1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 1, Number 5,

Part 3

[10:00]

[ Page 67 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister had been listening over the last several months, he would have noticed that around the province there was a chorus of outrage at the way in which the amalgamation issue was handled -- the disastrous way in which it was handled -- and at the way in which it was fumbled by the government and by the former minister, who is no longer with us. Many people did that.

I can tell you that one person we never heard from in this House is the former member for Shuswap, who's not here anymore; she never stood up for the people in her riding. We have a gentleman here who's been elected to come here and ask the minister one simple question. Will the minister not show the people of Shuswap the slightest respect and decency by answering a simple question: does he intend to go through with the forced amalgamation in the area of Shuswap? It's as simple as that.

Hon. M. Sihota: When the government announces its intentions, they'll be known to all members of this House at the same time.

G. Abbott: School district 21, in opposing the forced amalgamation of its district with school district 89, cited to me a report to the Minister of Education, Skills and Training from the steering committee of the public education restructuring consultation. I just want to quote briefly from the executive

summary:

"The steering committee agrees with the many respondents who argue that significant cost savings cannot be achieved through amalgamation. Indeed, there are many short- and long-term costs to be considered. Further, after reviewing all the submissions and related research, the steering committee was presented with little evidence for concluding that instruction and services to children will be improved as a result of amalgamation.

It is the steering committee's view that realistic prospects for improvement in programs for children and significant cost savings lie in better integration of instructional and support services to children. The steering committee believes, therefore, that the appropriate focus for restructuring should be on integrating and sharing services, not amalgamation."

Given the conclusion of the public education restructuring consultation report that "the appropriate focus for restructuring should be on integrating and sharing services, not amalgamation," would the hon. minister advise the House whether the forced amalgamation policy of his predecessors is now under review?

Hon. M. Sihota: Those points were taken into account when the government made the decision that it articulated to the public.

Hon. D. Miller: No doubt around the province the issue of school district amalgamation has caused some concerns beyond the ones in the district the member refers to, and no doubt there are a variety of questions about that. With respect, I would submit that the full estimates would provide a good forum for a thorough canvassing by all members on issues, including members on the government side who may wish to ask questions about that.

Clearly, if all members wanted to canvass that issue as thoroughly as the current member, with all due respect -- and quite frankly, I don't care -- we could be here for a long time. So if that assists the House at all with respect to this set of estimates, perhaps we could move a little smoother.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I did actually have just four fairly simple questions, and I think they could have been handled fairly quickly in some events. They haven't been. But I just have two more short questions, and I'm sure the minister will oblige me by answering them in a prompt fashion.

The third question I have is: what cost estimate does the minister attach to the merging of contracts resulting from amalgamation?

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for that question. Those numbers have not been finalized at this point. I would expect that by the time we get to estimates we'd be in a position to provide a preliminary indication of the cost.

G. Abbott: My final question to the minister is: what process does the minister anticipate with respect to amalgamation in the months ahead?

Hon. M. Sihota: At the time we started the amalgamation process, there were time lines that we had laid out for that process to come to a conclusion. The concluding date, of course, is December 1, and they are required to submit plans along the way, as I believe most have.

G. Abbott: Will there be any public consultations involved in the months ahead?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Obviously, as the hon. member knows, there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue when we get to estimates in this forum, which is public. But if he's asking whether or not there will be a review of the review in a public forum, the answer to that is no.

B. Barisoff: The previous Minister of Education assured school districts that no one would lose any funding for special education. Is that the same policy that exists now?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to that question is yes.

B. Barisoff: The policy with severance packages for small rural school districts does have an effect, and I think that the minister should make sure that the effect isn't on all school districts as it is in the lower mainland. Small school districts do have an effect on what takes place with severance packages. Can the minister assure small school districts in rural B.C. that that will be looked at?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, we'll look at it, but the hon. member should know that severance is a difficult issue when you go through any of these processes. To say that we'll look at something, of course, is easy. But if the hon. member is inquiring as to whether or not we're going to be providing financial or legal assistance to deal with issues of severance, I wouldn't be particularly optimistic.

B. Barisoff: When school districts were amalgamated, each school district was granted $350,000. Are those grants going to be taken away from the amalgamated school districts?

Hon. M. Sihota: Not this year.

B. Barisoff: But they will for next year, and the years to come? Will the special education grants for special needs

[ Page 68 ]

children of this province -- the $350,000 grant to amalgamated school districts -- be taken away? Will they get both grants, or will they be taking one away?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think we have made it very clear that special needs education funding is protected for the future.

I. Chong: I'd like some further clarity on an issue raised by my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon regarding the honorariums paid to those who mark exams. As I understand it, the minister stated that they would not be retroactive and that they would, I guess, start this year. My concern is: has the minister received assurances from Revenue Canada that reassessments will not go back retroactively two or three years? And there has been no provision in our spending estimates and in his budget, in fact, for the potential contingent liability that teachers may expect to be reimbursed for this oversight of the ministry.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me provide some further clarification to assist the hon. member. First of all, the hon. member is correct that this is a prospective determination, not a retrospective one.

Secondly, teachers were advised from the outset of the establishment of this process that this honorarium and their reporting of it was a matter between them and Revenue Canada, not a matter between them and the ministry.

Third, therefore there is no liability contingent on the part of the province with regard to this issue.

Fourth, if Revenue Canada wishes to deal with this issue and go back in time, then that would be a matter between the teacher who received the funds and the income tax return that they filed. It may be that in some cases the teacher or the person who was hired to do this work reported the income, in which case there is no liability, potential or otherwise. If they did not report, and if indeed Revenue Canada wished to deal with it in a retrospectiveway, then there would a liability in the context of the teacher, not in the context of this House.

I. Chong: Then my question is: as a result of this discovery, have the honorariums been renegotiated for an increased amount to take into consideration the tax liability that these teachers would be paying? My understanding was that the teachers thought these were tax-free. So as a result of having to pay perhaps in some cases up to 50 percent, will they now be looking for an increase in the honorariums paid to them?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member. To answer your first question, we have not increased the honorarium. That is not to say we won't revisit the issue in light of what's transpired. But I would suspect that in this budget.... First of all, we're making an allocation for this year, not for next year, so it will be an issue that would have to come up in next year's budget. And in addition to....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. So it would have to come up in next year's budget if we were to revisit it. And if we were to revisit it and do something retroactive, given the small amount of money involved, it really won't be a heavy charge on this year's budget.

R. Masi: First of all, I would like to offer my congratulations to the minister on his appointment as Minister of Education, Skills and Training. I have a very good friend who assured me that he is an excellent man and that education will do better because of him.

Interjection.

R. Masi: It is my understanding that the secondary schools component of the Skills Now program ends on June 30. Will the minister explain what will replace the Skills Now program in the secondary schools?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question and for those opening comments. I'll buy you lunch later on.

An Hon. Member: Breakfast.

Hon. M. Sihota: Breakfast. Lunch and breakfast, I guess.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: You know, you're just going to trigger that mining-in-the-park speech in me once again, so just settle down.

The $20 million commitment was a two-year commitment that the government made, which does expire at the end of this year. Therefore the full $20 million commitment will not be reignited post-June 30. However, we will be providing some assistance but nowhere near the kind of funding that existed for the last two.

R. Masi: Because of the provincial teachers' agreement, adequate funding in some districts may not be available to maintain career programs, including the preapprenticeship program, the co-op education program and the career prep programs. Can the minister give assurance that career programs will not be eroded by school districts diverting funds to regular school programs as a result of these union agreements?

[10:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: If I understood the question correctly, let me say to the hon. member that those determinations will be made by the school board and will not be made by us, in terms of the cuts to different budgets or the impact of those collective agreements on school board budgets. Those determinations will be made by the local school board.

On the general point of career preparation programs, I have to tell the hon. member that I have received much commentary from parents and students as to the relevance of those programs in the short time that I've had the privilege to serve in this portfolio. As a result.... I have to be candid with the hon. member that that certainly is an issue I'm going to be visiting -- in my mind and perhaps even from a public policy point. I suspect that I'll have more to say about that when we get to the estimates stage of discussion.

R. Masi: Relating to the career and personal planning program, commonly known as CAPP, it required 30 hours of work experience before graduation. Is this requirement still in effect? I think there's some confusion in the field about whether or not there is a 30-hour requirement there for graduation purposes.

[ Page 69 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. member, it is. If there is confusion, it may be in the area that we have given them different alternatives as to how they may meet the 30-hour requirement. But the essential requirement is there. As I said earlier on, particularly with regard to the CAPP program, I have received much commentary in the time I've had the privilege to be in this portfolio -- at least from this region of the greater Victoria area. As a result, I certainly may have more to say about that at a later stage.

R. Masi: In the minister's opinion, do you consider a 30-hour requirement realistic in terms of placements and actual time on the job being worthwhile?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, that's a good question, in this sense: it seems to me that you have to sort of balance on one hand the desire -- which I subscribe to -- to provide as much relevant experience as you can and to maximize that experience with what, on the other hand, must be the practical limitations of being able to fulfil it for every student in the system. It may well be that 30 hours is the best we can do as we speak right now. If I have a bias, the bias would be to increase the amount of relevant experience for students in the workplace for those who seek it.

I think that's really the tension that's at play at this time. That's not to say that that issue shouldn't be scrutinized as time goes on; it clearly should be.

R. Masi: Regarding the business partnership program -- which I believe is a very valuable program -- it is my understanding that 500 placements were planned but only 53 placements were completed. Are these figures accurate? Could you explain the lag in these placements?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that information is incorrect, and I think I can identify the flaw. It's this: the information I think that either you or your research staff have provided applies to information with regard to the skills side of it, as opposed to the secondary education side of it. I think that on the secondary education side, you'll see we have had strong participation -- as we should have, and I'm glad to see it -- from the business sector. On the skills side, those numbers may well be.... They're in the ballpark.

R. Masi: My final question: because the greater proportion of secondary school students do not in fact go on to post-secondary education -- I think it's approximately 30 to 35 percent of our graduates who actually do complete some sort of post-secondary education -- and noting that Skills and Training has a budget of approximately 3 percent of the total education budget, I would ask the minister if he has any future plans to increase the proportion of direct funding to Skills and Training.

The Chair: To all members of the House, that is a question of future policy, and that's not what this....

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm mindful of the confines of this debate that you just reminded me of. Let me say that the answer I would give to the member at this moment is this: participation rates are always of concern to society, and they clearly are to me. The relevance of the experience that people get after a secondary education and the kind of training they get are fundamentally important in terms of their ability to achieve their potential as human beings.

Clearly we have an obligation as a society to try to provide people with adequate training that matches with the needs of the marketplace, and we have to do that. And whether the allocations are universities, colleges or skills training, those moneys have to be there to sort of match skill with need. That's clearly the goal that we set for ourselves, and it's clearly a goal that we'll seek to achieve.

First of all, I think some of your numbers are wrong. But secondly, I don't think it's as simple as saying, well, if you transfer money out of one budget to the other, you'll be able to achieve these objectives. I know that during the course of estimates, we will have the opportunity to pursue these matters in some greater depth -- as opposed to now. But they're important philosophical issues and practical challenges for us as a ministry. I think, really, that we're better served to discuss it at that time.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

B. Barisoff: The minister just said that school boards should make some choices on funding. Is this going to happen in all areas of the budget -- that school boards will have choices on where they spend the money?

Hon. M. Sihota: Certain funds, as the hon. member knows from his experience, are targeted -- like special education funds. The hon. member knows full well that there are some policy options and choices available to school boards in the context of the work that they do at the local level.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Chair, the member indicated that some of these areas would have to be dictated by the boards. I think if they have to be dictated by the boards, you can't take specific areas; you have to do them all.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that these targeted funds -- because I know of the hon. member's experience -- make up for 15 percent of the allotment, and therefore there's ample scope for flexibility in other areas.

B. Barisoff: Could the Minister of Education indicate to the members here how much the last provincial agreement with the teachers cost the taxpayers of British Columbia, and where the money is coming from?

Hon. M. Sihota: I answered that question -- and it's not a $64 million question -- and I did say to the hon. member.... In fact, I identified, during the course of my response to the question, where those funds would come from.

B. Barisoff: I asked how many dollars it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia for this latest agreement.

Hon. M. Sihota: It would be in the neighbourhood of approximately $20 million.

J. Weisbeck: My question is regarding school district 23. They are currently undergoing a $3 million shortfall due to what we think is a flawed funding formula. It certainly doesn't take into account rapidly growing areas, so this has resulted in the layoff of 64 support staff, affecting student programs. So my question to the minister is: can the minister tell the parents and students of school district 23 that this flawed funding formula will be changed and that this budget will resolve their shortfall?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member may not be aware of this, but staff were in his district discussing this issue about a week and a half ago.

[ Page 70 ]

J. Weisbeck: A question again to the minister: will this problem be resolved? Will the budget take care of the shortfall?

Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the question was: when will this be resolved?

An Hon. Member: Will it be resolved?

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, will it be resolved?

An Hon. Member: With you at the helm, no doubt.

Hon. M. Sihota: With me at the helm, no doubt.

R. Coleman: When it comes to the Ministry of Education, good planning is somewhat of an oxymoron, such as the example of a case in my riding of a school in Fort Langley, which is the birthplace of the government of British Columbia. There's a fine arts school in this community where the recommendation was to build the entire construction addition to the school in one phase. This government saw fit to do it in two phases. By doing so, the first phase of construction blocks off a number of windows and air ducts and affects the air quality of the school. In addition, planning funding for the future expansion of this school was eliminated this year.

My question to the minister is: if the Workers Compensation Board or other air quality professionals come forward and say that this school is unhealthy and the air quality is unhealthy, will the minister petition the Minister of Finance to provide the adequate funding to complete this project?

Hon. M. Sihota: You know, that's the first time this issue has been raised on the floor of this Legislature. It speaks volumes to what the previous member from Fort Langley failed to do. Never heard from him on this issue, and....

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: That's why he left.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's why he left.

Now that I've got his attention, I should just say that with regard to the issue of the design of the facility, those kinds of determinations and any concerns therefor are matters that are dealt with by the school board, as opposed to our administration. So I would suggest that the hon. member take that concern to the administration of the school board.

On the second issue of capitalization of the facility, as the hon. member knows, his party campaigned actively on reducing the size of the debt. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Finance is currently in the process of reviewing which project should or should not proceed in the future. And I'm sure that when the Minister of Finance releases his report he will temper the desire of the opposition to spend, spend and spend.

R. Coleman: In deference to the comments relative to my colleague who was formerly the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, he was probably too busy dealing with some of the deceit and misinformation that was coming from this government to have time to look at the school.

However, it's the old case of the bouncing ball. Our school district has already identified this concern to the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Education has chosen to ignore it. Perhaps when the minister was referring earlier to being a skier, he should have been a skater and learned how to skate around an issue rather than answer the question.

My second question to the minister is this: does the minister have, in his interim supply, contingency to deal with litigation that could be brought by parent advisory councils and parents when their children's health is put at risk because of the skating that this government wishes to do on this issue?

[10:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to that question....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I know it's getting late; it's 10:30.

Some Hon. Members: It's early.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's early? Not for most skiers, anyway.

The matter of litigation will probably be a matter between the school board and the parents. That is hypothetical as it relates to the province. I would doubt if we made provision for that in any event, because it's covered by the provisions of the Crown Counsel Act.

J. Dalton: I would like to return briefly to the issue of amalgamation. The previous two ministers both estimated that the amalgamation process would save $20 million for the 1996-97 budget year, and $30 million thereafter. I believe I heard the minister say, in response to a previous question, that any savings would be returned to the school district. Well, that's not my read on it. I would assume that Victoria will be gobbling up the so-called savings -- which I question anyway.

While I'm directing this question to the minister, may I ask him this also: given that the amalgamation concept that the two previous ministers had in mind was down to 37 districts and the current scheme is 57 districts, does he still believe that Victoria will save $20 million in this current budget year?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to the first question is that that was a comment with respect to savings in the first year. The commitment was made with regard to the first year only, in response to the hon. member's question.

With regard to the second question, the hon. member has lost sight of the fact that savings can accrue to the public not only through the act of amalgamation but also through the process of amalgamation. For example, here in the greater Victoria area, where the government did not proceed with amalgamation of school districts, we identified other sources of savings as a result of that review, which we hope to take advantage of also. Therefore that all has to be put into the analysis determining exactly what the final amount will be. At this point, I'm not in a position to give you a conclusive final amount. We'll see where we are at estimates stage.

J. Dalton: No doubt we'll all be canvassing that issue in far more detail when we do get to the actual estimates.

The other point I want to make right now.... I'm not even going to mention North Vancouver. Perhaps my colleagues from Lonsdale and Mount Seymour might like to jump in on that, but given the volatility of that one, I think it's more appropriate to leave that for the actual estimates.

[ Page 71 ]

I would like to direct the minister's attention to an answer he gave previously on the recently concluded settlement between the BCTF and the Public Schools Employers Association. He told this committee that he felt that the cost to the public would be $20 million. Well, I think perhaps a more accurate figure would be $22 million for the retroactive salaries and a further $27 million for the 1 percent lift that will kick in next year. Would that not be more correct? Therefore a total cost of $50 million would be accurate.

Hon. M. Sihota: To assist the hon. member, the question -- and all the questions, of course -- relates to the impact on the warrants that are before the House. When I answered that question, I was addressing it in that context. Obviously, because there are different stages with regard to wage increases kicking in in the collective agreement, there clearly will be impacts in subsequent years. Just for absolute clarity here, the impact for last year and this year will be in that $22 million range. But that's not to say that there won't be impacts in future years.

As with any collective agreement, there are, and they will have to be attended to in subsequent budgets. Those budgets, of course, are not before the House. The warrants for this year are, so I will speak to that which is before the House.

W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that the school funding announcements were late this year and that indeed they were made during the warrant period which we are reviewing in committee today. The minister will also be aware that this year the method of reporting capital funding in the districts was notably different than it has been in previous years. This year the government members' copy was printed out 24 hours before the boards received the information. I just wonder if the minister could tell us whether this is an anomaly in an election year or whether we have a new method of reporting capital funding for school districts in the province.

Hon. M. Sihota: I wasn't part of what happened earlier in the year in terms of making those determinations; they were made by my predecessor. But to answer the question, I have no difficulty in advising all members of the House as to what capital determinations are being made in their areas. And because he campaigned on reducing debt, I know that the hon. member will be most reluctant to see any capital expenditures in his constituency.

W. Hurd: It's always useful to receive any information, particularly when it comes 24 hours after any other government member receives the information. But I'm asking the question on behalf of the school districts, which have normally received the courtesy of being informed about what capital projects have been funded in their districts.

Because this was such a dramatic change from the norm and because we know on this side of the House that the minister is certainly one of the most non-political ministers in cabinet, we would be looking for assurances from the minister that in fact the method of reporting will change; that government members and opposition members, in the new spirit of cooperation described by the Premier, will receive the information at the same time; and that the school boards, which do spend a lot of time submitting capital budgets, will be the first ones to receive the information.

If I can get that assurance from the minister, we can proceed.

Hon. M. Sihota: If my recollection is correct, in my situation I think the Sooke school board actually did receive the information before I was able to broadcast it -- which some will say is unusual, but factual nonetheless.

I have to tell the hon. member that I have no difficulty in providing that information to members of this Legislature. Those capital commitments are made by the province, and it seems to me only appropriate that members of this House communicate the conclusions of that process to their respective school boards, parents or teachers. There may have been protocols in the past, and I'm not too sure why they were created. But given the fact that often in this House hon. members make requests of ministers -- particularly in Health and Education -- for capital expenditures in their constituencies, it seems to me only appropriate to provide that information to members of this House.

W. Hurd: My last comment on the matter would be that the minister is well aware of the considerable work that school districts do on presenting a five-year capital plan to the ministry. That's the result of local input, something that I know the government values highly -- before they embarked on the amalgamation process they valued it highly. But clearly it's a local process that involves a lot of work by trustees and by individual parents, and I think they'd be very interested to know that the method of reporting is going to change and that government members will now get the information first.

That's what happened in April, and it's unfortunate. But if that's the change in policy, then that's worthwhile for the opposition to know.

I wonder if I could just ask one question. I'm delighted the Premier is here, because it relates to the big freeze that we heard about yesterday.

G. Farrell-Collins: The big chill.

W. Hurd: Well, he had a nickname, Captain Freeze, when he was dealing with ICBC rates and tuition, but now we have a different freeze. I wonder if the Minister of Education could tell us whether the projects that are going to be frozen -- if indeed they go past the end of the fiscal year -- will be recaptured in the current year's budget. Will that stay within the global budget for Education? I wonder if he could just assure us that in fact the proceeds of any cancelled project will at least remain within the Education budget for that fiscal year.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, as I understand it, the Minister of Finance is going to be releasing his list, and if there is going to be a reduction in debt, as British Columbians asked for, then I suspect there will a reduction in debt.

W. Hurd: The minister campaigned on the basis of protecting the budget for Education, so if indeed the money is not going to be spent on classrooms, one would assume that it would at least stay within the global budget. If it doesn't, how can the minister not say, then, that the budget hasn't been reduced? I am just looking for clarification on that point before we move on.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are distinctions between the capital budget and the operating budget.

W. Hurd: That's really useful information, because we now know that when the government talks about protecting budgets, it is talking about only the operating side of the ledger, not capital.

I just want to ask one question about the status of the Royal Roads proposal. I wonder if the minister could advise us of the financial commitments that the government has

[ Page 72 ]

made with respect to that five-year agreement. Are there any budgeted expenditures in the current time period that we are dealing with to implement that agreement -- any specific expenditures? I wonder if he could just amplify on what we expect to be doing in the first year of that Royal Roads agreement.

Hon. M. Sihota: The university has announced -- and I will be amplifying in a couple of weeks' time -- the degree-granting programs that will be offered. We've had a large subscription of students apply to the facility, and I believe -- again, I'm functioning from memory here -- that the operating budget for that facility this year is approximately $2 million.

W. Hurd: Finally, with respect to the tuition freeze and the creation of new spaces, I wonder if the minister will be commissioning reports from the institutions to ensure that in fact the increase in spaces and the tuition freeze are not being accomplished at the expense of existing programs. Is the minister going to be requiring the institutions to advise him of whether they are going to protect the existing programs or whether they are going to have to cut as a result of the fact that they will not be able to deal with tuition increases or tuition for the next two years and will in fact have to now create additional spaces?

Hon. M. Sihota: Those benefits will accrue to students, potential and current, in British Columbia because of the productivity gains we know can be realized by making the changes and placing the demands that we just did.

B. McKinnon: I would like to ask the hon. minister when the city of Surrey, which is continually seventy-fifth out of 75 in student funding and is the fastest-growing city in B.C., is going to get proper funding per student.

Hon. M. Sihota: During the course of debate on the estimates, I will be happy to outline the exemplary record of this government in servicing the needs of students in Surrey.

B. McKinnon: I'd like to ask the hon. minister if he has any plans to change the funding formula per student so that we will get a fair share of the funds for our school students.

[10:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the hon. member's question, the funding formula is reviewed every year, and you have my assurance that it will be reviewed again this year.

A. Sanders: I would just like further clarification. It was mentioned by one of the other members that there will be protection of funding for operating but not for capital expenditures, and I'm looking at the budget speech of 1996 presented to us several days earlier, where it states in bullet form: "Our budget also protects education." I was wondering whether we should be providing an insertion of the words, "Our budget also protects operating expenses in education," as I have now heard that capital expenses are not part of the scenario. I think that needs to be clarified further.

Hon. M. Sihota: During the election campaign, British Columbians said that they wanted us to slow down the growth of expenditures with regard to the debt. We listened to British Columbians, and we made a commitment that we would do that -- hence a determination by government to reduce capital expenditures. During the same election campaign, we made a commitment to protect education funding, and we're doing that withthe budget that we've tabled before the House -- in the context of operating budgets, to answer the hon. member's question. That is the same distinction that your party's economic plan made with regard to capital versus operating expenses.

I. Waddell: Point of order. I just want to make a point of order again that this debate should be focused on the actual warrants, the actual estimates. There is going to be a debate on estimates. The member opposite just raised the budget; there's a budget debate going on. This has to be very specific, and the opposition has to raise specific questions on specific items. Read Erskine May.

Interjection.

I. Waddell: Let my hon. friend, who knows better.... He knows the parliamentary procedure.

So the Chair, if I might respectfully suggest, should remind the opposition that they've got to be specific on specific items, and they've got to deal with them. They can deal with the estimates; they can deal with the budget debate, and so on. That's basic parliamentary procedure.

The Chair: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd only ask the Premier to give that member a job, so he can do something other than come to this House and tell us how things are done in Ottawa.

B. Penner: I would like to take this opportunity to address the minister with respect to an issue that perhaps in the greater scheme of things isn't that important to people outside the Fraser Valley, but it is certainly of some significance in the upper Fraser Valley.

Interjections.

B. Penner: Obviously the things I'm talking about are quite funny, but to me they're important.

The issue I'm talking about is an annual job fair, which is held in the upper Fraser Valley. Last year it was held in Chilliwack, and I believe it was to have been held in Mission this year. But due to problems in planning it was cancelled, because they weren't able to get their organization together. Accordingly, they've now rescheduled, and they're hoping to hold it again in Chilliwack in the spring of 1997.

I was contacted this week by the organizers of that event, who asked me about this government's commitment to funding the 1997 job fair in Chilliwack. Apparently they spoke to the member for Mission-Kent prior to the election, who indicated that he would do everything possible to ensure that the government did provide some funding for this program.

My question to the minister is whether he will do whatever he can to make sure that funding is provided to this program, which last year was attended by well over 1,000 students from places as far away as Hope, Abbotsford and Mission.

Hon. M. Sihota: That item would be covered by next year's provincial budget, not by this year's, given the timing you laid out.

[ Page 73 ]

B. McKinnon: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Cloverdale technical university is going to be proceed on schedule.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not in a position to comment on that issue tonight, but I will during estimates.

The Chair: Does that conclude the discussions? Then we will be going to Employment and Investment.

On

schedule 2 -- Ministry of Employment and Investment.

C. Hansen: The minister has been described as the minister for everything in this government. As a rookie member of the Legislature who has been assigned this critic role -- or at least a portion of it, as you will find out -- I find that it's a very steep learning curve, and I obviously have a lot to learn. I'm looking forward to working with your staff: the staff of the minister and the staff in your department.

I want to start out by complimenting the minister for their Internet site. It's actually an impressive piece of work.

An Hon. Member: Inter what?

C. Hansen: A web site. You know? I must say it was an excellent primer for me on your ministry, and it has been very useful. Some of the printout from that Internet site is quite impressive.

I know the minister is looking at all these little flags and looking at the time. No, I don't have questions on all these sections. That's all part of the education and learning that I'm going to be doing over the next little while. Certainly, most of this I will save until estimates. We have some very constructive suggestions to make to the minister and to his department. Tonight what I want to do is confine myself to just two areas of his ministry: one under the area of employment, and the other under the area of investment. Before I do that, I just....

Interjections.

C. Hansen: That pretty well covers everything, doesn't it?

I want to refer, first of all, to one of these pages off your Internet site, just to give you a taste of some of the things I will pursue when we do get to estimates. I think it's a wonderful quote. It's about your Infrastructure Works program. I'll just read this quote: "By providing the basic infrastructure our communities need to grow, Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Works facilitate a healthy environment for private sector business, the businesses creating real jobs in our province." You're going to hear a lot more about that theme when we get into estimates.

First of all, I would like to direct the minister to the student summer job program. I have some very specific questions, which is part of my education in learning more about his ministry. I hope he will help me with that tonight. I would like to start, first of all, with the student summer works program. I understand it has a budget of $6.7 million. There is a target job creation of 2,500 jobs for this summer. I was wondering if the minister could advise me if that target has now been met and, if not, if he anticipates that it will be met.

Hon. D. Miller: I was going to ask, first of all, with respect to the list I've seen of the balance of the estimates, whether the members opposite might consider, since I do have a few other ministries that I'm responsible for -- Municipal Affairs and Housing; and Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- having those follow this set. I'll let you think about that, and I'll try to get the answer.

While the Premier is looking up the answer for me, I want to say that I do look forward to some productive debate with respect to job creation and the role of the private sector. I would hope the member would also recognize the role the state has with respect tothat. Most modern economies really recognize that interdependence. Without a certain level of investment by the state, the private sector can't, indeed, flourish. There are many Asian economies that are a testament to that approach, but perhaps we can deal with that subsequently.

The Premier would like to answer that question.

Hon. G. Clark: There are six components to the youth employment initiative, and two of them are in this ministry. One is Opportunities '96, which is the private sector initiative, and the other is the First Job in Science and Technology program. So the program to which you referred is not housed in this ministry; the Guarantee for Youth, which I announced, is a multiministry initiative. So the summer job program you're talking about would have been appropriately addressed to the minister responsible, the Minister of Education.

If you want to ask questions on the Guarantee for Youth, it should be on the two programs associated with this minister. Let me answer them for you quickly, if I could.

The First Job in Science and Technology program is an incredible success. It has virtually 100 percent success now, and that's partly because it's almost fully subsidized for the first year. We had a big problem getting science graduates into the science and tech field, so we provided a very generous subsidy to get them in the door, and it's working extremely well. The minister, I'm sure, can talk more about that. There are about 150 positions.

Opportunities '96, which is a purely private sector initiative with no government subsidy, has not been successful to date. We're going to keep working at it. Part of the reason for its lack of success, I think, is the lack of consultation with the business community, which I fully acknowledge. So we're now working to try to rectify that. It has had some modest success. Where there's a subsidy component to the program, it's been very successful. The only place where there isn't a subsidy component has not been successful to date, but we're not going to give up on it.

We're going to keep working at it to see if we can work with the private sector to provide more opportunities for young people in B.C.

C. Hansen: I understand that another of these programs that does have a component in this ministry is the environmental youth teams, which I understand is a $2 million transfer from this ministry. It's in the estimates -- $2 million from the Ministry of Employment and Investment to Environment. Anyway, we'll save that for Environment.

I would like to focus on the Opportunities '96 program a bit. I would like to ask either the minister or the Premier: what is the nature of the consultations that are taking place with the private sector at this point?

Hon. D. Miller: I have not undertaken any consultations myself since the formation of the new government. It's simply a question of time. Quite frankly, the participation in Opportunities '96 is not anything near what we would like to see.

[ Page 74 ]

Certainly we will do what we can within the ministry, and I'll do what I can, in terms of working with the private sector to try to improve those numbers. It is somewhat disheartening. There clearly are significant problems that students in particular face.

Members opposite talked earlier about the issue of tuition and the cost of post-secondary education. I also think there's an obligation.... I know there was some criticism from the private sector about lack of consultation. Clearly we will go back and try to address that, but I do think there is an obligation on the private sector to play their role in providing opportunities for students to find summer employment.

Simultaneous with our program, and unbeknownst to us, the federal government also launched a somewhat similar program. I'm not sure what their uptake is, either. I'm not satisfied with the response to date, and we'll do what we can to try to improve those numbers.

C. Hansen: Tonight I plan to ask a few very specific questions for my own education, as I mentioned earlier. I can't help but respond briefly to the minister's comment, because what I would love to do is show you the Employment Standards Act. I would love to show you the interpretive bulletin for the Employment Standards Act. If you want to know why the private sector is not hiring students in this province this summer, you have to look at some of your own policies from the last four years. Anyway, as I say, we will save that for estimates.

[11:00]

I'm a little confused, though, because the hon. Premier just said that there were actions being taken to correct Opportunities '96 in order to address the problems and the lack of consultation. Now you're telling me that there are no consultations underway. Could you clarify that for me?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I said that I have not undertaken any specific actions as the minister, but that I wasn't satisfied with the uptake on the program and would be doing what I could to try to improve that. I should say to the hon. member -- I'll resist the temptation to get into it now -- that I take great delight in debating employment standards, particularly when I'm debating Liberals, because, having been the minister who brought the act in, I'm well versed with the Liberals' position of reducing minimum wage and reducing employment standards. It's a position that I vehemently reject, and I'd be all too happy, hon. member, to debate that issue anytime -- here or anywhere else.

C. Hansen: I guess tonight is not the time to get into a philosophical discussion on job creation, but I do know how jobs are created. As I quoted earlier -- I hadn't planned to refer back to this -- I do know how real jobs are created in this economy as well. They're not created by a press release issued on summer job programs in April of the year they're supposed to be implemented.

Let me ask another question in terms of the longer term: is the ministry involved today in planning a summer jobs program for next year? You may say this applies to next year's budget, next year's estimates. It applies to this year, because it's action that should be taken by your ministry today in order to develop programs that are going to be needed for next summer.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order, please. Could we have questions relating to the warrants before us, please.

C. Hansen: Again, specifically to the Opportunities '96 program, it has a budget of $1.2 million. Could the minister tell me if it's anticipated that that budget will be spent in its totality this year?

Hon. D. Miller: Given the lack of uptake at this point, I would seriously doubt it.

C. Hansen: I gather that there's not a significant amount of money in this budget that's there to fund actual jobs. Whether there are 200 jobs or 3,500 jobs, would not the expenditures remain the same? What is it for?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, certainly I think the bulk of the budget -- not totally, but operational -- has some relation to the uptake, or the number of people who participate. I don't have precise numbers as to the balance that may be expended, but I will endeavour to get that to the member.

C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us of what percentage of that $1.2 million would be for advertising?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I don't have the number. I'm not certain that any of it is, but I will endeavour to get that information to the member.

C. Hansen: There are certainly a lot of areas under job creation generally -- summer job creation -- that I would like to come back to in estimates, and there may be other things that will come up tonight.

I would like to switch gears a little now to the subject of investment. Specifically I would like to ask some questions for my own education -- as I'm learning my way through this -- on the subject of the industrial incentive fund. I notice that last year there was an appropriation of $40 million for the industrial incentive fund, and I also notice that none of that was disbursed last year. Could the minister account for that?

Hon. D. Miller: Could you repeat that last part?

C. Hansen: Forty million dollars was appropriated for the industrial incentive fund in last year's estimates, and none of that was disbursed, none of that was committed. I was wondering if the minister could account for that.

Hon. D. Miller: The money is there for financing transactions. Obviously some of that is recoverable, depending on the arrangement, or all of it's recoverable. That's the explanation.

C. Hansen: Do I understand that none of that $40 million was committed last year? I see the Premier nodding his head, in which case I'll proceed to my next question.

I've got a list of four loans and investments made through the Industrial Development Incentive Act last year. Again, could the minister explain why these are not reflected in the disbursement of that $40 million? There is an investment in the Columbia Power Corporation made in March 1996, $50 million; a loan to Dynapro Systems, November '95, for $3.25 million; investment in Newbridge Networks Corporation, November 1995, $10 million; and a loan to the Tahltan Native Development Corp., September 1995, for $1.4 million. I was just wondering why those particular ones aren't reflected as disbursements from the fund last year.

Hon. G. Clark: First, the $50 million is April 1 this year, and so it's not in the warrant from last year.

[ Page 75 ]

Second, for CPC -- Columbia Power -- and the other ones, the deals were struck, but the disbursements have not been made. Obviously these are often complex transactions. So no funds flowed even though announcements were made. Work is being done.

C. Hansen: I also notice in

schedule 2 of the supply act that we're debating, to bring it back very specifically to the points that are before us tonight, we show in April of this year, under financing transactions for the ministry, $61 million. Is that accounted for under the Columbia Power Corporation in its totality?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that is $1.4 million for the Stikine deal and $50 million for Columbia Power.

C. Hansen: I also notice that the minister is seeking an increase in the fund of $100 million this year. They're anticipating disbursements of $132.5 million in this fiscal year. Could the minister advise the House what plans there are for those moneys?

Hon. D. Miller: The member did cite a list earlier -- Newbridge, Dynapro and others. It's a matter of raising the cap to allow those deals to proceed.

C. Hansen: Am I to understand from the minister that these commitments have been made prior to this time? Do I not understand that there is part of

an act to be presented, or that has been presented to this House, to give the authority to extend that fund?

Hon. D. Miller: That is correct.

C. Hansen: I guess I'd like to wrap up with a general question. Does the minister anticipate the industrial incentive fund to continue with its disbursements at a rate we've seen in the last four years?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think the answer can be exactly precise. It relates to what the opportunities are, how the economy is performing, and if they are the kinds of deals that we think make sense for the province in terms of expanding our economy and creating new jobs. So there is no, if you like, precise answer to that. But we are, and the government has indicated.... There may be some difference in that approach, but the government has indicated that we are prepared to participate in projects that we think make sense.

The Huckleberry project is one that's been debated publicly, and some people feel we shouldn't be doing that. Our view is that it does make sense to participate on a commercial basis to attract offshore capital and to create jobs in a region where jobs are required. So we'll look for those opportunities, and if we think they make good investments, then we'll proceed.

C. Hansen: Is the minister telling the House that the $61 million disbursements that were made in April basically take up half of the authority that's being sought, and that of the remaining half of the authority being sought under this fund, no commitments have been made for any portion of that money?

Hon. D. Miller: I have managed to confuse myself after talking to my officials. I wonder if the member could briefly restate that question. I thought I had it.

C. Hansen: The authority being sought is $132.5 million in the estimates. We see in

schedule 2 that a commitment for a disbursement of $61 million was made in April. Of the remaining amount of $61.5 million, is the minister telling this House that there have been no commitments made for those funds at this point?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there are commitments. Royal Oak is a big commitment. So some commitments have been made.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in this debate and pose a series of questions to this minister, who should be the champion for science and technology in this province and, if I may, take a moment to congratulate his predecessor, the current Premier, who acted in his capacity as a very fine champion for science and tech companies coming to this province.

I would ask this minister: what portion of this special warrant in fact goes towards sustaining science and technology in this province?

Hon. D. Miller: Approximately $5 million.

L. Reid: I have been in discussion with this ministry in the past where they have talked about the need for a communications plan to increase the profile of science and technology; that if you wish to attract business and skilled managers in science andtechnology, you need a communications plan. I know the ministry is undertaking such a plan, but my concern is that the experience that I have had with this particular minister in Skills and Training is that the communication plan was out there but there was no substance to it. Certainly when you called the number, there wasn't any program in place.

I need to know that a different scenario exists for science and technology. Will the communications plan be backed up by a substantive program?

[11:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly agree that we do need those plans for science and technology, hon. member.

L. Reid: The question pertains specifically to a communications plan for science and technology. It's my understanding that one does exist within the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Could the minister kindly advise this House of the status of that plan?

Hon. D. Miller: I will try to give some highlights just to illustrate the point. Obviously you don't want to get into a lengthy discussion at this point.

Since the plan was announced last June, here are some examples of the progress: expansion of the TRIUMF facility at UBC; the appointment of the chief information officer and establishment of an information and technology access office following the electronic highways accord; allocation of $40 million of Forest Renewal B.C. funding for the purposes of forest-related research; continuing funding for established networks of centres of excellence, and funding additional networks located in British Columbia; the $100 million five-year technology plan for schools, which obviously is now one that may be subject to review; and construction of new science-related facilities at the universities, such as the new forest sciences centre at the University of British Columbia and the engineering lab at the University of Victoria.

Additional actions include funding for the British Columbia Health Research Foundation; and new activities -- additional infrastructure activities in the high technology sector -- will be undertaken partially in partnership with other provinces and the federal government.

[ Page 76 ]

L. Reid: The minister, to my first inquiry, suggested that $5 million of this special warrant was indeed science-and-technology-related. In his comments just now, he talked of upwards of $200 million. Are we going to see that level of expenditure carried forward in this budget? I will certainly allow the minister to percolate on that point, and I will come back to him -- hopefully for some level of response.

I am interested specifically in the status of the provincial science and technology fund. Will it exist within his ministry, and if it does exist, what is its status in terms of the number of submissions to receive those dollars and the number of requests granted?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it will exist, and the number is $25.8 million.

The Chair: Any further discussion by members on this warrant? I recognize the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

On

schedule 2 -- Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

R. Coleman: Over the years, about 70,000 units of housing have been developed in this province through various programs. They house about 150,000 people. A large portion of those units were under old CMHC programs, co-op programs, rent supply programs and other programs. About 8,000 of the units are managed directly by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. They are managed through seven offices. One is the home office located in Burnaby, British Columbia, and there are also regional offices in Vancouver, Burnaby, Victoria and Nanaimo, and area offices in Prince Rupert and Prince George.

The present delivery of social housing operates under a formula that is commonly referred to as the CNIT -- that is, a core need income threshold. This formula establishes a maximum income that an individual can earn in order to be eligible to get accommodation in social housing. The residents pay 30 percent of their income towards their rent, thereby creating a formula for affordability.

A large number of the units in the province are also managed by non-profit societies. These groups provide the services of board management, management of the project, tenant selection, contract approval, etc. The funds to create housing space have become somewhat limited in recent years. The delivery of service must therefore be made to be more streamlined.

My first question to the minister is about the 8,000 self-managed units by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. What is the cost per unit for such management of each one of these units compared with the management of housing units in the private sector, and when was the last time that comparison was conducted?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker.... Or hon. Chair, sorry. The transition was so smooth that I missed it, and I presume we're out of Employment and Investment and into Municipal Affairs. Just seamless.

With respect to the member's question, I don't know the answer to that question. It seems to be fairly detailed, and if it's okay with you, I'll endeavour to get that information to you.

R. Coleman: I would appreciate that information. I have written the Housing Commission with a number of other requests, and I will copy that to your office if necessary.

Interjection.

R. Coleman: I'm asking you for some additional information. The information I've asked you for is not what I've asked the commission for.

My second question to the minister is this: housing in British Columbia has been provided for a variety of sectors of people. We have seniors, we have families, we have people with disabilities and other types of handicaps, etc. In the past few years it has been encouraged by the B.C. Housing Management Commission that social housing projects should make available on a priority basis second-stage housing for women coming out of transition houses. This is a commendable program on behalf of the commission.

My concern is this: there is also a social and economic impact in housing relative to people who cannot get into transition houses, who are in exactly the same situation, who end up living with either friends or family in overcrowded positions. Will the minister go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and ask them to weight the application process so that the people who are coming out of transition houses and the people who are in abuse situations, living in crowded and overcrowded situations, and who cannot get into transition houses will be given the same weighting in the application process?

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's reasonable to assume, and I can confirm that there is that attempt made now. Obviously, B.C. Housing, being social housing, in screening applicants who are looking for accommodation.... I'm sure the condition or the circumstance of individuals is a primary factor. I know that to be true.

In fact, in my home town of Prince Rupert.... But again, I'll give the member the same kind of response. If we have additional information with respect to that, I'll make sure the member gets it.

R. Coleman: Another question. CMHC has been successful in providing housing without use of taxpayers' dollars in what they call private-public partnership relationships. I'm first of all wondering if the minister is familiar with private-public partnership relationships that have been provided in a number of communities by CMHC in recent months. And secondly, are the ministry and the commission looking at private-public partnerships that can also make use of lands at no cost to the taxpayer to provide housing which does not have to be subsidized in the long term?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not aware that CMHC has provided social housing at no cost. In fact, obviously the problem that we and other provinces are going to have to deal with is that the federal government is vacating the field with respect to any additional commitments to social housing.

Under the CMHC program that used to exist, whether it was cooperative housing or non-profit rentals, the interest rate was effectively subsidized down to, I think, around 2 percent under the National Housing Act. That's really what made those projects affordable. That program is no longer available.

We have programs that are trying to deal with the issue of social housing. We clearly can't step in and fill the entire vacuum left by the federal government's withdrawal. The programs the member has referred to I don't think are in the area of social housing. Perhaps they're innovative housing, but I don't think there's any social housing that is not effectively subsidized.

[ Page 77 ]

R. Coleman: In reality, there are some housing units in this province that are not effectively subsidized that you would refer to as social housing because of their affordability in the marketplace. They have been created through private-public partnerships. I can provide you with some examples of those, and I would like the commission to review those.

The other concern I have is the cost of delivery of services within this sector of social housing. Given the limited funds that we have available, what we deal under right now is what we call the MUP. The MUP is the maximum unit price that is brought into the equation when we develop a piece of housing. I realize I may be giving you some information that you may not have, and I want to

preamble my question so that you understand where I'm coming from.

If a unit of housing is developed under the present strategy of B.C. Housing, we deal with an MUP that is identified with a particular geographical area. That MUP establishes what we're prepared to pay for development costs -- soft costs and land costs -- relative to the development of that particular unit. We then amortize those funds over a 35-year period and deliver a piece of housing that we then have to subsidize in two ways: we have to subsidize it at the date of construction, and then we have to subsidize it in terms of the relationship with the individuals who are living in that housing for the long term, as well as maintaining it if it is damaged or has problems with it.

The costs of a 50-unit townhouse project of which I recently reviewed the financial statements was what we.... And I want to deal with one other thing so we understand what I'm talking about. I looked at the level of what is referred to as the economic rent of the project. The economic rent of a project is the amount of money that it costs to deliver that particular unit to the marketplace, including debt servicing, interest and all operation costs, including management. On this particular project, the delivery of the service was $1,350 per month per unit. So 50 units of housing are being subsidized to the tune of $1,350, down to the 30 percent proportion of income.

It would seem to me, Mr. Minister, that if you took the same amount of money -- the $1,350 -- and subsidized 100 units instead of 50 units in existing buildings, without having to go into the capital costs, you could reduce the cost of delivery of the housing. At the same time, you could deliver more housing to the citizens of British Columbia by subsidizing, on a unit-per-unit basis, under contract with a landlord that is already in existence. I'm wondering if the commission is going to look at that as a way of delivering a more cost-effective service to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I suppose it sounds simple; indeed, it may be simple. But it appears to me at first blush -- and I certainly don't claim to be an expert in this very short time that I've had responsibility for this portfolio -- that what the member is advocating might subsidize existing stock, but it wouldn't create new units. Surely that's one of the problems.

R. Coleman: With deference to the minister, I must disagree. First of all, if you were in a position where you could subsidize units where the capital cost is already covered, people would be encouraged to develop rental stock that you could enter into agreements with for rental purposes. If you go back in the history of housing in British Columbia, there was such a program that worked in this province up until the year that this government was first elected to office.

It was cancelled by this government, who continued on with high capital costs and high delivery of housing services to the province and the people of British Columbia. I suggest that you go back and look at that program and see where it's adaptable to the 1996 market so we can get somewhere with it.

I also have another question for the minister. Non-profit societies' management of housing projects is by volunteer boards, as I said earlier. These volunteer boards implement programs, but they're also at a community-based level. These people understand the needs of the people in their community. They are given the opportunity to manage this housing under operating agreements established by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. They are entitled to rent out and tenant 75 percent of the units within the project by conducting a local-based application process, accepting applications sent to them by the commission, doing the interviews and selecting the tenants.

[11:30]

First of all, I would like to know if the minister can tell me what the cost difference for management is between the delivery of a unit by a non-profit society in comparison to the delivery of units being managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. D. Miller: I must confess that I can't. But I will try to get the information, if we have it, and get it to the member.

R. Coleman: There are a number more. This is just the beginning; we're not even in estimates yet. I'm not going to give them all to you tonight, obviously, but.... [Applause.]

An Hon. Member: And that was our side!

R. Coleman: That was our side. If somebody wants to call the pizza people or something....

I also have some other concerns relative to housing in the province and the management and delivery of services that relate to the operation of Housing. With deference to anybody, any estimate that comes through this House has a housing estimate to it, because we're continually subsidizing the operation of housing in this province by the grants and fees that we pay in order to pay for the difference between the economic rent and the subsidized rate of service.

It would seem to me that the objective of social housing, or housing within the community, is not to build massive blocks that would become either slums or identified with one socioeconomic group, but rather to get selective units within selective buildings, so people can be subsidized in the communities where they live versus being subsidized on a massive basis with large construction costs.

I'd like to move away from subsidized housing for the moment, because there's a substantial number of questions that I'd like to ask on that.

I would like to have something else brought up, though. Despite your claims to the contrary, your government has introduced rent controls. No one is opposed to affordable rental housing. However, the government plans have backfired before, and they will backfire again. Rent controls have little control over rent; in fact, the opposite is actually true. B.C. Liberals believe in affordable rental accommodation. While landlords engaging in unacceptable rent increases must be curbed -- no question -- affordable housing is more effectively provided through the marketplace and not through government rent control.

[ Page 78 ]

The NDP reintroduced rent control via Bill 50, while at the same time they repeatedly denied that their changes constituted rent control, preferring to use the term "rent review." There is no doubt that the price of rent is now controlled by the government. A tenant can now appeal any increase in rent, and a landlord must justify the increase to the residential tenancy branch. Rent control creates market distortions and a rental housing economy, impeding the new supply of rental housing, accelerating the deterioration of existing housing and encouraging the conversion of rental units to condominiums. In short, rent controls do the opposite of what they're intended to do.

The Residential Tenancy Act is weighted to the tenant. The ability of the landlord to protect his investment and to protect the ability to provide good housing to his tenant is deterred by this legislation. How many people are now employed by the residential tenancy branch, and how does that compare to six years ago?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to an earlier question, it's hard to separate the questions from the philosophy; but the member talked about giant units of housing. I would like to advise the member that the average size is about 30 units, so I don't think we are doing what he said.

Perhaps I should have stood up earlier, but all those questions he asked with respect to residential tenancy fall under the Attorney General.

G. Abbott: I have the pleasure of being the Liberal critic for Municipal Affairs, and I just want to let the minister know that we're making one of those shifts in gears. I have just a few quite straightforward, I think, questions for the hon. minister. I very much respect the minister and look forward to working with him in this.

First of all, municipalities and regional districts would very much like clarification of whether conditional grants given by Municipal Affairs for sewer and water will fall under the capital freeze announcement in yesterday's budget.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I appreciate the member's remarks and do look forward to working with the new member for Shuswap. But no, the conditional grants are really quite separate. I think the broader question is the rather huge cost of infrastructure, particularly as we look at some of the large metropolitan areas, and how those, with respect to the fiscal constraints that both the federal and provincial governments face, can proceed.

G. Abbott: That response will be very much appreciated by municipalities and regional districts.

The second question, and hopefully this just follows from the first, is: will downtown revitalization projects as well be exempt from the capital tax freeze?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I must say -- and I don't want to startle officials in Municipal Affairs -- I really haven't had a chance to canvass a lot of these issues thoroughly at all. Perhaps we need to look at those kinds of programs. Sincerely, I have been a very big proponent both of what used to be heritage revitalization and of downtown revitalization. I think they've made some differences in communities -- without being sure what the total expenditure is.

In times of fiscal constraint, surely those are the kinds of things you're going to have to look at. Should we continue to provide. . .? I think the latest grant under that program that I can recall in my own community was about $25,000. It's fairly modest. That money is, in turn, doled out to owners of buildings who undertake restorations or fa�ade improvements. As I said, it has had some value around British Columbia. Whether that's something that in tougher times we should continue to do, I'm not certain at this point. I'm not trying to prejudge that question. I'm certainly going to canvass it with the ministry. Maybe the Minister of Finance might have something to say; I don't know.

G. Abbott: I may have got the minister's answer confused with his philosophical discourse on downtown revitalization. Am I correct that the answer is yes, it's not affected by capital?

Hon. D. Miller: I was speculating, and in fact I think I'm half wrong in what I said there. But no, it's not affected.

G. Abbott: Again, I'm very pleased to hear that, because in my view, the downtown revitalization program has been a most valuable program to municipalities in this province. Certainly, my own -- Sicamous -- has benefited very much from it. Communities look forward to a continuation of that program, and I wouldn't want in any way to underestimate the value of it to communities.

Another concern that has been expressed to me in my capacity as Municipal Affairs critic is around Bill 55. I'm not sure what the act now is known as, but Bill 55 was a piece of legislation that affected railway taxation in this province. What I would like to know, hon. minister, is whether some provision has been made to put in place the remedial measures which were promised when Bill 55 was introduced and passed through this Legislature.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'm advised that that work is in progress. The member correctly points out that we did take some measures to reduce taxation on railways. We thought -- and still do believe -- that it's very critical.

I think we have some pretty serious problems in this province. We are a trading province. We require goods to be transported by rail, and we want to make sure that we continue to have those corridors. I know that if you look at the northern corridor, for example, and some of the constraints, some of the issues that they're now faced with and the changes that have been made on the federal side -- the loss of the Crow rate and how that might impact on British Columbians and on some of those small communities.... It was a bit of a saw-off.

I wasn't the minister at the time, but obviously we were negotiating with railways for some tax relief in return for some economic benefit. The measures in the package that was designed to try to mitigate the impact of the loss of municipal taxation by railways are proceeding.

G. Abbott: Again, just a matter of clarification. Because railway taxation is so important, particularly to some electoral areas in regional districts and also some municipalities in this province, the process of consultation with municipalities and regional districts will take place, I presume, over the next few months and will be in place prior to the new tax regime coming in place for the railways.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the member is correct. If you look at that chart of municipalities and regional districts and at the impact, in some cases it's very small on a percentage basis; in

[ Page 79 ]

some cases it's dramatically high on a percentage basis. We hope to start those consultations in July, conclude in September and be ready with a package by 1997.

G. Abbott: My last question for the minister. I do look forward to discussing this in more detail with him during estimates. I understand that the safety and standards portion of the ministry's operation has been reduced in expenditure by about $450,000 for 1996-97 from the previous year. I wonder if the minister could advise me, please, of where those savings have been effected.

Hon. D. Miller: I am advised, hon. Chair, that those savings are internal; they have no impact at all on the safety side of it. It's administrative in nature and internal.

G. Abbott: A final issue related to safety and standards. On the grants and contribution side, we're seeing a reduction from last year of approximately $75,000. Again, I would ask the minister: were those grants fully subscribed in the previous year? If so, how much beyond that were requests over grants?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, hon. Chair, I am advised that 100 percent of that goes to the Justice Institute to fund the Fire Academy for the training of firefighters.

G. Abbott: Professional and volunteers?

Hon. D. Miller: Just volunteer firefighters.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, it is a very important program. Certainly a lot of very good things have been done with that. I would just like assurance that the reduction in that grant is not going to impinge in any way on that program.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I am advised that it will not.

On

schedule 2 -- Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

I. Chong: Firstly, I would like to ask the hon. minister to put on his new hat for Small Business, Tourism and Culture. While I can appreciate this is a new opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, so you too must recognize that many of us recently elected have just had a limited time as well to familiarize ourselves.

I was glad to hear in the budget speech the other day that the government was prepared to assist small businesses by cutting taxes. However, I am concerned that this government has failed to recognize what the definition of a small business entity really is. Businesses with fewer than five employees make up 73 percent of Canada's total number of businesses. There are over 140,000 home-based businesses in B.C., which account for more than 90 percent of all businesses, and each day 8,000 Canadians start a new home-based business. Twenty-three percent of Canadian households are currently involved in some form of business at home.

The two-year income tax holiday recently introduced in the budget only makes reference to eligible new small businesses incorporated on or after May 1, 1996. My question to you, then, Mr. Minister, is: will you or are you prepared to look at those unincorporated small businesses that would otherwise have the same qualifications, except they have chosen not to incorporate?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I'm not trying to dodge anything, but I do believe the issue falls under the Ministry of Finance. It's a taxation measure.

I just want to add briefly that I think we need to watch the sort of conventional language that's used sometimes around the issue of small business. And I'm not saying this to attack small business, but rather to distinguish between businesses that are essentially service in nature -- in other words, businesses that are there because there is another level of economic activity -- and businesses that in fact are goods-producing or wealth-producing. I think that is quite an important distinction, and I think the two are quite separate.

[11:45]

I'm primarily interested in businesses -- not that I have no interest in ordinary small businesses or the retail sector at all.... But I am interested in looking at this economy in terms of how we can expand and create new opportunities -- expand the pie, so to speak, which was used.... I saw a few pies on television during the campaign. It's those particular businesses that are wealth-producing and goods-producing that I think we should really foster and encourage.

I. Chong: I appreciate what the minister is saying. However, small businesses being defined as incorporated versus unincorporated still needs some review either by your ministry or by the Minister of Finance. I would hope that you both would share in that discussion to ensure that those businesses are considered eligible regardless of incorporation and regardless of entity.

I would now like to focus on the B.C. 21 community projects, which I believe fall under Small Business, Tourism and Culture. The B.C. 21 community projects provide a unique opportunity for a variety of groups and organizations that would otherwise not be able to proceed. I would like to ask the minister if he is able to provide a breakdown of the distribution of these grants.

In particular, I would like to know -- including the dollar amounts -- how many projects were provided for some of the local government initiatives versus those which were provided for the not-for-profit groups, such as those in culture, recreation, heritage and sports. I ask this because I find that in the spending estimates, which we will get into at a later time, the allocated $8.9 million towards community grants has been decreased to $3.3 million, and I'm wondering whether this substantial decrease in funding for the community grants will create a hardship and, in fact, a downloading to local governments.

Furthermore, I would like to know whether the not-for-profit groups are the ones that are going to be disadvantaged.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, certainly we don't discriminate, and we'll try to be fair with respect to the distribution of those funds. The detailed question the member asked -- in other words, what has been the disbursement relative to the sectors, the non-profit versus, say, the municipal.... I'll get that information to her.

I. Chong: Another topic I wish to touch on in this ministry has to do with the film industry. Again, the film industry is an excellent source of job creation. In addition, it brings substantial economic benefit to all our communities. Victoria and indeed Vancouver Island, with its abundance of natural film locations and sets, suggests that it is the only logical place that the film industry would be desirous of expanding. Some months ago Victoria lost its local film commissioner, as you probably read in the local papers. His job and mandate

[ Page 80 ]

was primarily to assist the film industry and to encourage more activity in this area. The loss of the film commissioner has sent a strong message to our small business community and indeed to potential investors in this area. This ministry currently provides funding to the B.C. Film Commission to the tune of some $900,000-plus. Furthermore, it also provides, as I can see, $22 million dedicated to culture programs, which is also to promote the motion picture industry. Given that, I would like to ask the minister whether these large sums of money include any funding for the greater Victoria and outlying areas so that we might enjoy and share in this opportunity in this industry.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, not specifically, hon. Chair. I must advise the member, though, that we did and have done some very important work, I think, in terms of trying to expand the film industry. I was a bit unhappy about a column I saw in the Globe and Mail today which was rather dismissive of the economic activity that comes into British Columbia from Hollywood. But as a result of some very good work done by the Ministry of Labour in bringing the separate unions together into a council, I think we secured through that arrangement, that sort of simplified process, an additional $200 million a year in film work.

Obviously -- no disrespect, again, to the lower Island communities, and I realize the member represents a municipality here -- this is a very vast province with some very small communities in areas that are spectacular. I would submit that the job of the film commissioner is to try to assist the entire province in looking at what might be appropriate locations and in facilitating people coming in who are looking for locations here in the province.

We do see a great deal of work in Vancouver, and that's fine. We have seen, I think, a fair amount of work here in Victoria. I'm sure that as we continue to promote British Columbia through the Film Commission and other activities, we'll see that work expand, and hopefully it will benefit all parts of our province.

I. Chong: I appreciate your comments, and I will be looking forward to more detail in the spending estimates as to whether the $22 million allocated for culture programs does include anything for the Victoria area.

Finally, I have just one last question. If the minister can provide me with a breakdown on the reductions in the FTEs which I see in the spending estimates.... I note it has been projected to decrease from 848 to 832 people, and I'm just wondering whether further reductions are anticipated in, for example, the Royal B.C. Museum.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain of the breakdown. There has been a reduction in FTEs in the full ministry and.... Who knows? Maybe my colleague beside me might make life tougher. I'm not quite clear. We've got a reduced number of FTEs. Clearly that's the mandate of the budget we're putting forward, and we'll attempt to live with that.

I. Chong: Just concluding, then, the reason I ask that question.... Perhaps I don't expect an answer this evening, as you've indicated, but I look forward to that. My question was leading to the fact that I recognize that there was a reduction in FTEs; it was projected in this particular ministry. I understand that the Royal B.C. Museum did go through quite a reduction in the past, and I'm concerned that further reductions in this particular program may in fact be detrimental to the programs, which could result in lost revenues -- or perhaps increase in revenues. So I will be looking forward to some further breakdown at the time we debate the spending estimates.

Hon. D. Miller: The member may be aware that we have given SOA -- special operating agency -- status to the museum, and that gives it some opportunity to operate in a slightly different way from, say, a branch of a ministry, in terms of revenues they may collect. We don't anticipate that their staffing will be affected.

P. Reitsma: With your indulgence, a little bit of a

preamble. Since my high school days 30 years ago, I've always been involved with the tourism industry, right from steward and assistant purser on the Holland America Line, travelling throughout the world -- I probably visited 75 countries -- to, since I came to Canada in 1970, operating my own travel agency, which I still do today, and also operating a hotel in my constituency of Parksville-Qualicum. There is no happier industry than the tourism industry.

I would like, as part of the interim bill, to go to vote 50, which is the SOA -- the special operating agency. I do agree with the goals and objectives -- very much so -- but I have some concern that the estimated expenditure for '95-96 was $25 million and some-odd change, and it is to be estimated at $23.408 million. I wonder if the minister could respond to that. I think that if anything, we should be increasing it.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure how to respond. We put forward a budget with a certain dollar figure, and the member thinks we should increase it. I'm not certain what kind of response I can give the member, except that I don't think we will.

P. Reitsma: The special operating agency, which is for the planning and coordinating and implementation of tourism advertising nationally, internationally and so on.... I wonder if the minister would want to take it on notice and advise us later at the spending estimates. That's fine with me. Take the question on notice?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Okay.

A supplementary, hon. Chair. The minister might know about a Vancouver company that's called Showcase B.C. The purpose of the company is to market B.C. by building about a 3,500-square-foot exhibit to be used for touring through a number of regions, including throughout North America. They're not looking for money. It's a private company, but they're looking for support. Smaller tourist-associated companies such as golf and fishing, etc., are all part of that 3,500-square-foot exhibit.

Could the minister advise the House if he would like to support their endeavour to get endorsement from the Minister of Tourism to use the "Super, Natural" logo? It's my understanding they've been advised that if they do that, legal action would be taken. All I would like of the minister is, through the House, for him to lend his support to this particular endeavour.

Hon. D. Miller: The company you refer to, Showcase B.C., approached the government, asking for close to $20 million in support to start up a business venture. That was

[ Page 81 ]

turned down, and since that time there have been a variety of contacts with the company because of their unauthorized use of Tourism British Columbia's trademark.

They simply cannot do that, and we have, I think, advised them continuously that they shouldn't do that. I'm not so certain what the current status is and if they're continuing or not, but if you know the people, perhaps you might advise them that they shouldn't do it, as well.

P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, although this has to do somewhat with fisheries, and this government has of course been focused on the commercial fisheries, the sport fishing industry is extremely important to us. When we talk about tourism development, that at least means a minimum sustaining of the current levels and opportunities. Certainly in my area on Vancouver Island, many of the lodges, the charter business people, the hotels, the motels, the restaurants, and the guides and suppliers are extremely concerned about with the state of negotiations on the fisheries with the federal government.

Indeed, TAVI -- the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island -- is estimating that 1,500 to 2,000 jobs are directly in jeopardy because of that. Would the minister undertake to do his best to alleviate that problem?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we have been quite aggressive, hon. member, in terms of the broader fisheries question. Specifically, I think one of the issues that clearly impacts on the commercial sport fishery is the decline in chinook stocks and the resultant catch-and-release-only policy with respect to fishing -- or at least coastal fishing -- lodges this year.

I should say that I appreciate it is an industry that does produce some benefits for British Columbia, but I'm also aware that the traditional commercial sector also produces significant benefits. I've generally taken the view that if there's pain, it should be shared.

Just to illustrate one example, in northern British Columbia, in the Queen Charlotte Islands -- an area that I represent -- I know that chinook stocks declined many, many years ago to a very low point, and that the commercial fishers voluntarily stopped fishing coho to allow those stocks to be rebuilt. I know that in communities like Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands, there's really a fair degree of anger, because when those stocks ultimately were rebuilt and did come back, a big chunk went to the commercial sport sector, and the very people who had desisted from fishing to allow those stocks to be rebuilt were left out in the cold.

I think there are also some broader issues we need to look at. In fact, my own view is that we need to look much more at a policy with respect to that industry. I think it is an important industry, and I think it is one that has a place here on the coast. But I think it's got to be more integrated with other activities.

[12:00]

You look again in regions like the Queen Charlotte Islands, where they're facing significant employment problems. A Department of National Defence base is closing. People are not certain of their economic future. Yet the complaint of local people is that the lodges don't leave anything behind, that they simply fly their passengers and their groceries in. They're almost an invisible presence there. Certainly they generate a level of economic activity in the province. But looking at the plight of some of these small communities, they're saying: "Where do we fit into that picture?"

Those kind of questions need to be looked at, because it doesn' t.... Nothing will work if you've got a number of small communities -- and I represent about half the coastline of B.C. in my constituency -- feeling resentful and angry about sort of being left out of economic opportunities, yet these operations are proceeding. Then I don't think you've got a healthy situation. So I think we need to look at that sort of integration -- how the benefits might flow.

One of the issues we raised about the Mifflin plan particularly was what we feel are the detrimental impacts of the Mifflin plan -- the buyback. We think that results in the licences accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. What does that mean for the independent fisher? What does that mean for the small coastal communities that have traditionally relied on fishing as really their prime economic base? None of these questions have really been canvassed, looked at, analyzed or even dealt with in terms of this plan. So I think we need to -- and I hope the member would -- appreciate, particularly with the fishing sector, that no single

part can be viewed in isolation. It all has to be viewed as part of the total. Otherwise I don't think it works.

P. Reitsma: According to TAVI, there's $250 million in income throughout the industry. It's not just the smaller communities but indeed the bigger communities as well, right from motels and hotels and restaurants. A number of years ago we had some really wonderful slogans -- I'm trying to put partisan politics aside -- such as the SuperHost program and Super, Natural.

Could the minister advise the House if any new, innovative programs and marketing tools are contained in the budget to improve and upgrade skills for all those who are connected with the industry, and maybe such a slogan as -- but not limited to it -- a SuperWelcome or a MostWelcome program? Because it's so very important to us.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, here's one that passed me by: it's the B.C. Time to Play program -- I don't know if it applies to this House or not -- launched in September last year. I'll let the members just let their imaginations run wild about what that might mean. Apart from that, I'm not sure that we have any more new slogans.

I think we've worked quite well. I really should have taken the time to applaud the former minister. I think he was lauded by some as one of the best Tourism ministers this province has ever had. Certainly there have been some people who've played a rather large role in the tourism industry politically in the past. But we are working very closely with the tourism associations, the hotel associations and the like.

I know I did a lot of work on the training side with the tourism association. We launched several new apprenticeship programs for the first time, new training programs, on the basis that we should professionalize both the skills of the people in the industry -- build that industry....

It's a legitimate industry. It has expanded significantly over the years. I'm not sure what the numbers are. I think my predecessor in this job used to talk about $9.9 billion in '99. Is that right? Something like that. I think he was saying we could get this up to being almost a $10 billion industry by 1999. I'm sure that's a laudable goal. We'll continue to try to do the excellent work launched by the former minister, Mr. Barlee.

P. Reitsma: One last observation or question then: there's nothing more I'd like for this industry than to become the number one industry in B.C. Historically, B.C.'s economy has been based on the development and the export of our natural resources. But over the last couple of decades, really, it's undergone a fundamental change, and the whole service

sec-

[ Page 82 ]

tor has been the job creator, particularly in the service industry, which includes the growing leisure and hospitality industry. However, I would ask the minister, given the fact that this government has continued to put pressure on small tourism businesses through some hidden tax increases and increased licence fees and employee costs.... I just relate that to 1993-94. A number of the lodges -- fishing resorts.... Their assessment and lease on Crown land went up dramatically from just $14,000 in 1993. One went up to $53,000, and the Heffley Lake resort went up from $37,000 to $142,000. Could the minister assure us that there are no increases planned?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Correct me if I'm wrong -- anybody on the other side. I'm certain I saw a plaid book, or something like that, that suggested that we should totally eliminate all business subsidies, and I think the line item in that plan was $145 million. Do I see heads nodding? No? Everybody's head is still. Why not? You should applaud it. It was in the book. Presumably you all were party to it, and I think you all signed something. I saw you on TV signing these pledges. I said at my all-candidates' meeting in Prince Rupert: "I don't need to sign some phony pledge on the wall so that people in my hometown think I'm honest." They can form an opinion on their own without that kind of....

But we've also just recently.... I think it was today that the minister....

An Hon. Member: Yesterday.

Hon. D. Miller: Yesterday my colleague the Minister of Finance talked about a two-year tax holiday for new small businesses -- a 10 percent reduction in the small business tax. So I really think that we have disagreed with the advice given by your policy book during the campaign, and in fact we have offered some relief to that sector.

I also want to close on this note, because again I think that we should not simplistically accept the notion that we can move, or that we somehow are losing our industrial base.... Look at the statistics that just came out with respect to exports. There's been a decline, although if you track that over a four- or five-year period, there's been a phenomenal increase in exports out of British Columbia.

But if you want to see what has a real impact in this province, check the fact that the price of pulp has dropped off dramatically and that pulp exports are down, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 percent -- I'm going from memory here. See what impact that has on our economy. The lesson is simple: maintain an industrial base. Don't maintain the one that might have been okay 20 years ago or even ten years ago. You've got to keep adding knowledge and skill and everything else to make it the most sophisticated one you can, and be competitive; we had a debate about competitiveness.

Unless you have that kind of solid underpinning to your economy, you are very much at the whim of trends that maybe you can't even foresee.

I think tourism is a good industry for British Columbia; I think it's an outstanding industry. It brings enormous benefits and enormous jobs. But surely people in that sector understand that some of the fundamental industries in this province -- the wealth-producing, goods-producing industries -- are absolutely critical in terms of our economic performance. So let's do them both; I think we can. Let's look at how we can nurture and expand a new industrial base -- as I say, a knowledge-based industrial base. We're looking at those opportunities, and we're quite prepared to participate with the private sector.

Again, I would remind the members opposite that they said -- quite declaratively, I believe -- that they would end all business subsidies. I think that policy is wrongheaded. They may have time to reconsider it. So I'll just end on that note.

P. Reitsma: I take it that the answer is no, there won't be any additional tax increases and increased licence fees and employee costs for at least two years.

At some time I'd like to get into a debate in terms of the traditional base and fundamental jobs. I notice that the member from Alberni-Clayoquot is here as well. During my tenure as mayor of Port Alberni, in 1981, because of the shrinking, we lost 1,700 primary jobs out of 5,500 in the forestry industries. Of course, every primary job is supported by two secondary jobs, as well.

On a lighter note, certainly the B.C. Liberals view tourism marketing expenditures as very much an investment in the future. I'd like to take this opportunity to invite everyone to come to Parksville to the Sandcastle Days on the second weekend in July, and just before that to the Bathtub Days in Nanaimo. I wish that the freeze had been on earlier this year, when you could have done something about the weather and put a freeze on the inclement weather we've had.

I. Chong: I just want to follow up on one of the comments made by my colleague, which the minister was responding to, with regard to Showcase B.C. Certainly I am aware that they have in fact contacted this government, and perhaps in the beginning they did request funding of some $20 million. But as I understand it, having recognized the denial of that request, they then sought private investors to come in on their venture, and the only support they're now requesting is one of endorsement of their plan -- a plan to promote tourism for us here in B.C.

Perhaps they were wanting to use the logo, as you say, on an unauthorized basis, but perhaps if you would continue some dialogue with them, they may be able to use it on a limited basis. What they are in fact doing is providing a marketing opportunity for us here in B.C. -- one that our budget could not possibly stretch to encompass.

So I would ask the minister if he is able to reconsider that, because I'm sure the Showcase B.C. people would like to contact him again. They have contacted us in an effort to get endorsement. They are not asking for financial resources at this time, because they have worked out those problems. If you are able to provide an endorsement and the use of the Super, Natural logo on a limited, one-time-only basis, then perhaps there will be a win-win situation for all of us here in B.C.

Hon. D. Miller: I will discuss it with my officials, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Are we ready now to move to Environment, Lands and Parks? We need some comment and some discussion.

On

schedule 2 -- Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

C. Clark: Like my colleagues, I will be brief, although as a new member of the House, I hope the Chair will forgive me if I delve into some rather mundane issues in order to orient myself to the ministry. I'd like to offer my congratulations to the minister on what I think is a big promotion to the Ministry

[ Page 83 ]

of Environment, environment being one of the most important ministries of the government and certainly one of the most top-of-mind issues for the public. I don't know if the minister's staff are here yet. Would he prefer I wait a minute or two?

Interjection.

C. Clark: Okay.

I would say, though, that these late sittings do make a good argument for the Liberal proposal for scheduled sittings of the House. I'm not a parent myself, but I know that it would probably be nice for parents to be able to get home to their kids at a decent hour.

