2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 1

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Allan Sheppard

B. Belsey

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill M201)

J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Youth traffic safety

V. Roddick

Inland ferry service

B. Suffredine

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway

A. Hamilton

Oral Questions

Government support for forest workers

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

J. MacPhail

Referendum on treaty negotiations

J. Les

Hon. G. Plant

Reduction of government regulations

B. Suffredine

Hon. K. Falcon

New facility at Riverview Hospital

R. Stewart

Hon. G. Cheema

Conservation officer services in B.C.

W. McMahon

Hon. J. Murray

Petitions

Hon. S. Santori

J. Nuraney

J. Kwan

H. Long

Tabling Documents

Report of the Board of Parole for the province of British Columbia, 2000-01

Criminal Injury Compensation Program Report 2001

Hon. R. Coleman

Point of Privilege

R. Masi

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2)

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

(continued)

Hon. G. Abbott

J. Kwan

J. Bray

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education

Hon. S. Bond

J. MacPhail

P. Bell

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation

Hon. J. Reid

P. Bell

D. MacKay

J. Les

K. Stewart

B. Belsey

B. Lekstrom

B. Bennett

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

Hon. J. Murray

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Hon. J. van Dongen

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

Hon. G. Plant

R. Hawes

J. Kwan

[ Page 2177 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2002

The House

met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'd ask the House today to welcome Mr. Rick Borotsik seated behind

me on the floor. Rick is a Member of Parliament of Canada and represents the

constituency of Brandon-Souris. His particular interest is agriculture policy,

and I understand he's had a very informative meeting with the Minister of

Agriculture here today. Would the House please welcome Rick to our House.

Hamilton: It's my pleasure to introduce Shelley Tomlinson, a co-op student

with the Esquimalt News . Would the House please make her welcome.

Tributes

ALLAN SHEPPARD

Belsey: I'm saddened to report on the passing of a community leader and a

friend, Mr. Allan Sheppard. Allan spent all his active years in the fishing

industry, in community politics and as a volunteer. The fishing industry is

going to remember Allan as a halibut fisherman, an employee of Nelson Bros., a

manager of Prince Rupert Cold Storage and an owner of Port Edward Marine.

Politically,

Allan will be remembered as a past mayor of Port Edward who served for 20 years.

He was chair of the Prince Rupert Port Authority for over five years. As a

tireless volunteer, Allan will be remembered for his service with the

International Pacific Halibut Commission, the Oldfield Creek Fish Hatchery, the

North Pacific Cannery Museum where he was a lifetime member, Prince Rupert

Seafood Development Commission, Prince Rupert Port Authority for two years,

Prince Rupert Airport Society, secretary of the North Coast Oil and Gas Task

Force, Rotary and a life member of Kinsmen. These are but a few of Allan's

accomplishments.

But more

important than all of that, Allan Sheppard will be remembered for being a

grandfather, a father and a husband, and a friend to so many people on the north

coast.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT

ACT, 2002

J. MacPhail

presented a bill intituled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill entitled Fisheries Act Amendment

Act, 2002 be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill

amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the issuing of a new or the renewal of an

existing licence to fish farms unless the minister confirms that the operation

is a closed-containment facility, meaning a solid or impermeable wall container

which prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of disease, parasite, waste

and other pollution into the surrounding marine system.

The bill is

not retroactive, in the sense that it doesn't impose the standard of

closed-containment upon existing operations. British Columbians understand that

a legislative initiative that overrides agreements obtained through the normal

course of business is an offence against the principles of fairness and

certainty upon which contracts are signed.

moratorium on licensing fish farms has been in place for much of the last

decade. In recent years the science has increasingly supported the principles of

caution that motivated the moratorium. Indeed, the evidence is now in that fish

escapes from conventional open-pen farming have resulted in colonization by

foreign species. Transfer of sea lice from farmed salmon to wild stock is taking

place, and viral disease transfer is also taking place. The waste released into

the ecosystem by conventional open-pen farming is devastating all adjacent forms

of aquatic life.

Debate on

this bill cannot proceed in isolation from a strategy to help bridge coastal

communities out of the dire economic situation they're in. That was exactly the

intent behind the Fisheries Renewal initiative. Closed-containment aquaculture

can be a part of that vision for the future. Indeed, here in B.C. we have

entrepreneurs who have developed some of the most advanced technology that is

competing successfully on the world stage. This bill acknowledges that success

and says that British Columbians want to be a part of that vision.

I move that

the bill be read a first time now.

[1410]

Motion

approved.

MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day

for the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr.

Speaker: For second reading.

Bill M201

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) YOUTH TRAFFIC SAFETY

Roddick: The normally happy, carefree atmosphere of our annual spring break

was shattered in

[ Page 2178 ]

Delta last week by the horrific traffic accident that took the lives of four

of our young men. I send my deepest condolences to the families of all involved.

I'm sure everyone in this House understands that as parents, relatives, friends

and community, this is the worst tragedy imaginable: the needless loss of those

who are spreading their wings and hoping to fly.

Youthful

energy, exuberance, powerful vehicles and a split second of inattention or

risk-taking have been taking lives since cars were invented, but our roads are

far more crowded than ever before. Drivers now compete with cell phones, pagers,

music systems, coffee cups and road rage. We will never eliminate youthful

bravado. We cannot remove every hazard in a dangerous world, but we can take

further prudent steps to protect young people in a high-risk activity, where the

outcome of even a second's inattention can be tragic.

In eight

provinces, including B.C., graduated licensing programs have reduced the

accident and death rate. Curfew hours, limited number of passengers, zero

tolerance for alcohol and large signs displayed for others to see work to

protect our new drivers. I urge that we make every phase of our driving

licensing program as stringent and comprehensive as necessary, so that our young

people can gain the driving experience and the confidence they need in a manner

that ensures their safety. Let the legacy of these Ladner teens be a safer world

for our precious young drivers.

INLAND FERRY SERVICE

Suffredine: Today I wish to speak about the importance of inland ferries to

my riding. These include the Kootenay Lake ferry, Harrop, Galena Bay, Arrow Park

and Fauquier. Each is used in a different way and has a unique importance to the

community it serves. Just to the west of my riding the Glade ferry is also a

fundamental service to people.

Last week I

met with people in the riding and representatives of the marine branch about the

proposed changes. While each group took different positions about the changes

and whether it's fair for them to be assessed operating costs, all shared a

request that implementation of changes be delayed to allow people like shift

workers to make adjustments and to permit some discussion on alternatives to

tolls.

I know that

ministry representatives who came into my riding kept their word. They said they

would convey requests to the minister, and they did that. I met with the

minister on Monday, and she included us as a team and promised to give fair

consideration to what people said last week. By Tuesday night she concluded that

people needed more time and announced a 45-day delay.

People in

the Kootenays have depended on the inland ferry system for decades. In Fauquier

they should have a bridge and would not even need a ferry if B.C. Hydro hadn't

turned it into a lake. At Galena Bay changing the

schedule has to consider

chip-truck traffic. In Harrop and Glade the number of households need to be

considered. It takes times to adequately deal with the individual community

concerns.

[1415]

This 45-day

postponement to consider community interests will help. Reaching a result that

will please everyone is unlikely, but this decision will give people affected in

my riding the time they need to ensure that legitimate concerns are addressed in

a responsible way. We promised a new era of responsible government. Mr. Speaker,

listening to people even when tough decisions need to be made is a way that we

are keeping that commitment.

ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY

Hamilton: I rise in the House today to profile a wonderful asset in my

riding. It is the E&N Railway. Vancouver Island received it as one of the

conditions for our province's entry into Confederation in 1871.

After

much political manoeuvring, the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway was begun in 1884,

with the link to Nanaimo completed in 1886. Since then, numerous upgrades and

expansions of the railway have extended the line to Courtenay and have made it

an integral part of life on Vancouver Island. For over a century it has been a

vital link for the capital region to the rest of the Island.

Today the

railway is an important economic asset attracting tourists to Victoria and the

smaller Island communities along the line. These ribbons of steel thread through

some of the most beautiful and exquisite scenery in the world. However, over the

past decade the rail line has gone through some troubling times, and a number of

my constituents have voiced concern about its future. I believe that in recent

years the line has not been used to its fullest potential. It certainly has more

potential than ski trips and stopping to watch naked bungee jumpers.

Before the

train leaves the station, I am jumping on board to discover new ways to

revitalize the line and explore the vast tourism opportunities that whisper in

its rails. I would like to applaud the tireless efforts of a number of groups

dedicated to preserving this landmark, such as the Vancouver Island Railway

Society.

