would be higher.
B. Penner: Just to confirm then, the ministry does not keep a detailed list of costs associated with each of the 130 or so incoming delegations that we receive per year.
[1140]
Hon. G. Wilson: No. We don't account for them on a mission-by-mission basis, because it would be impossible to get accurate information that way.
B. Penner: Let's flip the coin and look at the other side for a moment. How many outgoing trade missions are forecast for the current fiscal year? What is the amount budgeted for that?
Hon. G. Wilson: In a way, I wish I were able to give my little prepared speech here, because a lot of the answers are in there. Less than ten would be anticipated this year. Of course, there is the Premier's Team Canada involvement. We look at that as a Team Canada project; we don't necessarily look at that as a province outgoing, although it certainly is. The answer would be less than ten missions this year.
B. Penner: Has the ministry determined a set of priorities in terms of where those ten missions are going to go? Do we know which countries or regions and at what time those trips will take place?
Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is yes. We do have an international strategy, by sector. I think the easiest thing to do would be for us to get you a list of exactly what they are. All of those are developed in direct relationship with the industry itself. But there are a number of sectoral areas, obviously, where we may be we're going to Japan on building issues. Or we may be going to Farnborough with respect to aerospace, just by way of two examples. We certainly do have that. I'd be happy to have staff make that available to you so you can see it on a sectoral basis.
B. Penner: I think it would be useful to receive a list indicating the various countries that we're planning to visit in the current year, as well as an indication of what kind of staff we're going to be sending -- which ministers or portfolios.
The minister is being generous and offering an opportunity for us to come along, but I'm always mindful of the cost to the taxpayer. We'd only do so very cautiously. I'll rely on the minister and his staff to get me that information. It might be useful for me to hold off asking further questions about this until I get that list and save some time.
Next on my short list are things closer to home. There are a couple of organizations that I'm interested in. One is called the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. Another one that I've sometimes attended is called Cascadia. That's a group that meets fairly often to talk about issues between British Columbia and Washington State. On the other hand, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region -- or PNWER for short -- represents British Columbia, Alberta, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and sometimes Alaska, depending on whether or not they're participating. I believe the annual fees to the province of British Columbia for participating in PNWER are $25,000 per year. I wonder if the minister can confirm that and also indicate what the cost is for British Columbia's participation in what is known as Cascadia.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, I can confirm that it is $25,000 for PNWER, and we are keen to work with that organization. I hope to be able to go down myself, if I can get leave and get away from here in this session.
[1145]
[ Page 16660 ]
With respect to the Cascadia, the Washington-B.C. corridor, there is a contribution from this ministry of $150,000 toward Cascadia on that particular project.
B. Penner: So it's not from your
Hon. G. Wilson: No, it's a 50-50 contribution with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on Cascadia, and it's a project-specific allocation.
B. Penner: So just to clarify, then, on Cascadia there is no ongoing annual commitment on the part of the province of British Columbia. I see the minister nodding his head in the negative, indicating that there is not an ongoing annual cost to the province of B.C. for Cascadia.
I'd just like to say this -- again, mindful of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other groups that are highly critical of government travel and the average taxpayer's concern about government waste. I do think it is important that there be some venue for elected representatives in this province to meet on a regular basis with our counterparts south of the border as well as east of the provincial border. So often we tend to act in isolation and not take the time to learn from other people's mistakes or endeavours and share information.
I'm not saying that Cascadia or PNWER is necessarily the ideal forum for that, but I'm not aware of any other forums at this time to help facilitate that kind of discussion. I know, for example, that in PNWER they tend to focus on various sectors, whether it's forestry, tourism, transportation -- issues that we all have in common in this region of North America.
I think it would be useful -- whether it's PNWER or something else -- for British Columbia to have an ongoing, long-term relationship with our counterparts in the northwest United States and in Alberta, at the very least, so that we learn what they're up to and we build a relationship. We all know that when a crisis hits, it's a little late to start building a relationship. You could try, but it's much better if you've already got a relationship with people there that you can pick up the phone and talk to and have some confidence in, to try and resolve problems before they get bigger. So that's my brief editorial comment showing my bias about where I think I'd like to see things go.
With that said, I'd like to ask a question about an individual I sometimes see at these meetings. His name is well known to all of us: Mike Harcourt, the former Premier of British Columbia. I understand that he's playing a role as a consultant for the province of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister can tell us how much we are paying for Mr. Harcourt's services, as they relate to his involvement in Cascadia and also, more recently, with PNWER.
Hon. G. Wilson: Just by way of your editorial, you know, there is
On the second question with respect to Mr. Harcourt, the answer is $4,000 a month from Cascadia.
The Chair: Member, minding the time.
B. Penner: Yes, I'm watching that very closely.
Just to wrap up on this, how much has Mr. Harcourt been paid to date for his involvement in Cascadia? And a second question, since I'm on my feet: does the minister confirm, then, that Mr. Harcourt is not being paid for any involvement in PNWER? I ask that question because I believe he is expected to attend the upcoming PNWER conference in Idaho on June 25-27.
Hon. G. Wilson: Our contribution is to the Cascadia Institute. Any relationship that Mr. Harcourt has with Cascadia is between himself and Cascadia. My understanding of his involvement in PNWER is as a member of the Cascadia task force. If he's involved in PNWER, it would be through that vehicle, not through this ministry.
[1150]
B. Penner: The first part of the question, though, was: how much has Mr. Harcourt been paid to date for his involvement in Cascadia on behalf of the province? That will be my last question before we break for lunch.
Hon. G. Wilson: We don't know exactly when his payment started. We believe that it's roughly $4,000 a month. If you can determine when he started and multiply the number of months by $4,000, you'll have the figure. We don't have that, because we don't pay him.
Noting the time, hon. Chair, I would move to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: Minister, earlier in the day we concluded the estimates of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers, and we need the motion to resolve those estimates. The motion we need now is the committee rise, report resolution and seek leave to sit again. That's resolution of the Ministry of Community Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers.
Hon. G. Wilson: We could do them both, if you like.
I would move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada