Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 4, Number 17

[ Page 3127 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a school from the Fraser Heights area in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Their teacher Ms. Douglas and 27 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy have made a trip over today, and I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure today to introduce some longtime friends and someone I had the opportunity to work with when I was president of our local union in school district 24, as it was then -- I think it's now No. 73: Tom Balson, who is a longtime school trustee who provided fabulous service to the area of Kamloops, and his wife Mary. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Would the House please welcome 20 grade 3 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. McAuley, and my deputy minister, Eloise Spitzer, whose daughter Kali Spitzer is part of this grade 3 class. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to announce to the House that there are 40 members of Chilliwack Multicultural Services, including their director, Ann Muehlebach, just seating themselves now in the Speaker's gallery. Most of the people are newcomers to Canada who are participating in the LINC program, which operates out of the newly opened Canadian Centre under the auspices of the Chilliwack Community Services Society. Last Christmas I had the privilege and the opportunity to attend their annual Christmas banquet, and I can indicate to everyone here that it was a very enjoyable time. I would ask everyone here in the Legislature to make these people from Chilliwack welcome.

E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two constituents from the Comox Valley -- two friends and two friends of labour. These constituents are Marianne Davies, president of the Campbell River, Courtenay and District Labour Council, and accompanying her, her mother Florence Bell. These two women are exemplary people in the Comox Valley, representing the strength of labour in our community and in the valley. Marianne's grandfather came to the Comox Valley many years ago, first as an organizer for the IWA. They are here today, hon. Speaker, to assist and support me as I read a proclamation from Elizabeth II.

"To all whom these presents shall come -- Greetings.

"WHEREAS organized labour in this Province has made and continues to make a valuable contribution to the establishment of communities and growth of B.C.'s economy, and

"WHEREAS the Ministry of Education strives to instill in students intellectual development, human and social development and career development, and

"WHEREAS in order to become effective citizens, workers and parents, all children should be made aware through our schools of the role organized labour has played in the history of the Province, and

"WHEREAS Our Administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council in that behalf that a Proclamation be issued designating May, 1997 as 'Labour History Month' in British Columbia . . . . "

It gives me great pleasure to welcome these two to our assembly today.

Ministerial Statement

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I rise to inform the House that this week is Emergency Preparedness Week in British Columbia.

We've had many reminders in the last few months of the importance of being prepared for emergencies. We've seen the heroic efforts of the citizens of Manitoba as they have joined together, community by community, neighbours helping neighbours, battling the floodwaters of the Red River. We are inspired by their struggle. British Columbia has been able to offer assistance to them, as have individual Canadians all across the country.

In our province we have not forgotten this past winter's snowstorm. Also, the rising waters of the Somass River and the Okanagan and Kalamalka lakes are now cause for concern, and we shall be watching those areas very closely.

Emergency Preparedness Week is a time to reflect on our preparedness for such incidents. Each of us should examine our own readiness for an emergency, our preparations in our homes and offices, and our plans for our families, neighbourhoods and communities.

This weekend I was pleased to participate in an emergency preparedness event in Coquitlam and distribute new multilingual, pocket-sized earthquake survival guides. The guides are designed to help individuals with their emergency planning and to make that information as widely accessible as possible.

The government of British Columbia is also examining the province's preparedness. As you know, I have asked the auditor general of this province to assess the province's emergency earthquake preparedness, and that audit is now underway. I look forward to sharing the results of that audit when it's completed so that we can do whatever is necessary to improve our emergency procedures.

Emergency Preparedness Week runs until May 11. I urge all hon. members and all British Columbians to ensure full preparedness.

G. Plant: I want to thank the Attorney General for providing me with a copy of his ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, events in Manitoba remind us daily of the awesome power of nature and the yet more awesome power of the Canadian spirit. To revise the words of Norman Maclean: all Canadians this spring have been haunted by waters. Each day these past few weeks has also marked a fresh reminder of the importance of preparation, the only effective tool we have for responding to natural disasters.

Nature is close to us here in British Columbia. Last New Year's snowstorm and last month's deluge in Trail are recent reminders of our need to stand on guard against the devastation that nature can and does cause here in the place we call home.

May is one of the most beautiful months in our beautiful province, but it can also be one of the most dangerous. I'm reminded again of Norman Maclean's words: "The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basin of time."

In May 1948 my father, his brother and his sister joined together with their high school and university friends to help bag sand to hold back the raging waters of the Fraser River. Once again, 49 years later, the snow has begun to melt in the

[ Page 3128 ]

high country above our towns, our villages, our farms and ranches, and the rivers have begun to rise. It is good for us, those of us who live in the lowlands, to be reminded of the importance of vigilance.

Like other British Columbians, I look forward to receiving from the Attorney General the results of the emergency preparedness audit which is underway. But for today, I join with him in urging all British Columbians to make good use of Emergency Preparedness Week.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present today, from the auditor general, report No. 7, "Management of Travel: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs, Performance Audit" and report No. 8, "Executive Severance Practices: Government Ministries and Crown Corporations, Performance Review."

[2:15]

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY INVESTMENT

AND JOB CREATION

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Forests tried to explain away a finding made by the Dominion Bond Rating Service that the historic benefits of B.C.'s forests have become a liability. The minister pointed out that a thousand jobs had been created through regulatory investment. What he forgot to remind us of was that 5,500 jobs had been lost in the forest industry in 1996 alone. Whether it's Terrace, Gold River or Malakwa, forest families are worried about their future. Investors are looking at places other than British Columbia to invest in the forest industry, be it Alberta or the United States.

My question is for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister tell us what kind of job damage has been done in the forest industry as a result of this government's policies? And how many forest sector jobs have relocated to Alberta and the United States?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the opposition selectively uses statistics, but they ignore that there has been . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They laugh at the fact that there have been 10,000 jobs created since 1991. In the forest sector report . . . . The survey of employment, payroll and hours produced by Stats Canada indicates that there has been a 1.1 percent increase over January 1996 in the forest sector. There is growth in the sector, not decline, as they would suggest.

G. Campbell: This side of the House celebrates the creation of any job in British Columbia. However, we also recognize that when we lose 5,500 jobs in our most critical industry in just one year, that's something the government should be concerned about.

Yesterday this Minister of Forests bragged about a billion dollars in investments. The last time we were at this stage in the cycle, the private sector invested $2.8 billion in the forest industry. That means that NDP forest policies have driven forest sector investment down by almost two-thirds. That's $2 billion of lost investment to the forest sector. B.C. jobs are going to Alberta and the United States.

My question to the Minister of Forests is: how can the minister take pride in that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If companies are earning profits in British Columbia, then they ought to be reinvested in British Columbia. If there are opportunities in other provinces, then it's expected that they'll take advantage of those opportunities.

The fact, as I repeat it here, is that because of cutting patterns in the past, there has been some reduction in the amount of fibre that's cut here, in some regions in British Columbia. In other regions of British Columbia, the amount of cut is going up. So there's as much timber cut today as there was three or four years ago.

The point about the jobs last year is that there's actually an increase from January of last year to January of this year -- and that's how I read that report.

G. Campbell: The issue that people face across this province, in family after family -- 5,500 families have faced it -- is the loss of their jobs in the forest industry.

This government's policies have driven investment out of the province. This government's policies have driven such longtime B.C. companies as West Fraser, Ainsworth and MacMillan Bloedel to look elsewhere, to look outside B.C. to create jobs. And the issue for me is: how is this minister going to create an environment that will encourage investment and encourage job creation, as opposed to the loss of 5,500 family-supporting jobs in the forest sector in 1996?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have to remember that that opposition over there is funded in large part by the big forest companies -- tens of thousands of dollars, hon. Speaker. If this Leader of the Opposition was where I was, with the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers last Friday, he would have heard Ainsworth stand up and say that they took profits earned in British Columbia and reinvested in an OSB plant in British Columbia.

FOREST WORKER AGENCY

AND EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY

T. Nebbeling: Let's see if we can get an answer without a spin sheet.

In July last year this House passed Bill 12,

an act establishing a forest workers agency. The purpose of this forest workers agency . . . .

Interjections.

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

T. Nebbeling: The purpose of the forest workers agency is to match eligible forest workers with jobs in Forest Renewal projects, and it also facilitates priority hiring for eligible forest workers.

Today we see hundreds of forest workers joining that force of unemployed people in this province. The 5,500 unemployed forest workers are now, on a weekly basis, being increased by 100 small forest workers that no longer have job opportunities. At the same time, there is no agency . . .

[ Page 3129 ]

The Speaker: The question.

T. Nebbeling: I'm getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

. . . in this province to help these displaced forest workers.

My question to the minister is: is the minister going to honour the commitment made to the forest workers in this province and open this so much needed agency, or are we just witnessing another broken promise?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Forest Renewal B.C. has been working extremely hard to ensure that when the agency is up and running -- which we hope will be soon -- it will do the job of matching displaced forest workers with jobs.

First of all, we have to ensure that those jobs are there, and the whole purpose of the jobs and timber accord discussion is to ensure that we move toward a new type of forest worker so that he can work not on a little job here and a little job there, but that we create full-time -- or as near as possible full-time -- jobs. It's this side of the House that brought in the program that will bring in the renewal and will deliver to those displaced forest workers, not that side. That's the side that voted against it, hon. Speaker.

T. Nebbeling: Let's see if we can find the reason why the agency is not in operation today, and I think we have it here. The definition of a forest worker, as stated by FRBC, is: "An eligible forest worker is any person whose livelihood is derived from employment in the forest sector, be it in harvesting, be it in manufacturing or be it in silviculture."

During a conference of silviculture contractors, the president of the IWA, Dave Haggard, informed the contractors that in order to get a piece of the FRBC pie, they had to accept certification of their workers. My question to the minister is: will the minister guarantee the House that all forest workers will be eligible for FRBC-funded projects and that no special interest group can play with the intent of Bill 12?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, in the next breath they'll be asking for unemployed IWA workers to be given first priority. They speak out of all sides of their mouth.

The forest workers in the industry who have built the industry on the coast -- the hard workers from up and down the coast, IWA members -- deserve an opportunity to be hired. The complaint from that side has been that we haven't employed enough. What we are doing is making sure that we have a smooth transition, so that the 8,000-some person-years of employment created by Forest Renewal go to the displaced forest workers, wherever they are in the province.

CONSULTATION ON NISGA'A AIP

AND TIMETABLE FOR FINAL AGREEMENT

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I'm sure most British Columbians are as pleased as we are that Chief Joe Gosnell was re-elected president of the Nisga'a tribal council this past Sunday.

I think it's also fair to say that we are relieved by the Premier's comments in yesterday's news that a final agreement is still several months away, or longer. Can the minister confirm that fact for the record? And can he also confirm that there is still no clear agreement between the province and Ottawa on either the legal means to achieve certainty or the cost-sharing arrangements for the proposed Nisga'a government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, the answer is yes, the cost-sharing arrangements have not been finalized. The discussions that are taking place are under the umbrella of an earlier agreement, but there's more work that needs to be done in order to address a number of key issues there.

With regard to the length of time it will take, my own projection at this point would be that it will take a few months, but the bottom line should be that it be the right agreement. When we are able to get the right agreement that's right for British Columbians, that's when we should proceed.

R. Neufeld: Supplementary. The government's 1996 "Financial and Economic Review" has promised international investors that: "Final negotiations to reach a settlement will commence after public input has been obtained on the AIP."

Given that the negotiations to finalize the deal began immediately after the AIP was signed, have been ongoing for over a year and are now nearing completion without any opportunity for meaningful input, can the minister explain what his government meant by that promise? Will he now commit to honour that commitment to a genuine public consultation process on the AIP, one which is specifically aimed at improving and renegotiating any elements of the package that are not acceptable to most British Columbians -- or rather, getting the right agreement?

Hon. J. Cashore: I categorically reject the fundamental assumption behind that question. There has been extensive consultation; there has continued to be extensive consultation. Even recently we have seen concern expressed about the consultation that was taking place by the Ministry of Lands, and that was misrepresented as other than what it actually was, which was consultation with third parties. The fact is that there have been over 120 meetings undertaken since the time the AIP was signed. There has been the input, which that we've been monitoring, that has been going into the select standing committee.

There has been the ongoing work with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and with the regional advisory committee. To stand there and say . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think that's sufficient.

Hon. J. Cashore: . . . that consultation has not taken place is a scurrilous wrong.

REPORT COMMISSIONED BY

GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISER

G. Plant: One of the $20,000 studies commissioned by the minister's chief constitutional adviser is being written by John Munro, who is described in press reports as an associate professor at UBC who teaches non-fiction writing. It's not widely known that Mr. Munro was also the editor of the chief constitutional adviser's apocalyptic campaign manifesto and in fact wrote a glowing introduction, praising the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

What British Columbians want most of all from a historical analysis of our constitution is an independent and objective approach to the question. My question, therefore, is for the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. Did he consider hiring other constitutional historians? Or was he content with the chief constitutional adviser's recommendation of Mr. Munro as the best choice for doing this $20,000 report?

[ Page 3130 ]

[2:30]

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's a little ironic that the Liberal opposition would complain that the process being undertaken by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast does not take account of a broad enough range of views or is not independent and objective.

The New Democrat government has come into possession of a document -- after exhaustive research -- sent to the Leader of the Opposition, inviting the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus to become involved in this project. Let me quote from the document sent to him by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast: "It is my intention that this process be non-partisan, and therefore your involvement and support would be welcome."

It is my understanding that the members opposite declined to become involved in the process, have not responded. They attended a briefing and then did not participate -- preferred to sit back and sandbag this process in order to undermine the attempt to produce a non-partisan approach to resolving our constitutional issues. It's really time for the Liberal opposition to come forward with some constructive suggestions and stop sandbagging constructive process.

The Speaker: Minister, the time has expired. The bell terminates question period, and I shall resist the temptation to comment on that fact.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I'd just like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

In Committee A, I call estimates. For the information of the House, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: Just entering the gallery up there, you'll see some people in blue. They're grade 5 students from Collingwood School in West Vancouver. I'm particularly pleased to see them here, as my daughter started her career at Collingwood three years ago in grade 5. So it's very nice to see the students, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. David Hughes, and several parents from the community. Would the House please make them welcome.

section 26.

F. Gingell: I just wonder if the minister wanted to use this opportunity to tell us about all the good things that are moving forward in the accountability process that will be assisted by the passage of

section 26.

Hon. A. Petter: As tempting as it is to take the member up on his invitation, I think I'll defer the opportunity until estimates, when the role and responsibilities of the ministry are more fully before us.

All this amendment does is recognize and continue the exemption that exists with respect to the office of the chief investment officer, because the office of the chief investment officer is being separated from the provincial treasury in order to ensure its autonomy in pursuing the investments that it does. If the member wants to inquire more deeply into the operations of treasury or this office, I'd be happy to do it in estimates.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could start by advising the committee which minister of the Crown is responsible for the administration of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

F. Gingell: As I understand it, the purpose of this

section is to provide for the movement of all responsibilities and the delivery of the SAFER program from your ministry to the B.C. Housing Management Commission. When one looks in the accounts of your ministry, one sees that the administration cost in this

section of housing grants was roughly cut in half this year. Can the minister advise the committee what compensation will be paid to the B.C. Housing Management Commission for performing these services that his ministry is responsible for? Or do you intend for them to be absorbed into rentals that are charged to people in properties administered by and held in trust by this commission? Exactly what is the funding arrangement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrative component for the SAFER program that existed in the ministry is transferred over to B.C. Housing. So what money was previously expended by this ministry on administration will be expended by B.C. Housing.

F. Gingell: I take it that where these expenses appear in your budget this year is part of the grant to B.C. Housing rather than administration costs of your ministry.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

F. Gingell: It doesn't surprise me that the ministry has made this change. I wonder if the minister can advise the committee exactly what benefits one anticipates flowing from this change in responsibilities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the primary benefit, hon. member, will be the fact that all rental subsidies are delivered through one program, as opposed to some being delivered through B.C. Housing, some being delivered through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. So there will be the elimination of some duplication by combining them under one agency.

[ Page 3131 ]

The second is the fact that by moving that to B.C. Housing, which is located in Vancouver, you're in fact closer to the largest group of people who are receiving the benefits of that program. So I think you get a benefit there in the ability to respond better.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 33 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 33,

(

a) in the proposed

section 15(1)(

s) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by deleting "section 15(1)(

s) as it read before its replacement by this paragraph," and substituting "a pollution abatement provision,",

(

b) in the proposed

section 15(3)(

b) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by deleting "under subsection (1)(s)" and substituting "for pollution abatement purposes", and

(

c) in the proposed

section 15(5) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, by adding the following definition:

"pollution abatement provision" means

section 15(1)(

s) of this Act,

section 339(1)(

q) of the Municipal Act or

section 396(1)(e.01) of the Vancouver Charter, as those provisions read before their repeal and replacement by the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997.]

On the amendment.

G. Abbott: I'd just like a brief explanation from the minister of how this

section 33 differs from the

section 23 that we discussed at some length a little bit earlier, the purpose of it and why it's there in relation to 23.

Hon. A. Petter: It's just a question of the land base to which it applies. In this case, it applies in the rural area in exactly the same way as the earlier

section applied elsewhere. So there's no difference in principle. It's just a matter of the application of it within different components of the taxation base.

G. Abbott: So the determining point is whether the area in question is incorporated or unincorporated?

Hon. A. Petter: Precisely.

Amendment approved.

section 33 as amended.

F. Gingell: Just before the adjournment at 12 o'clock, we got into an interesting discussion with the member for Matsqui on the application of these provisions in the area of agriculture and farming. I wonder if, during the lunchtime break, the minister learned anything further on this issue, or whether he still takes the position that this

section has never been applied to agricultural use.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed by staff that over the lunch hour they did check, and confirmed that the amount of agricultural assessed value that's been an issue has been in the range of $25,000, which is, in the general scheme of things, pretty small.

Section 33 as amended approved.

section 34.

F. Gingell: I was just rising on this one to ask the minister how he feels this tax increase -- and I'm sure that it is a tax increase; it's not the sunsetting of some previous legislation passed in 1992 -- reconciles with the government's commitment not to raise taxes.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the legislation with respect to the tax freeze did not apply, and was never intended to or purported to apply to tobacco tax. The reason for this particular tax increase -- and I agree with the member, it is a tax increase -- is twofold.

First of all, the obvious rationale for taxing tobacco is to recognize the costs that tobacco imposes upon society in terms of the health risk it poses. Those costs are ones that relate not to the form in which the tobacco is consumed but to the amount of tobacco that is consumed, and this levels the playing field in that regard.

The other related concern is that the distinction between loose tobacco and cigarettes is one the tobacco companies have started to exploit in order to put out products that attract a lower tax, even though they are not much different in the marketplace. The best example of that is tobacco sticks. I'm not a smoker myself, so I don't really know how it all functions. But as I understand it, a tobacco stick is a product which is not immediately usable as a cigarette -- and therefore doesn't qualify as a cigarette -- but with one very simple step becomes usable. For example, you slide it into a tube.

As a result, that allowed tobacco companies to exploit an opportunity for tax avoidance on the part of consumers and to make tobacco a more attractive alternative, when the purpose of the tax was to dissuade people from utilizing more tobacco.

For that reason as well -- to protect the revenue base and to ensure that tobacco is taxed on an equitable basis according to its cost -- I felt that this was one tax area in which a modest increase not inconsistent with the tax freeze commitments or legislation this government had passed was well justified in public policy terms. And that's why this increase is here.

F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that explanation. Could the minister please advise the committee of the amount of additional revenues they anticipate raising from this tax increase?

[2:45]

Hon. A. Petter: The estimate is in the range of $18 million per year.

Sections 34 and 35 approved.

section 36.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to

section 36 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 36,

(

a) in the proposed

section 396(1)(e.01) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "section 396(1)(e.01) as it read before its replacement by this paragraph," and substituting "a pollution abatement provision,",

(

b) in the proposed

section 396(3)(

b) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "under subsection (1)(e.01)" and substituting "for pollution abatement purposes", and

(

c) in the proposed

section 396(4) of the Vancouver Charter, by adding the following definition:

[ Page 3132 ]

"pollution abatement provision" means

section 396(1)(e.01) of this Act,

section 339(1)(

q) of the Municipal Act or

section 15(1)(

s) of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act, as those provisions read before their repeal and replacement by the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997.]

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

section 37.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I'm quickly looking at my notes from . . . . Is

section 37 going to apply to the minister for one year only?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, in fact, it will apply for one year. It's a transitional

section that will expire March 31, 1998.

G. Abbott: Am I to understand that after that one year this authority and indeed this

section will not be needed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. It will become redundant, because

section 2 of the bill, which we've already debated, will come into full effect.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

D. Jarvis: I look at

section 38 and I find it . . . . Perhaps it's somewhat of a shell game that's being played in the ministry to try to evade the responsibility and the accountability of the line ministry. Here we are again moving moneys out of the Crown corporations into the line ministries in order to help them try to balance their budget. They're eyeing ICBC, like they have B.C. Hydro and Forest Renewal, and who knows what other Crown corporation down the line. But they're eyeing it to try to balance their budget.

They're trying to hide the expenses of the line ministry, which normally would be paid out of the Highways ministry, in this case, by taking the moneys out of the Crown corporations; and they in themselves are really not that accountable.

There's no question that the accounting system in this government is in shambles. We have a massive debt, and here we are going to a line ministry . . . . Pardon me, we're asking money for the line ministry to be pulled out of a Crown corporation, when their own balance sheet shows that they've lost money. You know, it's like carrying coals to Newcastle. It's one broke outfit trying to loan money to another outfit that is even broker than the Crown corporation. The Crown corporation only lost -- so they say, which I will dispute when those estimates come up -- around $140 million.

And you're showing that our debt is close to $31 billion. So I was just wondering if the minister can tell me how he can possibly pull moneys out from a Crown corporation that's in debt now, that's showing there's insufficient moneys and no moneys available for the line ministries. And why would he want to put it in . . . ? How could he pull it out of one ministry and increase the debt of that Crown corporation for the sake of his own line ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: I know there's a lot of controversy, which the member himself is trying to intensify, swirling around ICBC these days. But the one issue that I thought was not controversial -- in fact, that I've heard advocated by virtually all parties and all interest groups -- was that ICBC should look more intensely at investing in road safety as a strategy to reduce the real cause of much of the premium pressure, which is, of course, the rate of accidents and the injuries and vehicular damage that result from those accidents.

So this is in furtherance of that objective. ICBC has taken on its responsibilities for encouraging additional road safety initiatives. That was done last year. There was some transfer of road safety functions to ICBC, and ICBC was to assume that investment and increase that investment as a strategy to reduce vehicle accidents and thereby maintain premiums. The one thing that is not happening is . . . .

While ICBC is assuming responsibilities for some of the administrative functions of the motor vehicle branch, it is being provided with a revenue stream to offset the additional costs of that component of what's being transferred to it. All that's happening here is a transitional measure in this provision,

section 38. Because the transfer to ICBC is taking place into the fiscal year, ICBC will reimburse the ministry for carrying on functions that are properly going to be functions of ICBC once the transfer is effective.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister give us an anticipated cost of what will be involved?

Hon. A. Petter: I am trying to secure some of the more detailed information the member is seeking. But in principle my understanding of this

section is that it is to assist the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with costs the ministry will incur in this four-month transition period with respect to phase 2 of the ICBC-motor vehicle branch transfer; therefore it's covering the road safety component of those costs. If you want a more detailed breakdown of those, I can try to get them for the member. This is a matter that could be easily pursued within the ministry's estimates. This money is being transferred to the ministry to carry out these activities in the first four months, and therefore I anticipated that the debate on that would occur within the estimates. This is simply providing for the transfer of funding.

D. Jarvis: If the minister would be so kind as to . . . . We are unaware of when we may be looking at any type of estimates to ask those questions. That could be some time from now. It could be June; it could be September.

K. Krueger: Just ballpark it.

D. Jarvis: As the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has suggested, perhaps the minister could give us a ballpark breakdown of these moneys.

Hon. A. Petter: It's one step more complex than I had originally understood. As I understand it, ICBC will be obtaining a revenue stream from revenues that accrue from licences, etc., to cover their costs for the fiscal year. But because in the first few months of the fiscal year the functions they are taking on will continue to be carried out by the ministry rather than by ICBC, there is a paper transfer taking place to recognize that the revenue stream being provided to ICBC comes through to the ministry that's carrying out the functions.

Therefore it covers functions such as the operation of weigh scales, the management of commercial transport, management services, the motor carrier department, policy standards and legislation, the superintendent's office and licence reviews.

[ Page 3133 ]

The point I was trying to make earlier, which is a somewhat different point, is that the revenue stream being provided for ICBC is to cover the administrative costs of managing the motor vehicle component. ICBC does take unto itself some of the incremental costs related to road safety, because those are one of the measures that ICBC is pursuing in order to try to keep the rate of accidents down and to ensure that premiums don't increase.

D. Jarvis: Of course, road safety can encompass many things. Can the minister assure us that moneys . . . ? As we can't get a total of how much is involved -- what the cost would be -- which we asked for, he's asking us to accept the fact that he's going to transfer large amounts of money from ICBC into the line ministry -- or away from the line ministry's job. Theoretically, that's what it is. So could he tell us if there's any intention, when talking about safety, to use it for policing or photo radar?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't understand the member's question earlier. The amount that's being transferred is quite transparent and is provided for in the estimates. It's about $5.8 million to cover the functions I indicated, and it's to cover the

section of prorated expenditures that the ministry incurs in anticipation of the transfer to ICBC.

D. Jarvis: So no portion of that $5.8 million, plus or minus, is going to be used in the safety end of policing or photo radar.

[3:00]

Hon. A. Petter: I am aware of no amount of this money that would go to cover photo radar, which is already located as part of the phase 1 transfer to ICBC, or policing.

K. Krueger: With respect, we don't really understand why the

section is worded the way it is. If we're merely dealing with those costs that would have normally been part of the motor vehicle branch and are now being shifted into ICBC, why would the wording read: " . . . having been incurred by that ministry during that fiscal year for programs under the Motor Vehicle Act promoting and improving highway safety"? When we talk about improving highway safety, are we talking about any construction or planning costs for roads, safety engineering or any of those sorts of functions?

Hon. A. Petter: The simple answer is no.

K. Krueger: The way the

section reads to me . . . . Frankly, if the Minister of Transportation and Highways was to hand an invoice or any other sort of form to ICBC at the end of the year and say, "This is the amount you write the cheque for," the cheque would have to be written. It says: " . . . net of the amount appropriated under the Motor Vehicles subvote . . . . " But the wording is the reason that we were concerned as to what is contained in this provision. I take it we have the Finance minister's assurance that all we are discussing is a sum less than $6 million pertaining to those functions that he discussed earlier.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. The amount is provided for members in the estimates and will be debated, I'm sure, as part of the estimates.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

The Chair: All those in favour say aye.

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Opposed, if any, say nay.

Some Hon. Members: Nay.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

The Chair: A division has been called.

Come to order. The question is completion of committee stage of Bill 2. All those in favour, please rise.

Thank you, hon. members. You may be seated.

Those opposed, please rise.

Thank you very much. You may be seated.

Law Clerk: Voting yea: Evans, Zirnhelt, McGregor, Boone, Hammell, Streifel, Pullinger, Farnworth, Kwan, Waddell, Calendino, Stevenson, Bowbrick, Goodacre, Giesbrecht, Walsh, Kasper, Orcherton, Hartley, Priddy, Petter, Miller, Dosanjh, MacPhail, Cashore, Ramsey, Sihota, Randall, Sawicki, Lali, Doyle, Gillespie, Robertson, Conroy, Janssen -- 35.

Voting nay: Dalton, Gingell, Reid, Campbell, Farrell-Collins, Plant, Sanders, Stephens, de Jong, Coell, Anderson, Nebbeling, Whittred, van Dongen, Thorpe, Penner, Weisgerber, Wilson, Wilson, Reitsma, Hansen, C. Clark, Symons, Hawkins, Abbott, Jarvis, Weisbeck, Chong, Coleman, Nettleton, Masi, McKinnon, Krueger, Barisoff, Neufeld -- 34.

The Chair: The motion carries.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave, now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: In the galleries at this moment are 76 students from Little Flower Academy in my riding. They're accompanied by their teacher Matt Coady. I hope everyone will make them welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just reviewing the count from the vote in committee, and I believe there was a tie of 35-35.

[ Page 3134 ]

The Speaker: I see the Clerk is now reviewing the count, so with members' indulgence, I will look at the count with him.

Members, apparently there is indeed a tie. As you know, the committee is master of its own jurisdiction. Therefore the only thing we can do to solve the problem is to have another vote. The committee needs to be reconstituted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, excuse me. I ask you to please bear with us, simply because I'm worried that we are going to commit something that will become precedent forever after. Therefore I want to make sure we do it right. We can all speculate about what this might mean.

The way we intend to proceed is to set aside the third reading proceedings, to recommit the bill and to have another vote, but only with those members who were in the chamber at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I see some members expressing some concern. Our predicament is that the committee must do this. The Chair of the committee has the casting vote, and to ask the individual who happened to be in the chair at the time to cast that vote is inappropriate, because the vote can really only be cast while the individual is in the chair. That's why we're suggesting that procedure. I hope that's clear to everybody.

And, as I say, we will ask all those members who were not in the chamber for the division to please absent themselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's nice to know we have some entertainment on a quiet Tuesday afternoon.

I recognize the Government House Leader.

[3:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I assume you need a motion to that effect. I move that the proceedings of third reading be discharged and that the bill be recommitted.

Motion approved.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.

Law Clerk: Hon. Chair, during the vote that the committee rise and report Bill 2 complete with amendments, the vote was inaccurately stated as 35 for and 34 against. In fact, the correct vote was 35 for and 35 against.

The Chair: There being a tie, and in accordance with practice, I cast -- are you ready for this? -- the casting vote in favour of the motion to report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. A. Petter: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 3.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 3; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

F. Gingell: We don't find Bill 3 to be a very contentious issue, but between second reading and committee stage I've given some thought to one issue that I'd like to bring up with the Minister of Finance, and that is this: generally accepted accounting practices are voluntary. Whatever the Institute of Chartered Accountants may lay down, they are still voluntary. Corporations are able to and have the right to prepare their financial statements in any way they wish, just as the Minister of Finance does in this province.

It's up to the auditors of the corporations -- or the auditor general, in the case of the province -- to express an opinion. That opinion doesn't deal with the issue of correcting them to generally accepted accounting practices; it just deals in the generalities of whether or not they meet those tests.

It seems to me that the one thing that really does create a firm basis for the preparation of this kind of tax return -- and to bring it in on a consistent basis -- is to make our corporation capital tax meet the rules and the methods of presentation required in the federal large corporations tax. There aren't any ifs, ands or buts about that. The large corporations tax returns have to be prepared and filed in accordance with that legislation.

GAAP really is a much looser arrangement, subject to a great deal of

interpretation, and as I say, it's not compulsory. Now, GAAP and GAAP processes appear throughout this bill. I don't intend to raise them in every section, but I wonder if perhaps the minister could advise the committee whether they have considered using some other standard to try to bring certainty and definition to the corporation capital tax.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess I'll try to answer and see if this is satisfactory or if it requires some further explanation for the member's benefit. As I understand it, what we're trying to do with these amendments is achieve a form of accounting within this legislation that is more standardized and consistent across the country. The touchstone for that is the generally accepted accounting practices. I guess the rationale for that is that this is a touchstone. I think the federal government is looking to it as well -- as we are, as opposed to simply assuming that the federal government's legislative choices have to govern.

[ Page 3135 ]

I suppose one could make that decision, but provinces obviously are interested in setting their own accounting policy and trying to make that accounting policy work within a national framework on a consistent basis.

So rather than simply having the province attach itself to federal decisions, the choice that's been made here is to try to attach ourselves to these generally accepted accounting principles that are generated through a process involving chartered accountants -- the federal legislation, of course, is drafted and amended with those same principles in mind -- rather than slavishly attaching ourselves to a set of federal prescriptions and norms which might serve our purposes much of the time, but for reasons of provincial policy and autonomy might not in other cases.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that this question I'm going to ask you perhaps would have been better asked in a briefing session. But I must admit that when I got the briefing, I didn't really think about these issues. Are there any circumstances by which a change in generally accepted accounting practices is going to affect the way in which corporation capital tax is calculated? That is, some third-party committee, usually sitting in Toronto, is going to make a decision that will affect the way we calculate corporation capital tax in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that all that's required to comply with this legislation is for companies to provide to government the same set of statements, based upon the generally accepted accounting principles, that companies would be expected to report to their shareholders. So the intention here is not to require companies to prepare a different set of statements but to provide to government a common set of statements that are provided to shareholders.

F. Gingell: In response, I think that's a very good idea. But I also think that it is true that each of the corporations that has to file corporation capital tax -- I'm not sure what the exemptions are for the federal large corporations tax -- probably has to file a large corporations tax return with the federal government. So either could have been chosen. It's just that I think that if you want to simplify the issues to make it work better, I would have attached myself to the federal rules in preference to attaching them to GAAP, which is much more involved in the issues of income measurement than in proper evaluation of capital.

[3:30]

Hon. A. Petter: While I appreciate the member's opinion -- and I'd be happy to arrange a briefing for him to fight this issue out with staff, and maybe it will engage him better on the fine points -- I guess the underlying principle here that we are agreed on is that moving towards some standardized measure that corporations can utilize is beneficial. As I understand it, the federal legislation is itself based on GAAP.

So whether one standardizes to the federal legislation or standardizes to GAAP, as long as there's an effort to provide some standardization that minimizes the burden and expectation that corporations face, it strikes me that we're on the same track -- maybe we're on slightly different parts of the track, but at least we're on the same track.

F. Gingell: One more issue is that in the responses I got from practitioners on thoughts they might have on this, I was given the following:

"Capital tax rules for partnerships require that partners calculate their pro rata share of total partnership paid-up capital, regardless of whether they are limited or general partners. The result is that limited partners' taxable paid-up capital may exceed their legal liability to the partnership. They're essentially paying capital tax on capital to which they are not entitled."

I guess that, of course, will apply in the circumstances where corporations are limited partners in other corporations which are subject to corporation capital tax. I am wondering if this issue has been looked at by your staff and if they're in a position to advise you at this moment whether it has been looked at -- and having been looked at, if you've decided not to do anything about it.

Hon. A. Petter: Staff inform me that they certainly have looked at the issue of partnerships in general and limited partnerships in particular. The goal here, as is the goal in much of these changes in the act, is to ensure that the tax cannot be avoided by shifting capital from one entity to another.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Staff have not been able to identify serious concerns that might arise from double-counting -- that's what I understand the member is suggesting happens. They're certainly prepared to continue to follow up and engage with private sector representatives who have concerns in this regard. To this point, staff advise me that they do not believe there are serious anomalies of the kind suggested in the area of limited partnerships, but I'm sure they'd be happy to engage with some of those who continue to think there are.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

F. Gingell: I've got two or three copies of this bill in different stages and bits and pieces. Okay,

section 17 is when it comes in.

Section 17 approved.

On the title.

F. Gingell: When we talk about the title, it brings back those famous words: corporation capital tax. I've got this little light in my head that blinks on and off when anyone mentions the corporation capital tax.

I know that many of us made this speech in second reading of this bill, but I don't think that this government can hear this message too many times. I think it's a critically important message. I think it's critically important to all British Columbians. This government wants more jobs. This side of the House wants more jobs. We all want good-paying jobs to support families in British Columbia. It will reduce our costs in health care. It will reduce our costs in social services. It will reduce our costs in the Ministry for Children and Families. It will reduce our costs in the Ministry of Attorney General.

What we have to do . . . . Mr. Harcourt, the man that led this party into government, made the promise shortly after he was elected that at the first opportunity they could, they would repeal the corporation capital tax. He recognized that the corporation capital tax is bad for British Columbia. And that's not to repeal the sections that deal with financial institutions because of all the problems of income allocation that we've dealt with before. Any business considering where they will locate will take into consideration the issue of being taxed

[ Page 3136 ]

on assets and investments before they've turned a profit. However small the amount of the tax is -- I know it's only 0.3 percent of capital -- it's a big issue in their minds.

The Chair: Pardon me for interrupting, hon. member. The purpose of debating the title is not to reopen second reading; it's to debate the appropriateness of the title of the bill. The Chair has been somewhat lenient.

F. Gingell: If my words have been properly recorded in Hansard , I'm happy to let the issue pass. I had allowed all those previous sections to pass on the understanding -- and the Minister of Finance understood that, I think -- that when we got to the title, I would make my usual speech on the issues surrounding corporation capital tax. I've practised it so many times, I've said it so many times, and I just wish someone across the House would start to listen.

It's an important thing. You can do more for British Columbians -- you can make yourself loved by them -- if you deal with some of these issues. Creating the right environment for investment and job creation in this province is number one, and the first thing you ought to do is repeal this rotten piece of legislation.

The Chair: Shall the title pass?

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance, with a caution that a short reply would be in order, considering that the Chair has been somewhat lenient with the previous member.

Hon. A. Petter: I expect no more indulgence from the Chair than was accorded the previous speaker, who gave . . . . It's true that I was anticipating him to give a usual speech. I wasn't sure which usual speech, but I should have guessed that that would be it.

I just say in response that obviously we in this House must all be mindful of the competitive position of British Columbia. I think what British Columbians find so troubling about the Liberal opposition's position is that they don't seem to take account of the full range of issues: a good education system, a good health care system, a clean environment. They seem to always assume that competitiveness means how much corporations are taxed. I assume, therefore, that they believe primarily in a trickle-down view of competitiveness,

whereas this government believes in a build-up view of competitiveness.

We will continue to look at competitiveness and this legislation in that light and in the light of a government determined to build up British Columbia and keep it competitive based on all the reasons why people in British Columbia wish to remain competitive, not just the very narrow reasons that the member offered.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Bill 3, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Petter: The next order of business is committee stage of Bill 4.

CORRECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 4; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to enter into the debate at the committee stage of the Correction Amendment Act. There are a number of technical issues with respect to how the bill mechanically achieves its purpose. I will try and ask those questions that I think I need to understand the answers to.

I wonder if I could attempt to summarize the mechanics of the act -- if I could put it that way -- here in the context of

section 1. What we have in the statutes of British Columbia, as they exist prior to this bill, is that by statute -- the Attorney General Act -- the Attorney General is the minister responsible for corrections institutions in British Columbia. The intent of the government in creating the new Ministry for Children and Families is to bring the operation of youth custody issues under the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families.

In order to achieve that integration in respect of all of the other programs that have moved into that ministry, the government was able to act by order-in-council. However, in the case of youth corrections and youth custody, there is the impediment of

section 2(

h) of the Attorney General Act. What this act does is remove that impediment and then create a situation where, as I understand it, the government can then, by order-in-council, designate the Minister for Children and Families as the minister responsible for youth custody and youth corrections.

One option available to the government would have been to amend the corrections legislation in such a way as to designate the Minister for Children and Families by legislation as the minister responsible for youth corrections. But that option has not been pursued. Instead, what is happening is that the statutory assignation to the Attorney General is being removed, and in its place a mechanism is being created that will then allow the executive council to determine from time to time, according to its wishes, as exercised by order-in-council, where the youth offenders belong.

It is the intention of government that those program responsibilities be transferred to the Minister for Children and Families. Is that

summary correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

[3:45]

G. Plant: That answer is helpful.

Section 1 of the act does away with the definition of commissioner. The old act, the act as it now stands, defines the commissioner as the commissioner of corrections. It's not clear to me if the commissioner is being replaced by anybody, either in respect of adult correction or youth correction. I wonder if the minister can assist in explaining that part of the transition.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the new act it delegates . . . . The responsibility is with the minister, but the minister can delegate that responsibility to a staff member, or a number of staff, within the ministry.

[ Page 3137 ]

G. Plant: The

definitions in

section 1 also replace the old definition of the youth containment centre with something called a youth custody centre. I'm not sure if that's just a terminological change or if there's some substantive change involved. Perhaps I could have the minister's assistance on that.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is primarily simply more current language, if you will. Containment centres have a certain -- maybe they should -- sort of . . . . It's old-fashioned language, if you will. So the current language is youth custody centres, and is also language concurrent with what the federal government uses.

G. Plant: Am I right that at the end of this process we'll still have a Correction Act that, under the totality of its provisions, will deal with both adult and youth correction?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct. There will only be one act. It's just that the responsibility within the act is divided.

G. Plant: So the act will become the mechanism under which government will have the power to give particular responsibilities to some individuals in respect of adult correctional issues and also give different responsibilities in respect of young offender correctional issues to other people. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

G. Plant: I noted that one of the provisions of the act which is not being amended is the definition of correctional centre. I must admit that I haven't spent enough time trying to put the old act together with the new act in a way that allows me to ask a focused question about this. But it was hard for me to see how that definition of correctional centre, which appears to include places of confinement for both adults and young offenders, would continue to have life -- that is, it's not clear to me what purpose that definition will continue to serve.

If there is a ready answer to that question, I'd be grateful for it. Perhaps I'll leave it on that basis.

Hon. P. Priddy: Within the act, there are different

definitions. There is a definition within the act for correctional centre, which generally tends to be adults. There also is a separate definition for youth custody centre, if I've answered your question.

G. Plant: That reminds me of why I drew a circle around this when I read it a few weeks ago. I don't know that we need to pursue it, but it occurred to me that correctional centre was broad enough to encompass youth custody centres as a definition, and that in fact the act, as a matter of definition, does not necessarily create two separate classes of correctional institutions, one for youth and one for adults. But that is a very technical issue of how the wording of the statute will operate. If there's an easy answer to it, that's fine.

I think the higher-level issue is almost a question of principle; that is, it is intended -- as I understand the minister to have said earlier -- to ensure that there are different regimes of administration in place, one for youth and one for adults. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me answer the last one first; it's way easier. Yes, it is intended to have two regimes, if you will.

The first one, yes, is a technical question; you're quite correct. I feel this is like how many lawyers or how many politicians can dance on the head of a pin, in terms of my trying to answer. But in trying to define -- and I will take an additional question if I'm not answering this in a clear way -- youth custody centres, for instance, when you define it within the legislation, you end up with what is a very narrow sort of applicability within the legislation. I think that that is part of the technical answer to your question, but I'm happy to either take an additional question or find out other information for you.

G. Plant: I may take advantage of that opportunity. I just want to see if I can reconcile that answer with something later in the act.

As I read the act, the issue arises in the context of an unamended portion of

section

Section 34 gives someone called the director the obligation of maintaining a program of inspection of all correctional centres . . . . Oh, I see; all right. I think someone reading that

section would see the distinction. I thank the minister for the invitation to ask a second question on that, but I'll decline.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Plant:

Section 2 takes an important statement of principle or purpose from the old

section 2. I think in the course of drafting these provisions, in order to achieve the larger objective it was determined that the purpose should remain, and it was probably thought desirable to state it more directly. The purpose is now stated as this: "The purpose of this act is to protect the community." I take it that from the minister's perspective there is no change of purpose here -- that this is intended to express a continuity of purpose from the old act. Am I correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct. We wanted the people reading the legislation to know that within the services that are moving over -- albeit for youth, and into a different ministry -- we still saw both the purpose and the direction of this act as being an issue of protection for the community, which often also means protecting not only the community but the people within it that may be at risk either to others or to themselves.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

[4:00]

section 6.

G. Plant: I am looking for an opportunity to ask this question, and because we are dealing with

section 24 but not quite dealing with

section 26, I want to ask the question about

section 25, which remains. I want to ensure that I understand it in relation to the general intention of the act as expressed in each of its amending provisions.

Section 25, which will remain in its present form, says that the following provisions of the act, sections 25 to 32, "are intended for the protection and benefit of young persons and for the protection of the public, by assisting young persons to resolve their conflict with the law."

The first question is: am I following the sequence of the amending statute correctly in concluding that this provision

[ Page 3138 ]

will continue to remain in the statute? If I'm right in that, can the minister explain how

section 25 is to be reconciled with

section 2, that purpose statement that appeared earlier?

Hon. P. Priddy:

Section 2 -- which speaks to, if you will, the broad principle to protect the community -- actually applies to the entire Correction Act, which is why that is there. When we talk about helping young people to resolve their issues with the justice system, etc., then that's a narrower piece. But

section 2 applies to the entire act.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

G. Plant: I should have said at the outset . . . . The minister will recall that during the course of second reading debate, a number of members on this side of the House, including myself, spoke about the challenging aspects of administering the transition that is taking place here. In thinking about the proper context in which to raise those issues, it occurred to me that they are management-administration issues, and probably a better place to raise them will be the estimates debate.

What I'm talking about here is the redeployment of resources under this new regime, so I suppose this is a friendly advance notice that I expect that the place that those issues will be canvassed is the estimates debate of the minister's ministry.

Section 7 does two things. First of all, it changes the attribution of the power from the Attorney General to the minister, which would be the designated minister. But then it also changes the word "must" to "may," which is to say that the old statute obliged the Attorney General to establish youth program committees, appoint members of those committees and so on, and the new statute will only make that permissive. I wonder if the minister could explain the rationale behind that change.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: First, just in response to the beginning of the comment, I did take note of the questions raised in second reading and will be prepared to respond to those when you ask them. I thank the member for that.

In terms of the change from the word "must" to "may," there are a number of mechanisms within the ministry working with youth in corrections, such as the youth justice committee and the family court committees, which all have sort of similar purposes. So we might actually see that I might want to ask for a review of those, or I might ask for a review of a particular piece of work. Or we may see the jurisdiction of the child, youth and family advocate or of the children's commissioner come to apply to youth corrections. So that's the reason that it has been changed from "must" to "may."

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

G. Plant:

Section 11 repeals

section 30 of the act and substitutes a new

section 30. One of the changes made is in subsection (3). Subsection (3) used to provide that the commissioner could transfer a young person from one centre to another; it will now provide that the minister may do that.

I suppose the first question is: is it a deliberate choice on the part of government to make the decision to transfer a decision that would be only made by the minister, as opposed to someone lower down in the hierarchy?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, there was not that particular intention. As I said at the beginning and as I think we talked about in an earlier section, because the responsibility has been delegated to me, I therefore have that ability simply to delegate it to a staff person within the ministry to do that. So that is not actually intended to do anything but change the language and bring the language up to date. It's not intended to be a directional or philosophical change.

G. Plant: I wanted to then move ahead to subsection (5). That allows the minister to permit temporary release of a young person in custody. I realize that this is probably a question that the minister doesn't know the answer to: is this a power that has in the past been exercised with regularity and frequency? Does the minister have any statistics available as to how often this power has been exercised? I ask that question in order to examine the continuation of the power in its context. It seems to me that if it's something that happens occasionally, then it takes on different dimensions than if it is a power that is exercised all the time.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is not a routine practice in almost any circumstance. It would be used more frequently in open custody centres than it would be in, for instance, a closed security centre -- a secure custody centre, if you will. It's very, very seldom used in a closed custody centre. It's used more frequently in an open custody centre, but it is not routine at all.

G. Plant: This is not a power that would in the past have been exercised directly by the minister. When that power is exercised, are there reasons given in writing? It says, for example, that the conditions for exercising this power of temporary release exist where there are medical, compassionate or humanitarian reasons. Is there a process that is undertaken before a decision is made?

Hon. P. Priddy: I thought I knew the answer, but I wanted to check with the expert first. Yes, there is. There are several things that would happen. There would be a process of community investigation to make sure that this is a valid reason, and so on. They would always be in writing, member.

G. Plant: It's good to have the opportunity to read these provisions. I take it that the intention of subsection (6) is that when the minister or his or her designate exercises that power of temporary release, the young person who has been released is nonetheless in effect still under the authority of the minister and of the statute.

Hon. P. Priddy: That is correct, member.

Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

G. Plant: I want to rise at this point, because something moderately historic is about to happen. The Attorney General Act is not only an important part of the statutory law of British Columbia but also a place where one finds expressed some of the constitutional law of our country. As the chief law officer

[ Page 3139 ]

of the Crown, the Attorney General is someone in whom powers that have a very long history are reposited. They go back into the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, from whence we derive this office and its important role in our government.

I was trying to read this bill again earlier today to try and unwrap its moderately complex interweaving of provisions that are not intended to create an overly complex structure. But, just as is the case with many amending statutes, it's sometimes a bit of a challenge to find out what is being changed and to actually make sense of all of it. Until today, I hadn't seen the loss of authority -- if I could put it that way -- by the Attorney General of his powers and responsibilities in respect of corrections institutions, and I finally found it here in

section

Section 17 is really the place where the government achieves the purpose. And as I said earlier, it's an interesting purpose. It's not a reassignment of the important responsibility over corrections institutions by statute, from one minister of the Crown to another minister of the Crown. Rather it is the release of the Attorney General from that statutory responsibility and the vesting in a general sense of that power -- the power to decide who has these important responsibilities -- the vesting of that responsibility now with cabinet, the executive council.

[4:15]

My first reaction to that was to try and find out how long it has been since the Attorney General has had vested in his office the functions which are there by virtue of

section 2(

h) of the act -- that being the

section which, if this bill passes, will be repealed, and that being the

section which says that the duties of the Attorney General of British Columbia shall include duties in respect of corrections institutions. So I dashed to the library while one of my colleagues was trying to understand the bill we were debating a few minutes ago, and I began a search backwards through Revised Statutes of British Columbia and the statutes books.

With the very considerable help of the library, we went as far back as the statutes of 1899. It seems that when

chapter 5 of the statutes was enacted on February 27, 1899, the Attorney General was -- at least this is as far back as my research can go -- for the first time given the statutory responsibility which we in this House are about to take from him.

Section 3(

h) of the Attorney-General's Act, 1899, or

An Act Respecting the Department of the Attorney-General, provided as follows: "The duties of the Attorney-General of British Columbia shall be as follows: . . . (

h) He shall have the superintendence of prisons, and other places of confinement in houses of correction within the Province of British Columbia."

In various ways, with changes of wording to accommodate changing attitudes towards what this duty is about, this provision has remained on the statute books of British Columbia for almost a century. I think it is probably outside the core constitutional functions of the Attorney General as they have come down to that office from our constitutional history. Those functions are much more centrally focused around the fact that the Attorney General has the obligation and the duty of being the law officer of the Crown and ensuring that the Crown -- the government -- conducts its affairs in accordance with the law.

But we have here -- and have had in British Columbia for a century, as near as I can figure it -- the superintendance of correctional institutions being found in the Ministry of Attorney General.

Now, it may be that my research is inadequate. I'm sure it is inadequate, given the very little time that was devoted to it. I didn't want this opportunity to pass without drawing attention to the fact that I think that what is being proposed here is a significant change. It is, as we on this side of the House have said, something that we support, in the sense that we are in support of the notion that responsibility for young offender corrections is something that the Ministry for Children and Families should take on in order to fully implement the purposes and the scope and the intent of the report of Judge Gove.

There is, of course, no particular reason in policy that I can think of why the Attorney General should lose statutory responsibility for adult corrections. It seems to me probably a decision -- and I will ask the minister a question about this in a minute -- that those drafting this bill saw an opportunity in which to move away from the cumbersome world of legislation, where the government has to come into this chamber and explain what it's doing and why it's doing it, and be held accountable for those decisions fairly directly.

To move from that cumbersome but nonetheless fundamentally democratic world into the secrecy, the privacy, the sanctity, if you will, of the executive council, where decisions can be made that are frequently made without the same degree of public scrutiny -- and certainly without anything like the same degree of scrutiny in this chamber . . . . It is possible now for the government to change responsibility for young offender corrections and adult corrections without coming to this House to explain why it is doing that.

I understand why all those who administer government believe strongly in the power of regulations and orders-in-council, because they're much more efficient than legislation.

I'm also not suggesting that I'm going to be urging my colleagues to oppose this particular provision of the bill, because without this particular provision of the bill, it would be difficult to give effect to the bill itself. Having regard to the long, long tradition of this important bill -- of this important statute on the statute books of British Columbia -- I am nonetheless interested in knowing what the government's rationale or reasoning is behind altogether repealing

section 2(

h) of the Attorney General Act. It does seem to me that it is not necessary, in order to give effect to the purposes of this bill, to repeal that

section altogether. I'd be interested in the minister's response to that.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess a couple of answers . . . And I am always, of course, delighted to come into the chamber and talk about all of the work that I am doing, so I can't imagine what the member might be referring to.

But in a serious response to the member's question, this, I think, was . . . . I don't think there was any particular intention behind it. Repealing it was certainly the easiest -- or the cleanest, if you will -- way to do that. The Attorney General will be designated by order-in-council as the individual responsible for adult corrections. It certainly doesn't change, in administration, practice or reality, the administration of adult corrections and criminal justice. There are provinces in the country where in point of fact the Attorney General has no responsibility for . . . .

Prince Edward Island has no responsibility for adult corrections, and I think there actually may be one or two others. It would just seem to be the easiest and simplest way to do it.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

[ Page 3140 ]

section 22.

G. Plant: I think that one of the things that happens when one is trying to sort out and understand the new organizational chart -- for want of a better term -- as created by a statute is sorting out why in some cases a director has some powers and in other cases the minister has them. I understand the minister's view is that in some cases where the minister has powers, those powers may be exercised by designates or persons who have authority from her.

It's not clear to me why in this case it's necessary to give express statutory reference to the minister's designate when that was not necessary in respect of the provisions around temporary absence. Again, I know that's a very technical question, but I just wasn't clear why there wasn't that kind of parallel language.

Hon. P. Priddy: As I understand this, member, as it refers to the Correction Act itself, there is a statutory ability to designate. Because we're talking about a different act here, which is the Victims of Crime Act, my understanding is that this was simply added so that there was some clarity, because it was a different act that we were talking about. If you need more, I can try and find it.

G. Plant: Well, I think I understand the answer, and I'm grateful for it. The challenge for lawyers -- even lawyers who become politicians who can't avoid being lawyers from time to time -- always is that if something is defined in one place for one purpose, there's a risk that people seeing it in another context may see an inconsistency and try and derive something substantive and important from the apparent inconsistency.

I think that about as far as we can go here now is to understand that, from the minister's perspective, there is no intentional inconsistency. But I can inform the minister that nothing that we have been saying for the last half-hour could ever be used in a court of law to explain anything about this statute. However, it is useful to have this debate, and I'm grateful for the minister's explanation.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

G. Plant: Is it the expectation of the minister that the person who becomes the provincial director for British Columbia, as defined by

section 1 of the Young Offenders Act of Canada, will be the director of youth custody and corrections in British Columbia under this statute -- that is, they're intended to be the same person?

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Chair, because I'm not sure I am clear on it, can I ask the member to repeat his question, please?

G. Plant:

Section 23 of the . . . . Oh, I may have misread the provision. I take it that the person who is defined by

section 1 of the Young Offenders Act of Canada as the provincial director will be the same person as the director of youth corrections, from the provincial perspective -- that is, that what's intended is to have these things work together so there's one individual. Is that right?

Hon. P. Priddy: Correct, member.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

[4:30]

section 28.

G. Plant: I know that the minister is not, herself, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council; however, from the perspective of examining the intention of the government in respect of this bill, is there a timetable for implementation?

Hon. P. Priddy: The timetable for the implementation of the bill would probably be sometime around the end of June.

Section 28 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 4, Correction Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Point of Privilege

G. Plant: I rise on a point of privilege. Having just had the opportunity for the first time to review the Hansard transcript of the debate in question period today -- an opportunity I needed to be absolutely certain that what I thought I heard was something I heard -- I now reserve the right to raise a point of privilege with respect to statements made during question period by the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations.

Hon. P. Priddy: I call second reading of Bill 9.

TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(second reading)

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is my pleasure today to introduce second reading of Bill 9, which is in fact landmark legislation that will ensure that British Columbia's vital tourism industry remains strong. The legislation creates a new, independent legislated agency called Tourism British Columbia, the purpose of which is to promote development and growth in the tourism industry and to increase revenue and employment in that industry throughout the province.

This legislation fulfils a commitment the Premier and our government made last year to provide the industry with a more effective way to market Super, Natural British Columbia to the world. This legislation builds on our government's commitment to boost B.C.'s performance as the best job-creating province in Canada. This bill is also part of our job creation strategy, which we announced in the recent provincial budget.

Tourism is growing worldwide as an industry, but competition is also growing. Although British Columbia has outperformed the rest of Canada in attracting new visitors, new players in the international marketplace have the potential to take market share away from traditionally strong destinations such as British Columbia. We are in effect at a crossroads,

[ Page 3141 ]

where our future success will depend on new and carefully planned partnerships between industry and government. To meet these challenges for future success, our approach must change. We must ensure that we work closely with industry as we move ahead.

In that spirit, my ministry and I have worked closely with representatives from all sectors within the tourism industry in all regions of the province. We determined that the creation of a sustainably funded legislated agency was in fact the best way to reach our mutual goals. The goals that we are putting forward are (1) to stimulate revenues in the industry, and (2) to create 25,000 new jobs in the tourism industry for British Columbians over the next five years. We believe that the target is realistic and will probably be exceeded, if past performance is any indicator.

Since 1991 B.C. tourism revenues have grown from $4 billion a year to an estimated -- perhaps underestimated -- $7 billion. The number of tourism-related businesses has grown from 10,000 to 15,000 -- that's 5,000 new businesses, most of which are small businesses. There are currently more than 223,000 British Columbians employed in tourism-related jobs. That's 12.4 percent of our workforce, or one out of every eight jobs in British Columbia.

This fast-growing industry provides benefits to all groups and all regions in the province, but it's particularly important to young people who are seeking that all-important entry-level job and first work experience. Some 45 percent of all tourist-related jobs are held by people under 25, but as well as entry-level jobs, our tourism industry provides an incredible range of employment and business opportunities, including management positions, skilled trades and professional careers.

Tourism today is a key source of diversity and growth in our economy. We believe that it can and in fact must become an even stronger factor in B.C.'s future. The industry's leading economists are projecting a 3.1 percent annual growth rate in tourism-related occupations. That adds up to at least 25,000 new jobs over the next five years. In doing this projection, we ensured that a conservative economic methodology was used, so we are perhaps -- in fact, likely -- understating the potential job growth. We can't take anything for granted, however. We must take action to ensure that the goals we are outlining here do in fact become a reality.

As the Minister of Tourism, I'm the advocate for the tourism industry and tourism interests in the province, and I'm therefore proud to bring forward this legislation to establish Tourism British Columbia. Industry and government agree that we need a new structure for marketing and developing tourism in B.C. to ensure that our shared goals are reached. The new agency is built on consultation, and it's certainly something that industry wanted. It's something that government wanted, as well. It's something that all stakeholders have been working toward. In fact, I am aware that the tourism industry has wanted this kind of legislation for at least two decades.

The new Tourism British Columbia has many advantages. First, the new agency features a secure, permanent funding formula that will strengthen Tourism B.C.'s ability to develop long-term marketing and development strategies with industry partners. Some 20.64 percent of the existing hotel room tax will now go directly to Tourism British Columbia to fund its business activities. This new funding formula ensures that provincial tourism revenues are reinvested directly into the industry to help create more employment opportunities for British Columbians.

This agency, it's worth saying, is a first anywhere in the world so far as we could determine in our rather extensive research into this marketing. As the tourism sector grows, the agency's revenues will also grow. Under the legislation, the agency will gain the authority and opportunity to partner with industry and to raise funds from the private sector and other sources. None of this was possible under the old way of doing business. As well, the new agency will operate more closely with the private sector, and this will provide industry with greater influence over marketing and promotional activities, which are things they do very well.

Tourism B.C. will be much more industry-driven than it has been in the past. The new agency's 15-member board of directors will have legal, financial and management authority. The board will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and industry will make recommendations for ten of the 15 directors. The board will reflect the diverse sectors of the tourism industry and the best interests of all British Columbians. Finally, by moving to independent status, Tourism British Columbia will have greater flexibility to capitalize on new opportunities and to help create 25,000 new jobs by the year 2001.

I'm certain the newly restructured and revitalized Tourism B.C. will be a major asset in helping industry surpass this projection. The new corporation will be responsible for: marketing British Columbia as a tourism destination; providing information services to tourists; research and training; encouraging enhanced standards for accommodation, facilities, services and amenities for visitors; and generating additional funds for tourism programs. Tourism B.C. will have full control over well-known marketing assets such as the Super, Natural British Columbia and SuperHost trademarks.

Broad policy matters such as those reflecting tourism interests and decisions over land and resource use will remain with the ministry, and this legislation does not require amendments to the Tourism Act. Under the legislation I've introduced, the new agency replaces the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency that was established in April 1996. To ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, Tourism B.C.'s current SOA board, in consultation with stakeholders, is evaluating how the 1997-98 budget can be most effectively applied to sustain a range of essential programs.

The board has been hearing submissions from industry groups on ways to enhance tourism across the province by creating better marketing, business development and visitor programs.

The consultation process is continuing as we speak with a full and timely review of all Tourism B.C. programs to establish the new agency on a strong footing. This review is vital to ensure that our industry keeps pace with our competitors and that it's well positioned to capitalize on the opportunities that lie ahead. Also during this transition period, Tourism B.C's board has allocated six-month interim funding to support regional industry partnership programs.

Bill 9 is the result of an intensive process of consultation with the industry, representing all sectors of tourism in all parts of the province. We're on the threshold of a new way in which government and industry work together to market Super, Natural British Columbia to the world. I'm excited to be part of this era, and I look forward to working with all stakeholders in successfully launching the new Tourism British Columbia. By moving Tourism B.C. closer to industry, the people of B.C. are better served. Tourism B.C. and its board will do an excellent job of marketing Super, Natural British Columbia to the world and of meeting our shared goals of increasing revenue and employment.

[ Page 3142 ]

Establishing this new agency works with other initiatives which our government is taking to promote tourism in B.C. For example, the province played a leadership role in the restructuring of Canadian Airlines International, and in the recent provincial budget we announced a 50 percent phased reduction in the international jet fuel tax -- from 4 cents to 2 cents a litre by 1999 -- to increase the competitiveness of all carriers and protect B.C.'s position as a prime travel destination.

Our ongoing infrastructure investment in roads, ferries and transportation will help bring more visitors to our wonderful province and give them easier access to all the excellent opportunities our tourism industry provides across the province.

Now we have a new, improved Tourism B.C. to lead us into the twenty-first century. I'd like to invite other members of the Legislature to comment on this legislation.

[4:45]

I. Chong: I'm pleased today to respond to the statements made by the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, particularly regarding Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act.

We all recognize that tourism is a rather dynamic industry. It is one that continues to thrive and grow in British Columbia despite a number of recessions that have hurt other industries. Admittedly, legislation was required to provide some protection to the industry.

However, we have to also recognize that promises that are made must be kept and not broken. I would like to remind the minister that in fact the culmination of what is occurring now also occurred about a year and a half ago, back in February of 1996, when a deal was supposedly struck, and then in April of 1996, when the Premier made an announcement and assured us that the special operating agency at that time would carry on and allow the tourism industry to flourish.

We were somewhat disheartened to find that the special operating agency last year was not legislated -- that it did not carry the full weight of its intention. We had to go through a crisis last November and December to establish a legislated agency, which we are hopeful this government will abide by.

We are concerned that jobs for youth are highly dependent on the tourism industry, so we are looking forward to this act in fact being able to protect and provide for those 25,000 jobs that the government expects to be created in the tourism industry.

As I mentioned, the industry first signed this deal with the NDP government last February. At that time, recommendations were made that the industry was looking for some independence, some autonomy, so that they had some control over their industry. I recognize that the minister is suggesting that this new legislation will replace what was initiated, but I am somewhat concerned. Recognizing what was asked of the then temporary minister last year regarding the special operating agency, we were assured that the special operating agency created at that time would work just fine. Those are the words of the then temporary Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

We are looking for stability, we are looking for certainty, and we are hopeful that this legislation will provide that. The legislation is attempting to increase revenue and employment, and that is something we here on the opposition benches are also looking forward to. We are also looking forward to ensuring that the agency can be assured that there will be secure funding and that in fact it will be permanent. We have seen cases where legislation has been introduced where in fact there hasn't been certainty, there hasn't been predictability, and there hasn't been stability.

Throughout the debate and throughout committee stage, I'm sure we will be posing those questions to the minister to find out and to get assurance that that in fact will be occurring.

We are also looking at the structure of the corporation being established, the board of directors. I noted in the minister's comments that there will be 15 directors, as stated in the act. However, the minister also alluded to the fact that the industry will only offer recommendations for ten of those 15 directors. If this is truly to be an independent agency and corporation, we have to wonder whether or not the ministry will allow some changes to that.

We are concerned that if it's supposed to carry out its mandate, if it's supposed to have the direction that it wishes to take, it should be able to also offer recommendations for all 15 directors, bearing in mind that I'm sure the government will offer some suggestions. I'm hopeful that the minister will be looking at that area and will perhaps provide us with some comments -- and whether or not the minister thinks that the comments we make will be warranted.

We have also spoken to members of the tourism industry over the last year. Prior to my being elected, I know there were other members who had been dealing with the tourism industry quite extensively. They are looking for some ability to sustain growth in B.C.'s tourism industry, they are looking to provide a good form of marketing, and they are looking to promote tourism in what they feel is the best way.

However, funding has always been a problem, and the funding will continue to be a problem, because this is the one particular area where spending is required. I made a comment last year when we were debating these estimates that of all the ministries, this is the one area where spending is a must, because this is the one ministry where revenue is directly impacted by the level and amount of marketing that is done.

Given that, last year in the estimates we did ask whether the $23 million that was provided could be sustained and would be available. I know at that time that the temporary minister did not give us any assurance. I guess we should have taken that as a warning that this would be coming along shortly, that the tourism industry wasn't able to depend on that.

We are looking to see that cuts to this new legislated agency, which is now providing roughly $18 million -- which is some $7 million less than what they had anticipated two years ago, but $5 million less than the $23 million that was provided last year -- representing a 25 percent cut, will not continue over the course of the next five or ten years.

We in fact recognize that it took some five years to build up the marketing funding for tourism -- some five years from the then Minister of Tourism, the member for Okanagan-Boundary at the time. I would have to say that he did an admirable job of ensuring that tourism funding did increase over the years to reflect the fact that tourism should be marketed here in British Columbia.

So with that, I have to suggest to the minister that the $18 million proposed for this year . . . . We are hoping and looking forward to the fact that this agency will allow for the growth in that marketing funding and that the $18 million will establish itself in the years to follow to the $23 million and then some. We would have to look for this legislation to provide the permanence and the security that it says it will so that

[ Page 3143 ]

when the hotel tax revenues increase, there will be no capping in that area. That is the only way that this agency will be assured that they have a free hand and an arm's-length approach in dealing with tourism marketing.

The minister also spoke of infrastructure development. We couldn't agree more that there are parts of the province that require infrastructure development more than the lower mainland or the Island here, where the destinations are pretty clear to visitors. Whether or not the ministry will continue to look at aiding those areas so that the marketing will be fruitful . . . . After all, there's really little sense in promoting an area that doesn't provide the infrastructure -- in terms of the transportation and hotel accommodation that is needed -- or for the marketing to occur if that is not in place.

So we are looking for the ministry to continue to work in those areas and to continue to consult with the industry.

One of the rather disturbing things we've heard in the last little while that this ministry also has to recognize is that policies introduced by other ministries affect tourism and tourism marketing. There has to be continued consultation in that area. What I'm speaking about in particular are the recent increases in angling fees. I know the minister has probably received a number of letters -- as has the Minister of Environment -- because the policy that was introduced works at cross-purposes with tourism marketing.

You have one agency spending millions of dollars on marketing and attempting to have visitors in those areas that offer that kind of tourism and sports, and then you have a government policy that works against that. There clearly has to be some consultation amongst ministries to ensure that we aren't wasting our dollars and just seeing them going down the drain.

So I am looking forward to the minister speaking to us a little bit further on those kinds of issues. I am looking to see that this particular legislative agency has the independence that she has stressed that it has. We've heard time and time again in these chambers that we are concerned about broken promises and things which are signed and committed to that have not in fact been committed to.

This is the one piece of legislation which the industry has wanted for some time, and we will attempt in every way to ensure -- and I believe the minister agrees -- that it will provide that kind of security, that kind of predictability and that kind of stability. With that, I'll turn the floor over to other members.

P. Reitsma: My colleague from Oak Bay has touched on most of the points, and I'd like to reiterate some of them. Yes, I'm certainly in support of this particular bill. It's very hard not to support something that this particular side of the House has so vigorously debated and promoted. After the promises made in 1995 and then again in 1996 -- and indeed promises were made in April of 1996 -- agreements were signed, hands were shaken and pictures were taken. Lo and behold, after two years of consultation and communication, we had a deal.

We had a deal by the Premier and whoever the Minister of Tourism was -- actually we've had quite a few over the last year, and hopefully this revolving-door attitude will not change . . . . The agreement was made and signed; pictures were taken; hands were shaken. This is a guarantee. You can take the money to the bank, even if it's in a deficit position. However, that's what happened, I suppose.

Having said that, we debated vigorously in the estimates last year that in order to make this come true . . . . It was the position of the opposition, the Liberal Party, not to oppose but to critique, in a positive way and manner, that in order to agree to this, we must have legislation for funding. The minister at that time did not deem it to be necessary. I'm pleased to see -- and we will be debating this -- that the legislated funding will become the cornerstone in terms of the stability and the certainty that we are looking forward to in our industry for the next couple of years. I applaud that.

That's what we wanted, so it's very hard for us not to agree with that. In fact, we do agree with it.

Hon. Speaker, this particular industry, the tourism industry, has been part of my life for some 31 years. I, too, have organized and started tours -- the well-known Totem Circle Tour -- and I've taken tours all around B.C. and all around the Island. Last year and this year I made a point of visiting many of the communities to find out about tourism and how business is doing. I've taken tours all around the world as part of my job. I've been in the Galapagos, in Ecuador and Peru, in Egypt, Kenya and Tanzania and in the Orient and China and lots of places.

Let me assure you that B.C. competes when it comes to sunsets and sunrises, and it competes when it comes to beaches and to wildlife. I always find it kind of amusing that indeed we even compete with Alberta's badlands, because we've got some dinosaurian attitudes around here as well. But be that as it may, we in B.C. compete with the best of the rest of the world.

[5:00]

That's why one of every five new jobs will be created in the tourism industry. That's why one of eight jobs in B.C. is related to the tourism industry. That's why we've grown to over $7 billion, as has been stated, over the last couple of years. Although it's the second industry at the moment -- having surpassed mining, of course -- there's nothing I'd like to see more than that the tourism industry, the hospitality industry, become the number one industry in British Columbia in the years to come.

I would hope -- and we'll be touching on this as we go through the bill clause by clause -- that this board . . . . We'll be talking about it, because we have the assurance from COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, that under the memorandum of understanding, it is guaranteed that a certain percentage and a certain number of those who are going to be sitting on the board will be from that particular industry. Those board members who have been proposed by COTA will be the ones who are going to be appointed.

I do not wish to see another regional health board . . . that type of philosophy. I do not wish to see another Forest Renewal B.C. board, whereby those members are simply appointed by government and do whatever the government tells them under the guise of "You won't be there the next time" or "You won't be getting the funding."

It is very important that this board be at arm's length, that it be independent, so they can make up the schedules, the marketing tools, because marketing has to be done. In the travels that I've done over the last two years, many of the areas outside the golden triangle -- which is Victoria, Vancouver, Whistler -- all seem to be doing fine, which is good, by the way, because it's good for all of us. But there have been many concerns expressed and complaints levied that they're not getting an adequate amount of marketing in those particular areas.

That is extremely important, because what is good for Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler is good for the rest of the province. And what is good for the Okanagan, the Kootenays and the north is also good for the rest of B.C. We'll be talking about that later.

Sadly, I must say again that in the past -- and hopefully, this is an opportunity and a conduit for change -- we could

[ Page 3144 ]

not believe the words of the government. The actions spoke much louder than the words: "Yes, we agree to the previous funding." It was guaranteed for three years -- $25 million, and slightly less over the next couple of years.

The fact of the matter is that after the election nothing happened in terms of legislation, and under the guise of a Crown corporation, that amount of $20 million is not put into the consolidated revenue statements, into another Crown corporation. The funding went from $25 million down to $18 million -- a 25 percent cut. Might I remind you that I heard nothing from the government benches in terms of decrying that reduction.

This grant is not a grant; it is not a subsidy; it is an absolute investment in the future. As I mentioned earlier, the ratio of new jobs in the tourism industry and the ratio of current jobs in the tourism industry speak volumes, and it outpaces and outperforms any other industry in B.C.

Last but not least -- and we'll be debating this -- I listened with some curiosity to the minister talking about funding having been given to big corporations like CP, etc. I wonder if the minister forgot to look at the page where it mentioned angling fees. Earlier this year we went up to the north. We talked to the guides, we talked to the hotel managers, we talked to the restaurant managers, we talked to the other tour guides -- the small entrepreneurs -- and the uncertainty . . . . The fee increases are sometimes 1,000 percent. I hope the minister realizes this, and I hope something is going to be done about it. It's still not to late to roll it back.

The uncertainty created was devastating for our industry in that area. People often make reservations and determine where to go half a year to a year in advance, particularly those coming from outside this continent. As a small business person, I know that rather than passing on a couple of hundred dollars and giving an unpleasant surprise to your guests coming for a week or two, you absorb that. But you can't do that for too long. The outcry from the industry in that area was that there was virtually no consultation and no communication in terms of the angling fees.

So I hope that the minister can use her persuasion to talk to the other minister involved. It's not too late to roll that back.

Once again, we are in support of this particular bill. It is a good one. We don't always criticize; it certainly is something that my party has advocated for a long, long time. The legislation of the funding is absolutely paramount to its success, as is the composition of the board.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for introducing this bill; it is much needed. It's a promise that the industry has had many, many times, but I'm glad to see that a minister has had the courage to bring it forward for tourism in British Columbia.

I was particularly encouraged with your opening comments about independence. We on this side think that is very, very important. I'm glad to hear that you feel that it's very important, because we know that the industry -- the people that work every day, that invest their money every day, that put their lives on the line every day -- also believes that operating independent of the government is critical to their success. So we hope that this government is very, very serious about its comments on independence, and we will work with you and encourage you in that direction.

We talk about stability. We talk about certainty, and we say that this tourism industry of British Columbia is going to create in excess of 20,000 jobs in the next five years. I ask this government to remember that this industry is a fragile industry. It's an industry that is working very hard. But the taxes in British Columbia are too high -- both the payroll taxes and the business taxes. And yes, these small businesses also pay corporation capital tax, and that is going to stymie their development and stymie job creation in the province.

I would hope that in time this government would see the error of its ways and would truly be supportive of this tourism industry and job creation in British Columbia.

I think some other areas that this government has to look at to truly be supportive of the tourism industry are the WCB labour standards and land use. Land use in particular, as the minister knows, is a great consideration of this industry as it moves forward in its development and its job creation. So we would very much hope that this minister would accept that challenge and champion, on behalf of the tourism industry of British Columbia, meaningful input with respect to tourism development in the province.

If I could now move to independence, this bill calls for 15 board members, of whom only ten are from industry. If I understood correctly and if I read this bill correctly, they would be recommended; they're not guaranteed. I think if we truly mean the word "independence . . . . " Too many times -- I'm not going to repeat them all here today -- we have seen government interference when talking about independence but not allowing it to happen.

I hope that this minister is true to the word "independence," and when we bring forward some constructive suggestions and perhaps amendments as we move through this bill, we can work together to create and ensure independence. I hope that very, very much.

I am also concerned, because in looking to the future, we have to look at the actions of the past. As the minister knows, there was a Tourism British Columbia special operating agency which did talk about funding certainty. I'm not going to ask for increased funding; I'm just going to ask that people keep their promises. That's what working people of British Columbia want, that's what investment in tourism wants, and that's what investors who are again putting their families and their lives and all of their assets on the line want. They just want some certainty.

So I would very much hope and again challenge this minister to ensure that clawbacks that we were assured would not happen in the previous agreement will, in fact, not happen. The tourism industry can then move forward and focus all of its energies on developing its businesses and creating jobs, not on having to come to Victoria for endless meetings and not on having to redraft agreements 13 and 14 times, which is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. We have to develop trust and understanding if we're going to move forward.

I almost regret having to bring this up, but I think it's important for the minister to hear it. It was only two years ago that the UBCM was assured that stability is going forward. I would hope that somewhere during these debates the minister can give us personal assurances about certainty and a commitment that cannot be challenged by anyone in the future, so the tourism industry not only gets the bill but starts to get people putting their personal commitment behind things. Let's start walking the talk. Let's start fighting and living for what we believe in. Quite frankly, the tourism industry of British Columbia is worth fighting for, as we all know.

The other grave concern I have is that we've announced this project agreement three times. Three times. It was announced in February, it was announced in April -- and then it was announced again this year. You know, one would

[ Page 3145 ]

never want to think that the government is spinning things for their own purposes and trying to project that they're doing a lot more than they really are. I mean, we know they wouldn't do that. We know they care about the tourism industry.

I would just hope that we could move through . . . . I don't know whether the memorandum of understanding that supports this legislation has finally been signed off. If it has, first of all I should say congratulations. But if it hasn't, in order that people can focus all of their time on building successful businesses throughout British Columbia, please move quickly to ensure that the memorandum of understanding is signed and attached to this bill so people can move forward with their lives.

[5:15]

The tourism industry in British Columbia is one of the few industries that every member of this House has an opportunity to experience in their own riding. We all know how important it is in each of our ridings. If we truly want to work together, we all know that this is an industry that we can all work together on. So as we move forward . . . .

In the same light that we pass congratulations to the minister on bringing this legislation forward, I trust that we will entertain any amendments or suggestions that come through the next couple of stages of this bill; that the minister will look at them, understand them, question them; and that we won't rush to decisions to dismiss them for irrelevant reasons.

This industry in British Columbia has waited a long time. They have worked endlessly with this government over the past three to four years. They have worked with situations that have been very, very difficult for the industry. They have given so much of their personal time. For some, their businesses have been adversely affected. But this is truly a historic opportunity for all of us in this House to work together for the tourism industry in British Columbia.

I know that the B.C. Liberals -- and I'm hopeful that the minister and her caucus -- will work together on behalf of the tourism industry in British Columbia so that they can have independence, so that they can have certainty, so that they can have stability and so that we can create an investment climate that creates the much-needed jobs that we all want. We know that if people are working, they're healthier, and if people are healthier, they're more productive in our society.

In many ways we have many common goals here. As we introduce some changes to this positive legislation, I look forward to the minister's support and to the government's support. On that note, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to address this bill.

C. Clark: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this bill as well, because tourism is such an important industry for British Columbia. It is a huge generator of jobs and revenue for government, and revenue for government means health care and education for British Columbians. It's important that we have jobs in British Columbia, or we won't have taxes. And if we don't have revenue going to government, we won't have health care and education. Jobs are where it all starts. Tourism jobs in this province are absolutely essential to maintain our quality of life.

I want to speak to a couple of aspects of this bill, and particularly to look back to a little before the election, to April 22, when the Premier made some commitments about funding tourism in British Columbia. He made some commitments about how important it was, and he used those commitments to indicate that he really cared about the tourism industry in British Columbia. He attached some numbers to those commitments.

But do you know what? The numbers provided for in this bill are going to be different from the promises the Premier made just before the election. Gee, I can't say that that's too much of a surprise. The list of broken promises from this government keeps growing and growing and growing. This bill represents another in that long line of broken promises. The Premier made a firm commitment of $23 million to fund this agency, and the government has only been able to come up with $18 million.

I believe that when the government makes a commitment, it should keep it, particularly to show goodwill to an industry that is so critical to our economy, that plays such a critical role in job creation in British Columbia. I think the way for a government to demonstrate that it cares about what happens to the tourism industry is to keep the commitments it makes to that industry.

The way for the government to show that it doesn't care about what happens to the tourism industry is for the government to just go ahead and break all those commitments -- to go to that industry and say: "Look, you better take whatever scraps we're prepared to throw you, because that's all there is. That's all we're going to give you. Guess what. Our budget numbers were wrong and we need the money." That's essentially the genesis of this legislation. That's essentially where this legislation came from, and I think all members of the House would do well to remember that.

As well, I want to speak a little bit to the aspects of consultation that we hope will be part of the way the government operates in its relationship with the tourism industry in British Columbia. That certainly would be a change. It would be a big change if the government decided that it wanted to consult with the tourism industry before it made changes to the rules that govern it.

It would be a big change if, for example, the government decided that when they were going to raise taxes and increase fees, they would actually go out to the industry and consult with them about the level of fees they might be able to sustain or withstand, and then take that information back and use it as the basis for making their legislation. It would be a big change if government decided to go out, speak to people in the industry, solicit their views and then use those view to formulate legislation. Now, I know that's the way it's supposed to happen.

Our whole system of government is premised on that idea -- or it's supposed to be. But that's just not the way it works in British Columbia.

We can use angling fees as a perfect example. The Minister of Environment jacked them up without telling the industry, without any consultation. She says there was consultation. I want to give the House an example of the kinds of consultation the minister undertook before she decided to whack them with these new fees.

The ministry went around and talked to people in the industry and came up with the recommendation that, yes, the industry would be prepared to contribute some more money through increased fees if that money went to conservation. The ministry took the results of that consultation back to Victoria and decided that somehow it meant an increase of over 1,000 percent to some of the fees, and that 40 percent of that money would go straight into general revenue to cover up the budget fiasco that this government created before the election and is now desperately trying to cover up. That's the most recent example of consultation wi