I, along

with fellow MLAs and the Minister of Transportation, will continue to work with

stakeholders and work to preserve this historic and important transportation

link.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

J. Kwan:

To the Forests minister: when can forest workers expect to get their invitation

to the Premier's softwood lumber summit, and when those workers arrive at the

summit, what concrete action does the minister have to save their jobs?

[ Page 2179 ]

Hon. M.

de Jong: We have, I am pleased to say, commenced a plan of action designed

to provide assistance to the people who need it most, which is the workers and

their families who are being devastated by this punitive trade sanction. The

summit is in the process of being scheduled. In the meantime, we are proceeding

with vigour to prosecute our challenges at the WTO and NAFTA. We are in the

midst of finalizing a campaign to take this matter to our natural allies in the

U.S. — that is, the coalition groups. I am pleased to say that tomorrow there

will be an announcement about another feature to this that I think it essential,

which is diversification of B.C.'s softwood lumber markets.

The U.S.

President may be held hostage to protectionism in his own country. We will not

in B.C.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

I asked the minister: what concrete plans does he have for the workers at this

summit that he will be tabling to discuss with the workers to save their jobs?

The minister hasn't answered that question. We know that workers, industry and

government have already emerged united to save the work and the jobs for the

workers in our community, but there are no plans yet from this government. We

want to know whether or not this minister supports a federal assistance package

for companies to pay for the duty. Will the minister be advocating on behalf of

workers in British Columbia on that package?

[1420]

Hon. M.

de Jong: In case the member didn't hear during the course of the Premier's

address to the House a couple of days ago, we have been right up front about

stating our belief that the priority needs to be support for workers and their

families. This may be a novel thing for the member. I hope it isn't, but it may

be.

Actually,

when we meet with Mr. Haggard and the IWA, when we announce a consultation

meeting of the sort that the summit represents, we actually go there (

a) with a

number of ideas and (

b) with an intention to listen to those people to

understand how that support can be best directed. That's what we will do. That's

what we intend to do. That's what's going to be done.

MacPhail: Well, that's a step backward from Monday. What forest workers and

communities that rely on forestry need right now is leadership from both levels

of government — the provincial level and the federal level. They need it right

now — not a gab about what may happen.

On Monday

the opposition wrote to the Natural Resources minister asking him to consider a

very concrete proposal to cover the 29 percent duty with repayable loans. We

asked this government to support that proposal. That proposal is gaining support

in Ottawa, but we need to keep applying pressure here in British Columbia.

I'll ask

the Minister of Forests again: does the minister support a plan whereby he joins

with the opposition to ask the federal government to cover the cost of the 29

percent duty with repayable loans?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Happily, we have been in discussions with Minister Dhaliwal's

office and with Minister Pettigrew's office. We are in the midst of scheduling

further meetings in advance of the summit so that we can go to workers and their

families with a concrete proposal that will provide them with the assistance

they require. We're going to continue those discussions. We are going to

continue it in a spirit, I think, that exists at both the federal and the

provincial level — that we need to direct those resources where they will do

the most good, and that is for the workers and their families.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: This minister has had responsibility for this issue for over ten

months. The opposition has put forward a proposal for immediate action; so have

forestry workers, industry leaders and politicians in Ottawa. The minister is

aware of all of those proposals. He doesn't need to convene a summit to do that.

The only thing that's missing now is action and concrete support from this

provincial government.

Summits

and, I would say, Mr. Speaker, questionable rhetoric are all well and good, but

they don't do much to keep workers from being thrown out of work.

Again, to

the Minister of Forests: where's the leadership?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: Where's the action? They need the federal government to step in to

provide companies with repayable loans before, not after, they're thrown out of

work. Will the minister get on board, get on the phone, go to Ottawa and tell

Ottawa that forest workers can't afford to wait a moment longer?

Hon. M.

de Jong: I had hoped that in her new role of the last ten months, the Leader

of the Opposition would understand that there are issues when British Columbians

should stand together, when they should put politics aside. It's apparently

something she doesn't understand.

I'll tell

you this. Workers understand, and particularly members of the forest sector

understand, that under her administration their employment numbers were

devastated. They went down, down, down.

Mr.

Speaker, do you know what I did today? I wrote a cheque for upwards of $25

million which that member's government bilked out of forest workers

[ Page 2180 ]

when they purported to have a forest worker transition fund. It's a little

hard to take. We will do right by forest workers and their families in ways her

government couldn't even conceive of.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

The member

for Chilliwack-Sumas. Please proceed.

[1425]

REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Les:

My question today is to the minister responsible for treaty negotiations. This

morning the court handed down a decision on the validity of the referendum on

treaty negotiation principles. Can the minister responsible update the House on

the court decision and the impact that will have on the treaty referendum?

Hon. G.

Plant: I thank the member for his question.

There was a

court challenge lodged earlier this week — an attempt to restrain the

referendum from being conducted. This morning the Supreme Court judge dismissed

the application for an injunction, so we are on track. The ballots will be

mailed to British Columbia households starting April 2, and the people of B.C.

will have a month and a half to think hard about the principles they want the

province's treaty negotiators to take forward as we make progress in treaty

negotiations in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Sumas has a supplementary question.

J. Les:

I understand that the judge this morning found that first nations rights are

entrenched in the constitution and therefore cannot be altered by the process of

a referendum. Can the minister confirm that this is consistent with what has

been the government's longstanding position?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes. For as long as we have talked about the desirability of a

referendum, we have attempted to say as clearly as possible that this referendum

will not in fact attack constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title.

The Premier has been consistent on that. Every member of government and,

frankly, every member of the B.C. Liberal Party sitting in this House has been

consistent on that message.

It's good

news to know that argument was there in front of the court today, and the court

decision reaffirms that this referendum will not undermine constitutionally

protected aboriginal rights and title. This referendum is about giving the

province's treaty negotiators the principles to reinvigorate treaty-making, so

we can find the best, affordable, practical and most respectful way to give

effect to aboriginal rights and title in the province.

REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of State for Deregulation. Under

the previous government, mountains of unnecessary regulations were passed. They

resulted in job losses, and they scared away investment from British Columbia.

In the New

Era document the government committed to reducing red tape and the

regulatory burden in B.C. by one-third to kick-start the economy. Can the

minister tell us what progress he has made in fulfilling this commitment?

Hon. K.

Falcon: The member is correct in outlining the huge costs. I remind the

House that the annual cost of just complying with regulation and red tape in

this province is in excess of $5 billion annually.

It's one of

the reasons why we undertook a count not just of the regulations but of the

requirements that flow from those regulations, and I don't need to remind this

House that that established that there were over 400,000 regulations and

requirements in this province. That was important for us as a province to

establish a baseline in which we could measure, in a very transparent way for

British Columbians to see, what progress we make to achieve our one-third

reduction target. That's also consistent with the new-era commitment to make

sure that we operate in an open and transparent manner.

I just want

to say that in January, we received in our office three-year deregulation plans

from all the ministries outlining each ministry's approach and how they're going

to achieve that target. We'll keep at the top of our mind the important

principles of health, public safety and the environment as we go through this

important process.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplementary question.

Suffredine: A number of my constituents have asked why the government has

not yet released information on regulations it is targeting for elimination. Can

the Minister of State for Deregulation tell us when he intends to make this

information public?

Hon. K.

Falcon: As part of our commitment to openness and transparency, I indicated

earlier that we will be having quarterly reports to keep British Columbians,

including your own constituents, up to date as to what progress we're making.

I'm pleased to say that our first quarterly report, which is historic in terms

of never being done before, will be released on Tuesday.

[1430]

NEW FACILITY AT RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Last

July the minister of state was in my constituency at a sod-turning ceremony to

celebrate the proposed construction of a new facility at River-

[ Page 2181 ]

view Hospital in Coquitlam. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell

us the status of the proposed new facility?

Hon. G.

Cheema: This building is fully functional. This is a new way of delivering

mental health in this province. This new lodge is a prototype for respect. This

is a home-like environment. This will help the patients, and we are moving away

from institutional models. This is great news for mentally ill patients in this

province, and we are moving towards a compassionate, caring system.

I must say

to this member that we will continue to work with the mental health plan. This

is a part of the mental health plan. That was our commitment, and we are

fulfilling that commitment.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville with a supplementary

question.

Stewart: I want to tell the minister that the people of Coquitlam are very

respectful of this new model of care. In the New Era document, the

government committed to fully implement and fund the $125 million mental health

initiative. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us how these new

facilities will help us to fulfil this commitment?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Not only are we fulfilling the commitment for $125 million, we are

spending an additional $138 million on many facilities across the province. We

are going to be taking this model to Prince George and Kamloops, and we also

will be building some facilities in other parts of the province.

This is a

move away from the major institutional model. We are moving towards a model that

will provide a continuum of services and ensure that patients receive the care

and respect they deserve. This was well overdue.

We made the

commitment, and we are fulfilling that promise. We will be spending over $263

million over a period of six years to fulfil that commitment. We must say that

this is the only way to deliver mental health in this province.

CONSERVATION OFFICER

SERVICES IN B.C.

McMahon: My question today is for the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection. Your ministry recently announced changes affecting a number of my

communities and the conservation officers that work there. These announcements

have caused considerable concern. As you know, conservation officers play an

important role in protecting B.C.'s wildlife and natural resources. Can the

minister tell my constituents how these changes will affect her ministry's

ability to protect B.C.'s environment?

Hon. J.

Murray: I agree that the conservation officers are a very important part of

this ministry. Setting standards and making sure they're enforced are a major

focus of the ministry. That's actually why we've protected 60 out of 67 field

offices that this ministry is involved with, because we know that the

conservation officer service is important and having a presence in the community

is important.

We've also

refocused compliance and enforcement activities so that they're more effective,

and we're reducing any of the gaps and overlaps. We think we're going to be

doing a better job. The COs will also be more focused on higher-risk activities

that are threats to either human health or wildlife and habitat.

Petitions

Hon. S.

Santori: I have a petition from 1,400 residents of the Kootenay community of

Glade with respect to their ferry service.

Nuraney: I have a petition signed by some 280 of my constituents in the

instance of the teachers from our school expressing concern about the changes in

the funding to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1435]

J. Kwan:

I rise to table a petition signed by 768 British Columbians. They're calling on

the government to not proceed with their changes regarding single parents'

access to income assistance, especially as it relates to the current legislation

of changing the requirement of single parents who have children who are seven

years old. When they turn three years or younger, they would be cut off income

assistance.

H. Long:

I seek leave to table two petitions to this House: 138 signatures to do with

vaccination awareness risks and 355 signatures on court services.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R.

Coleman: I table the report of the Board of Parole for the province of

British Columbia, 2000-01, and the Criminal Injury Compensation Program

Report 2001 .

Point of Privilege

R. Masi:

Mr. Speaker, last Monday I reserved the right to raise a point of privilege, and

I would like to proceed at this time.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

R. Masi:

I rise today on a point of privilege with respect to the premature disclosure of

the draft report of the Select Standing Committee on Education. On Monday, March

18, members were first made aware of the premature disclosure when an

article

appeared in the print media which allegedly cites some of the draft

recommendations that have been put forward to the

[ Page 2182 ]

committee for consideration. The

article contains disparaging comments by

B.C. Teachers Federation president David Chudnovsky, who states his intent to

shame and intimidate the work of the committee, thereby attempting to influence

the committee's deliberations and final report.

I wish to

be clear in saying that the select standing committee did not authorize the

release of the draft report, nor did it authorize that the content be divulged

by Mr. Chudnovsky. Although the unauthorized disclosure to the BCTF president

may have been deliberate, the source of that disclosure is not known to the

committee.

I speak on

behalf of the committee when I say that I am very concerned about the premature

disclosure of the draft report. It appears to show a serious lack of respect for

the institution of parliament and the work of the select standing committee.

Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that you consider the facts of this case as well as any

relevant parliamentary authorities which may be of assistance to you, including

Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , twenty-second edition, pages

118-120.

In keeping

with the procedure on raising a matter of privilege, I am tabling a copy of the

offending

article from the Vancouver Sun as well as a copy of the motion

which I intend to move, should you find that a prima facie case has been

established.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of privilege will be taken under

advisement, and I will bring back a ruling in due course.

[1440]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food

and Fisheries. That will be followed by the Ministry of Attorney General.

In this

House I call second reading of the Supply Act (No.1), 2002.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2002

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Mr.

Speaker, this supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The

first

section of the bill requests one-sixth of the voted expenses as presented

in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government, which

will allow us to pass the estimates by May 30, given our fixed calendar. Fifty

percent of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and

E of the estimates have been provided for in the interim supply bill. This will

allow time later for more complete debate on these items. The third

section

requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to

other entities, which appear in

schedule F of the estimates. As there is no

impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing

transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirement is being sought in this

supply bill.

I move

second reading of Bill 13.

MacPhail: Well, we don't intend to hold this up at all, but it is ironic. I

can't let this moment pass, Mr. Speaker, without demonstrating on the record the

irony of us being here when, indeed, a fixed calendar was supposed to resolve

this matter. We've been at the debate around the budget since February.

Certainly, with 76 members in this House voting on a regular basis, it is

surprising how absolutely little control this government has in getting anything

done in a timely way and in living up to anything they said that they could do

better.

This bill

is another demonstration of this — a supply act, when year after year the now

Minister of Finance would stand up in opposition and say: "Oh, what is

wrong with a government that has to bring in an interim supply act? Can't they

get their act together? Can't they get their matters under control and govern

the way the province wants them to govern?"

They

brought the budget in early. It was a controversial budget. Not one member is

standing up to in any way challenge any of the controversy of the budget. It's

left up to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and myself to challenge

and hold this government accountable. This is just another example of an inept

government saying one thing when they were in opposition and doing another thing

when they're in government.

Mr.

Speaker: The Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. G.

Collins: I love that. One great thing about being in government is that you

get to respond in second reading. I'm really excited to have a chance to respond

to what the member just said because it shows her lack of understanding of this

process, her lack of understanding of parliament, her lack of understanding when

she was Minister of Finance as to what it was exactly that she was doing wrong

and why it is that the now government, the then opposition, objected so

strenuously to what they were doing. What they would do is bring the budget in

at the very last minute, often days or hours before the end of the fiscal year,

before any of the estimates or in many cases even the budget debate had taken

place, and then ask the House for supply.

That was a

problem. We've fixed that. We now have a fixed budget day. It's the third

Tuesday of every February. The budget debate is complete; the estimates are well

underway, further along than they have ever been underway at this point in time.

In fact, what the opposition objected to….

MacPhail: What was it you objected to?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm about to tell the member.

[ Page 2183 ]

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: The issue the then opposition objected to was the fact that the

government had no planning. They came in at the very last minute and tried to

put through the supply without any examination of the budget. The budget speech

was not complete. But the most important thing that is different is that every

single year they did it, the government had a special warrant attached to it in

some form or another.

[1445]

They never

budgeted correctly. They never managed their finances, and they never came to

this House for supply the way it's properly supposed to be done, which is

introducing legislation in the House and getting supply through the House. It is

extremely different, and the fact that the member opposite doesn't have a clue

that it's different indicates that…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: …after ten years in government and several years as Minister of

Finance, she never did get it. She never did get it, and she still doesn't get

it. In fact, almost regularly, their government would come into the House in

March for an interim supply bill and get three months' worth of spending on an

interim supply bill and run out of time, and then have to come in for a second

interim supply bill at that point in time.

Mr.

Speaker, if you compare the way that Minister of Finance and that government

behaved and the way they did it versus the way this government is doing it, you

can understand just how much more correct the method is.

The fact of

the matter is that an interim supply act is common in every parliament. It's

done all the time. The reality is that we are doing this in a far more just

fashion. In fact, the previous government used to come in and move it through

all three stages in the same day on the very last day of the fiscal year — on

the very last day. I could have done that. Our standing orders allow for that.

I chose to

introduce the bill yesterday, do second reading today, do committee stage

tomorrow and get royal assent in a proper fashion and allow the time for debate.

The fact that the member opposite doesn't understand this just indicates to me

exactly why the people of British Columbia threw them out so resoundingly on May

16 of last year.

With that,

given the major improvements in the way government is managing the finances and

their accountability and managing the procedures in this House, I move second

reading — much to the embarrassment, I'm sure, of the member opposite.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13,

Supply Act (No. 1), 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee on Bill 2.

Committee of the Whole House

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:48 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: What's the purpose of separating this out into two separate parts?

The original bill refers just to Fisheries Renewal B.C. As I understand it, this

separates out into two subsections, one identifying Fisheries Renewal B.C. and

the other identifying Forest Renewal B.C. Subsequent subsections then repeal

both of those sections.

[1450]

Hon. G.

Collins: I don't know. I'm glad to find out, but I don't know the reason for

that other than perhaps it has to do with the chronological way it needs to be

done. I'm certainly glad to find out for the member. No one here seems to know,

especially me.

MacPhail: Well, maybe we should stand down the

section until we get an

answer.

Hon. G.

Collins: I'd be glad to stand down

section 5 until we find out what the

answer to that is.

The

Chair:

Section 5 is stood down.

On

section

MacPhail:

Section 6 of Bill 2 repeals in entirety the Fisheries Renewal Act.

I have a series of question on what substitutes for the provisions that are

contained in the Fisheries Renewal Act. I'll be asking some questions on that.

Section 4

of the Fisheries Renewal Act provides for federal-provincial agreements and

outlines how those federal-provincial agreements may proceed. What, if any,

substitution for that principle exists elsewhere in this government's

legislation?

[ Page 2184 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: My understanding is that the government has the ability to enter

into agreements with the federal government at any time. It does not require the

Fisheries Renewal Act in order to do that. In fact, government enters into

agreements across ministries and with a variety of ministries on an ongoing

basis. It has prior to Fisheries Renewal and will do so after Fisheries Renewal.

MacPhail: The purpose of this clause at the time, though, was to ensure that

those agreements were entered into with the board of Fisheries Renewal and that

the board was community based. It was making sure that federal-provincial

agreements weren't just people sitting in Victoria making deals with people

sitting in Ottawa.

I'm asking:

what kind of arrangement is there for that same community input dealing with

matters of Fisheries Renewal?

[1455]

Hon. G.

Collins: There are agreements in place right now. The member will recall

when government made the announcement — I believe it was in open cabinet —

to wrap up Fisheries Renewal B.C. There was a decision that that structure, the

Crown corporation, would no longer exist. At that time as well, perhaps even

earlier, the board of Fisheries Renewal B.C., I believe, was replaced — if I'm

correct; I'm pretty sure I'm right on this — with the deputy minister and the

CEO. There are ongoing agreements which are in place.

The change

of the board is not something that happens here. The change of the membership of

the board was something that was done by order-in-council. What this is doing is

eliminating Fisheries Renewal B.C. in its entirety.

As I said

earlier, agreements that are pre-existing will continue to exist between the

federal and provincial governments, and any future agreements based on fisheries

would continue to be signed by the federal government and the provincial

government. It's always the duty of ministers and MLAs to ensure that the public

sentiment is reflected in what government does. Not everybody is going to agree

with what government does, but certainly there is a duty as politicians, which

we're accountable for, to hear what people have to say and then make the best

decision we feel possible.

MacPhail: There is no community input in any decisions around fisheries or

Fisheries Renewal that currently exists under this government as I know it now.

I assume, then, that by repealing this and replacing it with nothing, there is

no longer any community input — or first nations input, for that matter — in

terms of federal-provincial arrangements. I can only assume that's the case.

Hon. G.

Collins: That would be incorrect. There is always input from the public with

ministers, with MLAs, into any programs or services that government provides. As

I said earlier, we as the political leaders are held accountable for whether or

not people feel we've done that in a way that's sufficient or whether they've

agreed with us or not, and the public makes its choice accordingly. All

ministers and all MLAs have to be mindful of the opinions and views of everybody

who is affected by all our decisions to the best of our ability, but government

will make a decision at the end of the day. Some people will agree

enthusiastically, and some people will disagree enthusiastically, and we will be

held accountable for those decisions.

MacPhail: Yes, and in fact, Fisheries Renewal B.C. was a very successful

program, proclaimed widely — without controversy, by the way — in all of the

communities that now are being extremely hard hit.

Section 5

of the Fisheries Renewal Act undertakes programs for promoting the protection,

conservation and enhancement of fish stocks and fish habitat. It also says that

there will be a responsibility for Fisheries Renewal B.C. to build a

multi-skilled workforce in the fisheries sectors by supporting employment,

training and technological development and, next, working with communities to

develop strategic plans for job creation in the fisheries sector and the

development of local infrastructure that will encourage employment and

investment in the communities.

Given that

this is being repealed, that Fisheries Renewal B.C. is being killed by this

bill, where do those tasks now rest within the government? Do they exist at all?

Hon. G.

Collins: With the various ministers.

MacPhail: Do they exist?

Hon. G.

Collins: I think what's contained in the mandate section, which is

section 5

of the Fisheries Renewal Act, is a broad mandate of goals and agendas for

government. It's very much a political section, setting goals and priorities. I

would say that governments are always mindful of those. They're very

broad-based. Certainly, this government tries to achieve similar goals — maybe

not exactly the same, but similar — and those responsibilities rest with the

ministers who would be providing that.

MacPhail: In doing my research in preparation for this bill, Mr. Chair, I

checked to see whether the hundreds of programs that were funded

specifically…. This isn't a broad political mandate. This is a very specific

mandate under

section 5 about the programs that Fisheries Renewal B.C. were to

undertake. In doing my research, those programs were killed and the funding is

stopped. I can only assume, once again, that the minister is completely unaware

that with the killing of Fisheries Renewal B.C., these programs have been killed

as well.

[1500]

Hon. G.

Collins: The mandate under

section 5 is in the current bill. I think the

items that are listed there are a pretty broad-ranging set of goals. This

govern-

[ Page 2185 ]

ment has similar overarching goals to try and improve the fisheries in

British Columbia as an economic base for people and support for communities.

By saying

that, it does not necessarily mean that as ministers are responsible for those

same goals, they will achieve those same goals in exactly the same way with

exactly the same programs, in exactly the same time frame put forward by the

previous government, because it's not exactly the same government.

MacPhail: In the area of protecting resource-dependent communities, you've

got that right. It ain't the same government.

Section 6

of the Fisheries Renewal Act , first nations interests in fisheries, says:

"In carrying out its responsibilities, the board and any committee of the

board must take into account the interests of first nations and aboriginal

people in the fisheries resource."

That

section is being eliminated with the elimination of the Fisheries Renewal Act.

There have been government documents publicly released — not by the government

— that show there's going to be a redoing of consultation with first nations

at every level on every topic. Many of those proposals are controversial. What

is the replacement for this

section in the government's agenda?

Hon. G.

Collins: I expect the government's replacement for that provision in this

agenda…. Although government, by repealing this, doesn't necessarily have to

do everything exactly the way the previous government did it, I expect, though,

given the comments of the member, that as government decides how it's going to

consult with aboriginal and first nations across British Columbia on a wide

range of issues, that's where those decisions will be made.

MacPhail: In estimates yesterday with the minister responsible for

aboriginal services, I asked him when he was going to actually set up a forum to

consult on matters such as this with the first nations community. It was

"in the planning stages." Of course, the planning stages, as that

minister said, may lead to a form of some sort of consultation — maybe in the

fall, maybe October. That would be a year and a half into this government's

mandate.

Again,

there's nothing that replaces any of the requirement of a responsible government

that deeply cares about fisheries as a resource upon which thousands of workers

and many communities rely. There's nothing in this government's agenda that

shows any concern, interest or understanding of the importance of that resource.

Hon. G.

Collins: I would argue that, in fact, the actions of the government indicate

our desire to achieve those very goals. Unlike the previous government, we don't

feel we need to create a Crown corporation to tell people what we want to do. We

don't feel we need to create a bureaucracy in order to say that we're going to

do certain things. We don't feel it's required to create a piece of legislation

to do what it is government should just be doing all the way along, which is

talking to people, seeing what they have to say and then making the best

decision based on all of the information at their disposal.

The

previous government felt that the way to show people you are governing in the

interests of the public was to create Crown corporations, to create legislation,

to create bureaucracies and to create programs — whether they worked or not,

whether they made sense or not, whether they actually delivered the results that

were desired or not. That was the way the previous government worked.

[1505]

They were

fully able to do that under their mandate. They did that, and then they went to

the public at the end of their mandate to see how they'd done. The reaction was

pretty negative. This government feels these things need to be done. We'll

continue to do the consultation with people across the issues of government in a

way that allows us to get the information we need from people, to get their

input and then make the best decision that's in the best interests of the people

of the province.

[The bells were ordered to be rung.]

[1510]

Section 6

approved on the following division: :

YEAS — 67

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Bennett

R. Stewart

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[ Page 2186 ]

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I just want to come back, if I can, to

section 5 to clarify the

question by the member of the opposition as to why the

section of the bill

that's before us repeals

section 7(9) in the current act, splits it into two

components, a sub (9) and a sub (10) ? two different components ? and then

repeals those two subsections separately.

If you go

to the end of the bill in the commencement section, that

section ? 5(

b) and

5(c), the two that repeal the various provisions ? is brought into force by

regulation. That allows the government in the windup of these corporations to

shut down one and then the other, and not necessarily do them on exactly the

same day. It's really just a commencement process that allows us to do the two

separate repeals on different dates.

Section 5

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: This is the repeal in its entirety of the Forest Renewal Act, and

there are several questions I have of the government about what replaces the

content that was guaranteed under the Forest Renewal Act. The questions are

particularly important and salient for the communities….

The

Chair: Excuse me, member. I think you're on

section 8.

MacPhail: Oh yes, I am. My apologies.

Section 7

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: As I was saying,

section 8 repeals in its entirety the Forest

Renewal Act, and it's particularly concerning now for communities and families

who rely on the forest industry to know exactly what is replacing the Forest

Renewal Act.

[1515]

In the

Forest Renewal Act that is now being killed by this government, the purpose of

that act was to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the

productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs,

provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities. It was then put

in place with a community-based board and had the ability to enter into

contracts with individuals, first nations, businesses, institutions, local

governments, groups and any other organizations for the delivery of programs

within the purpose of this act.

The

government has replaced Forest Renewal B.C. with a fund, as I understand it.

What was the value of Forest Renewal B.C. as of today, and what is the value of

the fund which replaces it?

Hon. G.

Collins: The questions of whether or not the Forest Renewal Act exists are

not appropriate for this

section of the bill. This is not the estimates of the

Ministry of Forests, and those questions would be better put to the Minister of

Forests.

MacPhail: I'm asking questions about what's going to replace this bill when

this bill is repealed and no longer in existence. What replaces the Forest

Renewal Act upon its repeal?

Hon. G.

Collins: Similar to my answer to the previous questions on Fisheries Renewal

B.C., none of the things that were done in the Forest Renewal Crown corporation

or the act are precluded from being done by government on a general basis. They

may be done slightly differently or through slightly different administrative

processes. Government did many of these things prior to Forest Renewal B.C., and

it will continue to do many of these things after Forest Renewal is no longer

there.

MacPhail: I'm not sure that the vagueness of that answer and the "may

commit, may do" from this government mean much to the communities and the

families and the industry, frankly, that are hurting right now. I'm not sure

that the commitment by this government that they may do anything is worth much

these days. Can the minister be more specific about what is in place for

communities who used to benefit from the programs under Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'm restricting my comments to this section, which repeals Forest

Renewal B.C. As I said earlier, many of these things were done prior to the

creation of Forest Renewal B.C.; many of them will be done after Forest Renewal

B.C. is no more. There is nothing that stops government from doing any or all of

the items contained in here in some way or form — perhaps not the same

administrative structure but in a different way, perhaps with slightly different

goals.

Certainly,

had the previous government, upon creation of Forest Renewal B.C., then

proceeded to manage it in a competent way, there wouldn't have been the hundreds

of millions of dollars wasted without a business plan. That would have been

available and held within communities and businesses, as I said yesterday, which

would have allowed them to deal with the cyclical nature of the forest sector as

well as dealing more readily and being healthier when attacked by some very

predatory trade practices by the United States.

MacPhail: Questions arising out of the minister's comments, Mr. Chair, so

I'm sure they'll be in order. What is the effect of removing and ending Forest

Renewal B.C.? What is the effect of the moneys that used to flow by legislation

from the forest industry through stumpage into Forest Renewal B.C. and now no

longer go to any forestry programs? Where does that money go?

[ Page 2187 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: Prior to the creation of Forest Renewal B.C., revenues came into

government and were expended by government. In fact, after the Forest Renewal

disappears, revenue will come into government and will be expended by

government.

[1520]

MacPhail: Actually, the minister is incorrect on that. Forest Renewal B.C.

was a mechanism by which a type of stumpage that was created flowed into Forest

Renewal B.C. In fact, that was a new type of fee or tax on the industry, and it

went specifically into Forest Renewal B.C. That happened upon the creation of

FRBC. The minister may recall that somebody gave it the term

"superstumpage," for instance. That was the vernacular, but

nevertheless it was the creation. I hate to use vernacular, because I have the

greatest of respect for all aspects of the industry. That superstumpage flowed

into Forest Renewal B.C. It was governed by this act and went directly into the

industry, the communities, the towns, the families and the workers that were in

the forest industry. What's happening now with the stumpage that used to go into

FRBC?

Hon. G.

Collins: Revenue to government from the forest sector of all types will be

revenue to government. Government will expend those funds as it sees fit after

consultations with all British Columbians on a wide range of issues.

MacPhail: Well, I wondered if that was the case. It's going into general

revenue. It's going to pay for the tax cut to the wealthy and the corporations

that may or may not be helping at all to assist forest communities through these

tough times. Here we have, exactly as I said, revenue from the forest industry

being collected — that used to go right back into that industry and the towns

and the families who worked in that industry — and now going into general

revenue for this government to spend any which way it likes.

I would say

that

section 11 of this act, which talks about Forest Renewal B.C. revenue —

the repeal of that — should be of great concern to the forest industry and all

those communities who rely on the forest industry. Now what it means is that the

government is taking money out of that industry, out of those forest-dependent

towns, and putting it into, I guess, deficit financing.

[1525]

Hon. G.

Collins: As the member opposite will know, the revenues from superstumpage

have fluctuated over time. In fact, FRBC had a relatively volatile income

stream, which you'll recall. The fact of the matter, as I've said repeatedly, is

that there's over a billion dollars — $1.5 billion of revenue — that's been

left in people's pockets in personal income tax reduction alone. On the

corporate and business tax side, over $600 million has been left in industry's

hands in order to invest as they see fit.

The members

of our caucus, post-election, in reply and in response to our commitment in the

election campaign to review Forest Renewal B.C. and either fix or scrap it….

Our committee, our members of the Legislature, went out and toured

forest-dependent communities and asked them what they thought about the various

options. The recommendations from the committee were that we wind up Forest

Renewal B.C., and that's what the government's doing.

[The bells were ordered to be rung.]

[1530]

Sections 8

and 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 66

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Bennett

R. Stewart

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Sections 10 to 32

inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon.

G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The

House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2188 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2,

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services, followed by the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:32 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 19:

ministry operations, $535,278,000 (continued).

Hon. G.

Abbott: Mr. Chair, I understand from the opposition members that they'll be

returning to the House shortly. They just needed a short break, so perhaps the

House could recess for just a couple of minutes.

The

Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The House

recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[H. Long in the chair.]

J. Kwan:

The ministry service plan indicates that by '04-05, the ministry will download

heritage properties to community organizations and non-profit groups. What

measures will the ministry take to ensure that local communities have the

resources to protect heritage properties?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We're not downloading any properties. I'm not sure where the member

would have got that idea. What we have committed to — and we've actually

discussed it in the House previously — is the devolution of management of

heritage sites in British Columbia by '04-05. As in other areas, we will be

working with municipal partners potentially but certainly with non-profits and a

range of others who have expressed or who will express an interest in being part

of the management of one or more of the 29 heritage sites in British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister be contemplating selling off province-owned heritage sites?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We have no plans to sell any heritage site.

J. Kwan:

The issue around public-private partnership. Is there an attempt to look at

public-private partnerships? What form, then, will public-private partnerships

take?

[1540]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Public-private partnership is probably an acceptable way, although

perhaps a bit on the grand side in terms of the relationship we have. In fact,

we currently have 53 contractors who have undertaken the management of

particular sites. I'll give the member a couple of examples. The Emily Carr

House is managed by a private contractor. The Keremeos Grist Mill is managed by

a private contractor. In both cases there is a small contractual amount that

goes along with the management. Additionally, there are another 51 contracts

that we have. In some sites — for example, Barkerville — we have multiple

contracts for the gold panning, etc., and that kind of stuff.

We will be

building on what has been, actually, some very successful contractual

arrangements with private sector interests, but we're quite willing, certainly,

to expand that to communities. I know Quesnel's expressed an interest around the

future management of Barkerville. I know Wells — where I think there's a new

casino going in — has expressed some interest in management around

Barkerville. We're happy to talk to municipalities. We're also happy to talk to

non-profits, as well other potential private sector contractors.

J. Kwan:

So the government is not looking at selling off heritage sites or heritage

properties owned by the province but rather is looking at contractual leasing

arrangements for their management. Is it an open-bid process that the government

will then embark on for particular sites? Let's say Barkerville. Is it going to

be an open bid that would invite people who would come forward with bids, and

the government will choose the best bid for that management? Is that how the

process is going to be?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, we have until fiscal '04 to do this. We will be inviting

expressions of interest at this point in time. It would be too early, I think

— at least beyond the kind of contractual relationships we have now — to

actually go into a bid process. We are still working through the development of

devolution of management of these properties.