[12:15]

I'll start with some of the issues related to the way the ministry is organized, which have excited my curiosity as I read the estimates. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is a combination of three ministries, of course, and they've been consolidated under one political master. Now that we've had two terms of the same government where the three ministries have remained under the same political master, I wonder if the minister has turned his mind or his resources to consolidating the three in a more rational manner and trying to find some economies of scale in the ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before I respond specifically to the member's questions, I just want to say that I do regard this portfolio as a large challenge, both because I have such a substantial record to build on.... In starting that, I would like to congratulate my predecessors in this portfolio, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I think they have really made historic contributions to the environment in this province, and it is a high challenge to build on the directions, standards and achievements that we have made as government over the past four years.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm quite willing to respond to the questions of the member opposite. I would suggest that more mundane matters might be more appropriately saved for estimates.

On the question of reorganization, though, I want to tell the member opposite that I think the ministry has made some progress in amalgamating its operations over the past few years. I think there is more progress to be made, particularly in the area of making sure there's good coordination of regional operations to serve people in the very diverse regions of our province.

C. Clark: The minister's comments about the estimates are well taken, although I hope he will forgive me if I do try and orient myself a little bit to the ministry.

One of the things that you notice when you look at the way the ministry is set up is that different areas have very different boundaries for the geographical areas they deal with, and one of the things that strikes you when you look at the map is that it doesn't provide the public with one-stop shopping very well. I think that's probably the direction any government would want to go in. So I hope that when the minister starts thinking about reorganization a little more thoroughly, he'll think about reorienting those boundaries so that they're a little bit less incongruous.

Now, another area that one notices in the estimates, hon. Chair, is, for example, the department that deal with water. You notice that hydrology and water quality, water policy, and water supply are all in different areas of the department. I was wondering, too, if the minister had put any thought or resources into rationalizing that and trying to find some better coordination between those very critical decision-making areas of the department.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In a ministry that has as many diverse responsibilities as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.... There are some 55 different acts that it administers. As the member says, with a huge diversity of issues around the province, there's always room both for better coordination with other government operations and coordination of activities within the ministry. The comments that the member makes around water and water resources being a topic of concern in several areas of the ministry are well taken, and it is an issue that I intend to look into.

C. Clark: The last area I'll touch on in this topic of the ministry's organization is fish. I was curious about how the ministry's fish habitat responsibilities are coordinated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and why fish are partly in Environment and not completely in the other ministry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: A good question, and indeed an area particularly.... I think one of the real challenges facing the Ministry of Environment, indeed government, in this term is going to be protection and management of fish and water resources. We do have two ministries with different parts of responsibility. Earlier my colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spoke about his role in regulating salmon farming and some other aspects of commercial fish. This ministry clearly has responsibility for managing freshwater resources.

Work on things like the Forest Practices Code and the urban salmon habitat -- resources in fresh water -- does support the saltwater fishery. We do have some joint coordinating committees with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Whether this is efficient or whether we ought to move beyond that to other sorts of integration will be a matter that I and my colleagues will be looking at in the next little while.

C. Clark: That would be timely, particularly if the responsibility for managing the resource is devolved from the federal government to the provincial government. It would be wise for the provincial government, if I may say, to be prepared for that eventuality and certainly to make sure that all our decision-making is fairly well organized in that regard.

I'll move on to some more familiar topics. I wondered, in looking at the estimates, what sorts of measures the department has taken to prepare for what is, hopefully, the very remote possibility that the draining of Williston Lake doesn't go exactly as planned. I know that the Environment ministry has some responsibilities for emergency preparedness. I've made the assumption that the ministry would probably have made some preparations, had some plans in place and devoted some resources to making sure that that eventuality, if we do cross that bridge, is dealt with properly.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm glad the member opposite thinks we should be prepared for devolution -- a solid endorsement of our Premier's and this government's ability to influence the

[ Page 84 ]

federal government to see the light on this province's need to assume the role of the management of fisheries resources. I surely agree with you.

As for Williston reservoir, I'm not quite sure what the member is alluding to. You're quite correct. B.C. Hydro has been ordered by the water management branch to draw down Williston. B.C. Hydro has been working very closely and very well with the water management branch as they take steps to ensure that Hydro can assess the extent of any damage to the Bennett Dam and, as quickly as possible, devise measures for mitigating any damages that may be there.

C. Clark: Perhaps I misunderstood. It was my assumption that part of the emergency preparedness line items in the estimates might be devoted to preparing for the unlikely eventuality that draining Williston Lake wouldn't go as planned. The ministry might be devoting some time to ensuring that residents in that area are safe, but I understand from the minister that that's all being taken care of by Hydro.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's another ministry involved as well. The Attorney General has responsibility for the provincial emergency program. They are on the ground in the Peace country right now. They have been doing both general community meetings and door-to-door distribution of information about plans.

As far as actually raising the level of the Peace River as a result of the order to draw down Williston, the latest information I have -- as of this morning -- is that things are going as planned. I intend to be travelling to the Peace country in the very near future to see for myself what the state of affairs is.

C. Clark: I wonder, too: has the ministry done any analysis of the impacts on the fish habitat that the draining of Williston Lake might have downstream?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There will indeed be some impact on fish and wildlife resources as a result of lowering the level. You've already seen some media reports of impacts on deer populations -- this year's fawns, the newborns. There will inevitably, I believe, be some loss of that resource -- not significant in terms of the overall population in the region, but some loss nonetheless. It's regrettable. There will probably also be some damage to the fish resource because of the high level of nitrogen in the release that's coming off of the dam. The ministry is in the process now of seeking to quantify exactly what those damages will be and what mitigation will be required.

C. Clark: So the ministry, then, doesn't have any specific or even ballpark figures on what kind of environmental damage is going to be done by the draining of Williston Lake.

Interjection.

C. Clark: All right.

I'll move on to another related topic. I wonder if the estimates provide a contingency to mitigate the additional environmental damage which will be done when Burrard Thermal is fired up to make up for the lost power from B.C. Hydro.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I was following the debate until that last U-turn.

Just let me say one thing about what's going on at Williston Lake. Williston Lake is not being "drained." I must be very clear about what's happening here. There is currently something like 15 to 20 feet of what's called freeboard between the level of the lake and the top of the dam. Hydro's been ordered to draw that down by another 20 or more feet to ensure maximum precaution as Hydro assesses any damage to Bennett Dam. That's what's been done -- not "draining" the lake. There is still some 300 feet of water there; it's quite significant. It's more than that in many places. It's not going to get drained.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know it is late, but please let's not get too flip about what would be a really unimaginable catastrophe in the event of a breach of that very significant dam.

As for the impact on the environment of the Burrard Thermal plant, I'm sure the member and I will have ample opportunity to discuss all the details of that during estimates. The plant, as you know, has not been operating since January, and there are no plans in the immediate future to start it up.

C. Clark: I take it by "immediate" that he means tomorrow.

On a related question, I wonder if the ministry has any analysis or has had access to any analysis from the Ministry of Health about the ancillary costs associated with the environmental impact on people's health of Burrard Thermal in the Fraser Valley.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the member knows, trying to separate one source is sometimes very difficult. There clearly are some major air quality challenges in the Fraser Valley, and as you know, this government, under the leadership of the previous Minister of Environment, has taken steps to really introduce some of the toughest air quality and emission standards for vehicles of any jurisdiction on this continent. That's one indication of how seriously we take this situation of air quality. As the member watches, those regulations will take effect over the next several years. The impact on air quality in the Vancouver airshed will be visible.

[12:30]

As you also know, Hydro and BCUC have both been looking at the Burrard plant and are considering a number of options for potential changes to how that plant generates electricity.

C. Clark: Of course, the best pollution abatement program in Port Moody would be shutting down Burrard Thermal altogether, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition suggested during the election, and I think the people of Port Moody spoke quite clearly about what they thought of that suggestion.

On the topic of the lakes and related lakes issues, I wanted to ask a local question about Burnaby Lake. I wanted to find out what portion of the estimates this time has been devoted to cleaning up Burnaby Lake, which is starting to look a lot like Downton Lake.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Like many urban streams that provide salmon habitat, Burnaby Lake and others have really been abused over the years. Earlier this week I was very pleased to be able to announce community grants to deal with some urban salmon habitat. And a Burnaby Lake project, through

[ Page 85 ]

BCIT's fish, wildlife and recreation program, received a grant of $30,000 to continue some of the excellent work that's been done already to restore Burnaby Lake.

C. Clark: I respectfully suggest to the minister that a thousand dollars probably won't be enough to restore Burnaby Lake. He'll probably be aware of the great work of Doreen Lawson on Burnaby council -- probably one of the most outstanding environmentalists on any council in British Columbia -- who has made a lot of recommendations with regard to Burnaby Lake and how we can clean it up. I respectfully suggest to the minister that it will take a lot more than a thousand dollars, and I'm looking forward to the estimates, where I'm sure more than a thousand dollars will be devoted to cleaning up the lake.

Moving right along, I'll move on to land use issues. I wanted to find out from the minister how much of these special warrants.... What progress has been made in the last several months in completing the Vancouver Island land use plan?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Work on the Vancouver Island land use plan continues to identify areas for high-, low- and medium-intensity activity. The expectation is that that work will be complete in another six months.

C. Clark: Like a lot of British Columbians, I guess, I wondered why there hadn't been any further protests on the lawn of the Legislature about the CORE process, and I guess that's because it hasn't started yet on Vancouver Island. As far as I understand it, the ministry hasn't developed standards yet for any high-density or low-density zones. They have established the status quo zones, and I guess that's not reason to protest on the lawns of the Legislature. The CORE recommendations were made two and a half years ago, if I'm correct, and I'd like to express some surprise that the government has moved so slowly on what I guess was one of the centrepieces of the previous government.

On the land use issue, the government has said that it is committed to protecting 12 percent of the province, and I wonder if the minister could tell me whether that 12 percent is going to be on a provincewide basis or if it's going to be parcelled out on a regional basis.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'd be pleased to offer the member opposite a thorough briefing on the status of the Vancouver Island land use plan. Contrary to what her researchers seem to have led her to believe, we have made excellent progress since the CORE report was first submitted. We have a consensus adoption of a land use plan for Vancouver Island. Goal 1 and goal 2 parks have been designated thoroughly already. We have a land use plan that has got what we said it should have: a buy-in from all the people who value and use the land in this part of the province.

I'll be glad to fill in the member in an intensive briefing on where we are. The work continues in LRMPs across the province to further work on land use planning.

As far as the 12 percent goal is concerned, it is a provincial goal. In the past term we have made significant progress -- to slightly over 9 percent from 6 percent, a record unequalled in any jurisdiction in this country, in this continent -- and we intend to keep on that track.

C. Clark: What percentage of