In response

to the member's question on the first part, the only properties where there is a

possibility of a transfer of title would be in relation to first nations, who

have expressed an interest in a couple of our heritage sites. That may, in fact,

from our perspective, be a positive and practical way to see future management

[ Page 2189 ]

those sites. Those are the only examples of where we could possibly, I think,

see a change of title.

J. Kwan:

What level of involvement will the province have in the designation and

protection of heritage properties?

Hon. G.

Abbott: There are a couple of ways in which the member's question could be

interpreted, so I'll try to answer both possibilities here, and she can correct

me or direct me.

One

possibility here is that the member's asking what kind of continuing

responsibility the province will have in relation to the 29 existing heritage

sites in the province. As we move to devolution of management, we will continue

to set the standards that would be embodied in the management of those sites and

set the parameters around which the sites can be used. That will continue to be

the role of my ministry in doing that. Then we would expect, by contract, those

measures to be carried out, obviously, to satisfy the terms of the contract.

The member

may be asking, though, a broader question. One of the important initiatives that

we will be undertaking in the heritage area — and we've already begun, and

certainly over the next three years it will be a very important part of what we

do in the heritage branch of my ministry — is a partnership with the federal

government on a historic places initiative. We believe it's both exciting in

terms of designation of new heritage sites in the province and also an

opportunity to build on the skills and the resources, particularly around tax

policy, that the federal government can bring to the table. I hope that's an

instructive answer.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

Will the government be looking at providing community groups with funding or

financial support so that they could engage in taking over the responsibility of

managing and protecting heritage properties?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We expect that even with the devolution of management, there will be

ongoing subsidies for some of the sites. There's a tremendous range in those 29

sites. Some are very passive and inexpensive; others, like Barkerville and Fort

Steele, are quite considerable undertakings. We expect that for some of the

sites — obviously some of the more complex ones — there will likely be

ongoing subsidy. But that's something that has to be looked at in the context of

each of the relationships we enter into and the character of the challenge

that's facing the new contractors.

J. Kwan:

What of the instance where a call for proposal or expression of interest has

been initiated, and the response has been no or perhaps even, in some cases, no

response at all? In that instance, what would the government do?

Hon. G.

Abbott: While the question is hypothetical, I do want to attempt to provide

an answer for the member.

We have

actually seen a lot of interest already in the possibilities around the

devolution of management of these sites. In one case, a particularly large

non-profit foundation has indicated an interest in all of the sites. We have

many others who have expressed an interest in one or more of the sites. Again,

in some cases the issue is quite a simple one; it's a passive site or whatever

— small in scale. In others, as the magnitude of the undertaking grows to the

scale of, say, a Barkerville, it becomes rather more interesting and challenging

to ensure that the devolution of management produces the results that we want.

I think,

given the level of interest, the possibility that there will be no one in line

to do it is remote. But even if that were to be and if, for example, we found a

site that simply no one had an interest in, then we do continue to have

resources in the ministry to manage it.

J. Kwan:

I appreciate the minister's answer to that question, even though it is

hypothetical.

What I'm

concerned about is the scenario where there is a call for proposal, and there is

no interest for one particular site or two or whatever. I want to make sure that

there is commitment from government to retain those sites and to manage those

sites. I got that answer from the minister, so I appreciate it.

The

minister says that he will be looking at the proposals as they come in and

engaging in discussions with the variety of groups in its management. Then, on

the question around subsidy, it wouldn't be a call for proposal on the basis of

application for subsidies. Is the minister envisioning that the groups would put

forward a proposal and within that proposal, if they require a subsidy from

government, they would actually outline what that subsidy would be, and then

government would take that into consideration? Is that how that process is going

to work?

[1550]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Initially, as I mentioned previously, we would be looking or calling

for expressions of interest in this. As we move further down the line, there

would likely be, at least for some of the sites, proposal calls for the

management. We would expect that as a consequence of that, some of the potential

contractors would indicate what they would propose to do and whether a subsidy

would be required. It would then be the responsibility of my staff in the

heritage branch to evaluate both of those things: what is being proposed and the

level of subsidy that is being contemplated.

J. Kwan:

Will the minister be looking at a fee-for-service in the management of these

heritage sites? In other words, for the proposals that come forward, I don't

know if people will be looking to the government. Is the government open to the

consideration of a fee-for-service management kind of arrangement?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, at the risk of potentially misunderstanding the member's

question, we'd like to

[ Page 2190 ]

offer this answer. We are looking at the devolution of the management of

these sites. That means that in virtually every instance, we would not be

involved in the day-to-day oversight of the facilities. Rather, we would set out

the standards and parameters for the operation and management of the sites.

Presumably, as in other contracts, there would be performance measures, audits,

and so on, at appropriate points to ensure that the contractors were undertaking

the responsibilities they contracted to undertake.

I don't

think that fee-for-service enters into this equation, but perhaps we've

misunderstood the member's question.

J. Kwan:

I'm just trying to understand whether or not in the contractual arrangement of

groups ? whatever group may be undertaking to manage these heritage properties ?

they would be paid a fee from the government to enter into the contractual

arrangement with the government. That's what I mean by fee-for-service in that

instance.

The

minister said there might be opportunities for a subsidy. Is that the only means

of providing financial aid for the management of the properties, or is it going

to be a fee-for-service for a particular group to manage these properties?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think we understand the member's question a little bit more

clearly. We'll use the example of Emily Carr House, where we have a contractor

in place who, in fact, has been doing an outstanding job for at least a few

years now with respect to that heritage building and site.

The

contractor enjoys the revenues from the day-to-day operation of the heritage

site, and the subsidy, if it's appropriate ? and it won't always be; it will

only be in some instances appropriate ? is used to supplement that. Clearly,

what we do in the contractual arrangement is put a lot of incentive in the hands

of the manager or contractor to manage it well, so that it's enjoyed by many

British Columbian and tourists, and they thereby enjoy the additional revenues

that are produced by that good management.

J. Kwan:

What is the projection of net savings for what the minister called a devolution

scheme? What are the projected net savings for this?

[1555]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The first thing I want to emphasize is that we are not undertaking

the devolution of management of these sites to enjoy cost savings. We are

undertaking the devolution of management of these sites so that we have stronger

local management of the sites and better management of the sites generally than

is possible with the government doing it directly. However, we do expect savings

probably in the area of about 30 percent — or, across the province, perhaps $2

million or $3 million in terms of those savings — but it's not the reason

we're doing it. We are doing it because we believe it provides a better

management regime.

J. Kwan:

In the management of these heritage properties, have there been problems that

have been identified because of mismanagement by the province? The minister

suggests it would be better managed locally, but have there been problems with

service today that lead one to think a change of management needs to take place?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think it would be unfair to suggest that there had been bad

management from the government's direct management of these sites. But I think

it's fair to say this: the 29 sites are located all over British Columbia, and

staff find it is awkward and cumbersome attempting to manage those

geographically widely scattered and diverse sites from Victoria. The new model

will provide for regional and local management of these resources. As well, I

guess, as purely government ventures, the heritage sites…. As part of

government, all recoveries must be spent in the same fiscal year, which would be

a constraint that private contractors would not be under.

The final

point — and I think in many ways it's the most important one — is that as

government operates these sites directly, there are not the same opportunities

for flexibility and innovation in terms of management as we would have with

third-party contractors. Again, I'd offer up to the member the Emily Carr House

in Victoria as an example of where the value, the excellent management, of that

particular heritage site has been very much enhanced by having a private

contractor with obviously a tremendous personal interest in this heritage site

as the contractor and manager.

J. Kwan:

Three weekends ago now, I guess, I was in Williams Lake. Some community members

brought to my attention some of the heritage sites that exist in that community.

Actually, I don't have my notes from that meeting with me, but I'm just

wondering if the minister could advise what sites exist in the Williams Lake

area that are heritage properties and what the status of those sites is.

[1600]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Neither I nor staff — and we're obviously quite certain about

this…. There are no provincial heritage sites in Williams Lake. There is a

heritage site at Hat Creek, and there is a heritage site at Barkerville. We

suspect that there may be some confusion with a locally designated heritage

site, because there's no provincial one in Williams Lake.

J. Kwan:

I'm just going by memory now in terms of that meeting. It was brought up, and

I'm not familiar with the heritage sites issues in that community. Perhaps it's

the Cariboo-Chilcotin area that people have mentioned in terms of the heritage

sites, which the minister has identified too.

[ Page 2191 ]

I wonder if

the minister could provide me with the information on the status of these two

sites. If the information that I'm seeking is too detailed, I would simply ask

the minister to provide that information to me in writing so that I could get

back to the individuals who asked me the questions.

Hon. G.

Abbott: There is not a whole lot that we can add in addition to the comments

made earlier. We are at an early stage with respect to the devolution of both of

these sites. At the staff level we have initiated some discussions around that

— looking at some of the ways in which the devolution could be managed in

those specific instances. It will be some time yet before we get to the stage of

inviting expressions of interest.

J. Kwan:

When does the minister expect that invitations for expressions of interest would

take place? Are you thinking about one year's time or within the next six

months? What's the time line that the minister is looking at?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We expect that the first calls for expressions of interest will

likely be either on some of the more straightforward sites or on some of the

sites where there have already been more expressions of interest. Likely around

June or July we will see the first expressions of interest. They will roll out

after that.

J. Kwan:

The minister also mentioned that the recoveries from these heritage properties

must be spent that same year if it is government managed. Does he mean to say

that if it's not spent, then those dollars are put into general revenues? Is

that what he means?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Generally speaking, this hasn't been a big problem. Going back to

the legalities of the operation of the treasury, recoveries made in a particular

fiscal year must be expended in that fiscal year, or the recoveries revert to

Crown. The staff have been generally pretty accurate in drawing up budgets, so

that doesn't happen often. That, as the member knows, is the way government

works.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

The service plan commits the ministry to maintain support for the B.C. Arts

Council. In the '01-02 estimates the ministry has allocated approximately $14

million, and in the '02-03 estimates the allocation is around $13 million to the

B.C. Arts Council.

First, let

me just ask: are these numbers correct, and if so, could the minister please

advise and explain the discrepancy?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The numbers are correct. However, just to be sure, the member should

understand that they also include other areas for arts and culture. The

allocation for the Arts Council has been protected within that figure, but there

are also other expenditures on top. If it's the member's wish, I can go through

them now, or we can send you a copy of them.

J. Kwan:

Is the net effect with the Arts Council such that while the funding is there, it

just means additional programs are added to the funding they've been allocated?

That means at the end of the day the funding for the Arts Council has really

been watered down because their responsibilities have been expanded.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is incorrect in that assumption. The lion's share of the

dollars she's looking at in that particular case is for the Arts Council. They

are consistent year to year to the Arts Council, but within that larger figure

there are also disbursements from cultural services branch out to others who

undertake either responsibilities or functions or programs for us.

J. Kwan:

If I understand the minister correctly, the funding for the Arts Council is

protected in comparison to previous years. The funding did not decrease for the

Arts Council.

Hon. G.

Abbott: That's correct.

J. Kwan:

The service plan indicates that the government will no longer be providing

funding to the B.C. Festival of the Arts. Could the minister please expand on

that issue? It has been an issue in the community.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is correct. It was actually a very difficult decision,

but given the fiscal constraints we had, we felt it was important to protect the

core funding to the arts. That's through the mechanism of the Arts Council. As a

consequence, the funding after the completion of the current B.C. Festival of

the Arts will not be continued.

They may

find it from other sources. We don't know that. We're not sure of the

disposition of the board with respect to that, but it's certainly the situation

we face today.

J. Kwan:

The B.C. Festival of the Arts, particularly in local communities, often tends to

generate a lot of local economic activities. Has there been any analysis with

respect to the B.C. Festival of the Arts generating local economic activities

for respective communities? Is the minister aware of any of those kinds of

analyses being done? What's the information, if there is such analysis?

Hon. G.

Abbott: In sort of living corporate memory here, we are not aware of any

analysis that's been done with respect to the B.C. Festival of the Arts around

those multipliers or impacts.

J. Kwan:

If such an analysis has not been done within the ministry, is the minister or

his staff aware of who — perhaps in a local community, the local chamber of

commerce or other places — might have kept some of that information? And what

does that information tell us?

[ Page 2192 ]

Hon. G.

Abbott: If there is, it has never been advanced to us.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

I raise this line of questioning because I know that when I travel to the

various communities for the Festival of the Arts, I often hear from the

community about how great it is. Not only is it a coming together of the

community but also for the local economies to be generated with activities

because of the gathering of people from elsewhere.

I'm just

wondering whether or not there is any work or analysis around that, especially

in the smaller communities where more and more we have to look towards local

economies and activities and the like, where injections of such moneys may well

be worth the return in revenue back to government and to the local economies.

That's why I'm asking those questions. Perhaps the minister could undertake to

gather such information and see what the analysis is, to see whether or not it's

a good investment for communities. I suspect it is a good investment for

communities.

Moving on

to the area of sports, the service plan indicates that the ministry will stop

funding the National Coaching Institute. Can the minister please advise of the

justification for reducing the funding for athletes in this area?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, it wasn't an easy decision to make with respect to the

National Coaching Institute and our funding to it. We believe that our resources

are best focused on levels 2 and 3, where most of our interest is. Levels beyond

that are funded by the federal government.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please explain levels 2 and 3?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The national coaching levels are 1 to 5. Generally, one moves from

level 1, which is the simplest or lowest level of coaching expertise, to 5,

which is the highest. Level 3 typically is, for example, the level of coaching

one might find at the Canada Summer or Winter Games. It's at that level where

much of our interest from a sports perspective, at least competitively, would be

focused. When you get to levels 4 and 5, one's getting into the international

level of coaching where, generally, the national interest is.

J. Kwan:

The minister advised that the federal government has contributed dollars in this

area. Does the minister know how much money the federal government has

contributed towards this area?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Our contribution was, and until '04-05 will be, $115,000. We don't

know what the federal contribution to the National Coaching Institute is. It'd

be considerably more than that, but we don't know what it is.

J. Kwan:

I thought I heard the minister say that the federal government is coming to the

table or is at the table in this area. Maybe it's not in this area, so maybe the

minister can clarify: what is the federal government's contribution and in what

area and how much?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I think the member may be confused around the point of when she was

raising the issue of the athlete assistance program in the context of the 2010

Olympic bid. That's where my comments with respect to the federal government

were expressed. We hadn't talked about the National Coaching Institute at that

time.

[1615]

J. Kwan:

Sorry, I must have had a mind lapse for one moment. I thought I heard the

minister say just moments ago that there were federal government programs in

this area, so I wasn't referring to the Olympic bid situation.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The federal government actually owns this program; it's their

program. We contribute to it at least to the level of $115,000, but it's their

program.

J. Kwan:

We don't know? Does the minister know what the federal government's contribution

to the program is?

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, it's the federal government's program. We don't have the

detail here with respect to what the overall cost of it is. Presumably it would

be the total cost minus any contributions they receive from British Columbia and

other provinces.

We'd be

happy to get the member that information if she'd like detail on it, but we

don't have that with us. It is a federal program.

J. Kwan:

That's fine. I can get that information myself. I had thought that maybe the

minister would have that information, given that the minister mentioned the

federal government's participation with respect to this.

Does the

minister have any plans in terms of getting other sectors to come in with

funding in this area?

The

Chair: Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. If you introduce me that way every

time, it will be a very long estimates process. It's a very long name.

We are open

to suggestions, opportunities and partnerships with the private, corporate and

non-profit sectors on all phases of sports including coaching, although….

Well, in fairness to organizations like PetroCanada, they have in fact focused

their assistance on the coaching end. We're open to partnerships in all areas

around sport.

J. Kwan:

Is the government actively seeking partnerships in this area?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We have had wide involvement in all our consultations, but we're not

aware of any initia-

[ Page 2193 ]

tive to attempt to secure a partnership around coaching specifically.

J. Kwan:

What partnership opportunities is the government examining at this time? Let's

not just restrict it to the coaching area — but in the sports arena.

Hon. G.

Abbott: As one might imagine at this point in time, much of the effort and

attention in terms of new partnerships around sports activities is focused on

the 2010 Olympic bid. That's probably not going to be a particular surprise to

the member.

[1620]

Additionally,

though, we have certainly engaged the corporate sector in the consultations

around the development of sport policy in British Columbia. This is evidenced

really at every level of local and at times provincial athletic competition and

involvement. To use the example of my kid's soccer team, it has for some years

been sponsored by Subway. That would be one example, but there are a myriad of

ways in which the corporate and business sector are involved in sponsoring minor

and higher levels of athletic competition and athletic teams.

J. Kwan:

In the New Era document it actually highlights the doubling of the

physical fitness and amateur sports fund to $44 million to promote physical

fitness and participation in amateur sport. Yet, for the '04-05 service plan,

the athlete assistance program would be eliminated. Can the minister address the

discrepancy between these two policy directions?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is correct. In the last election campaign we did commit

to doubling of the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. We have followed

through on that commitment. The first instalment of the doubling from $22

million to $44 million over four years occurred in the last fiscal year. Soon we

will add the second increment of that. Again, as the fund grows, the amount of

interest — all things being equal — will grow as well.

Of course,

one of the challenges we have at this point of time is that interest rates —

at least if you are receiving them rather than paying them — are relatively

low. We expect the interest generated from the amateur sport fund for '01-02 to

be $1.55 million, an estimated $1.726 million for '02-03, an estimated $1.808

million for '03-04 and an estimated $1.848 million for '04-05.

J. Kwan:

I am sorry. I missed part of it because I was talking to a colleague in the

House for a minute. Did I hear the minister correctly when he said the funds

that are in place…? It's the interest contribution that goes towards the

funds, and then that's for the four years? Okay. I just want to clarify that

point. Thanks.

In the New

Era document it almost reads as though the contribution in the physical

fitness and amateur sports fund is actually the amount of $44 million; it's not

the contribution of the interest. It's actually a little bit misleading, if you

look at the document, so I wanted to clarify that point with the minister.

One of the

issues that I want to bring to the minister's attention…. I wonder what his

response would be around this. We've heard it in several different arenas —

whether it be in the health arena or the education arena — that more and more

we see young people, particularly, who are less engaged in physical fitness and

activities. That, of course, has huge ramifications health-wise and otherwise.

As the minister responsible for sport, I wonder what strategy the minister has

in this regard — to look at the physical fitness issue overall for,

particularly, younger-generation British Columbians.

[1625]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Actually, I do very much share the apprehension expressed by the

member around the attention to sport and the relative physical fitness of young

people. We know that childhood obesity is at a very high level, probably

record-high levels in Canada today, so it is very much a concern for us in this

ministry. That's why — and I think I tried to express this the other day —

we have to find a kind of balance between the competitive side of the sport,

which everybody celebrates, and also to try to encourage as much as we can a

broad participation in sport by young people, particularly in an age where we

can do all kinds of fascinating things on a machine called a computer.

Sometimes

it's difficult to compete with Dungeons and Dragons, or whatever the flavour of

the month is on computer games, with good old-fashioned football, baseball or

whatever it is. We need to engage young people in sport. There's probably a sort

of multidimensional answer, perhaps, to this puzzle.

For

example, we in our branch have active schools and so on — programs like that

— which try to encourage broader participation. As long as we are seeing some

of the indicators going in the wrong direction in terms of participation rates

and childhood obesity and that kind of thing, I think we clearly need to do more

to try to encourage kids to get involved in sports, to get excited about sports

and to be involved in sports all their lives.

J. Kwan:

I'm wondering whether or not the minister has any concrete plans to engage young

people in sports. Are there such programs within the minister's area of

responsibility?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The ministry is working very extensively and very vigorously with

the private sector and non-profit groups that are involved in this, principally

with Sport B.C. and its committees, to develop a strategy and an action plan to

deal with issues around the participation of young people in sports. In the

'02-03 budget we have been able, in fact, to add $176,000 in new resources

targeted particularly to that goal.

J. Kwan:

The minister mentioned Sport B.C. The funding envelope and the amount of money

the minis-

[ Page 2194 ]

ter also mentioned was $100,000-plus. Is that entire amount being directed

toward Sport B.C.?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The funding to Sport B.C. — and I hope this is okay for the member

at this point — is approximately $4 million. The $176,000 I mentioned is

incremental to that core funding, so it is additional funding. It is targeted at

ways in which we can enhance the participation of young people in sports.

J. Kwan:

I'm just about to wrap up in the sports area here, and then I know another

member in the House wishes to ask the minister some questions in this set of

estimates.

Will there

be tracking, if you will, of the participation rate of young people so that we

can actually see some sort of measurement? Is it going up? Is it going down? Do

we need additional attempts in trying to draw young people into the arena

of sports?

[1630]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes, we definitely will be doing that. We believe funding should be

performance-based, and we'll be looking to see that over time, hopefully, some

of those indicators turn with respect to youth participation in sports. It is a

very critical part of having healthy communities and a healthy province.

J. Kwan:

Are there any specific targeted initiatives or programs either with the ministry

or with Sport B.C. or other groups in terms of trying to target low-income

families and the opportunity for the children to participate in the sports

arena?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that, yes, there is a program which

is specifically designed in that direction. It's called Kidsport. We fund Sport

B.C. for the purpose of providing the necessary kind of immediate costs and

resources to allow kids, for example, to play hockey, football or soccer — to

pay their upfront registration and possibly equipment kinds of things. Kidsport

is designed in that way.

J. Kwan:

I wonder if the minister can provide me with detailed information around the

program. I assume that's one program. There would likely be a range of programs

that exist throughout British Columbia. Could he provide me with detailed

information on how one could access such a program so that I can disseminate

that information to the broader community? I know my own area is definitely an

area where young people particularly are always looking for opportunities to

participate, but because they face multiple barriers, sometimes they're not able

to. I just wonder…. If there is a larger base to enhance the information I

have, that would be most helpful.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We'd be delighted to provide comprehensive information with respect

to that program to the member.

J. Kwan:

I don't have additional questions in the area of sports, but I understand that

another member in the House wishes to ask the minister some questions. I'm going

to yield the floor to him at this time.

J. Bray:

I'd like to thank my colleague for allowing me to address some questions to the

minister. First, I'd like to congratulate the minister and his staff on their

service plan. It's an excellent working document that allows members and the

community to really get a handle on what the minister and his staff around the

province are going to be doing over the next three years. I know it's a lot of

work for staff. I just wanted to acknowledge that I appreciate the work.

The first

area I'd like to canvass with the minister is in the service plan with respect

to the Royal B.C. Museum. Certainly, in my riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill, the

Royal B.C. Museum is a significant asset, but it really is an asset for the

whole capital region. I know that in discussions with board members at the

museum, there has been some concern over the years about declining attendance as

a percentage of the share of tourism. I'm just wondering whether or not the

minister has had discussions with the Royal B.C. Museum around the issue of

their ability to attract their fair share of tourists and whether or not the

museum has been providing him information on that. Can he update us a little bit

on the types of feedback he's received from the museum on that issue?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I want to trump the member here a little bit. The Royal B.C. Museum

is not only a tremendous asset to the city of Victoria and the greater Victoria

region; it's also obviously a tremendous asset to the entire province and indeed

one of the great jewels in the provincial crown. I think every British Columbian

is remarkably proud of the Royal B.C. Museum and the programs and amenities it

offers.

The Royal

B.C. Museum and executive director Pauline Rafferty, who is here with me, have

actually been tremendous in terms of building a constructive working

relationship. We are certainly moving to try to address some of the challenges

that face the museum. With Pauline's capable assistance, I'm sure we can provide

whatever information the member is looking for.

[1635]

J. Bray:

I thank the minister for that answer.

A couple of

the things I see in the service plan around the planning context…. It talks

about major trends with respect to museums — not only the Royal B.C. Museum

but really the museum community as a whole. It talks about questioning roles and

activities.

One of the

areas I'd like to focus on, if I could, is adopting marketing strategies. Of

course, as the minister knows, Victoria has a very active tourism community

through Tourism Victoria. It really deals with tourism as a whole industry

rather than as individual businesses. It has been very successful. I see that

there is a

section dealing with adopting marketing strategies. I'm wondering,

first of all, whether or not the minister

[ Page 2195 ]

could expand a bit on where the Royal B.C. Museum is going with respect to

adapting those marketing strategies.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Again, I think this is a very

positive thing. I think we can look to the future with a lot of confidence in

relation to the Royal B.C. Museum. I should note, first of all, that there is a

core review ongoing with respect to the Royal B.C. Museum, so I don't expect

that any of this answer will be honed in terms of its accuracy by core review. I

do just want to advise the member of that.

The Royal

B.C. Museum is a very active partner with both Tourism Victoria and Tourism B.C.

in attempting to ensure that the Royal B.C. Museum is very much a partner in a

thriving tourism industry in British Columbia. Obviously, as the member

acknowledged, tourism is huge for Victoria, and certainly the Royal B.C. Museum

is committed to doing its part to further enhancing the tourism potential of

Victoria.

Pauline

advises me — again, I knew it previously, and maybe the hon. member already

knows it — that one of the tremendously exciting things that is going to

happen in the months ahead, particularly in relation to the Royal B.C. Museum,

is the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen's coronation. There

will be a special exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum running through until next

January to celebrate this very momentous event. It is not entirely unusual to

find people seeing in Victoria an old-world British charm. One would expect that

this will be just a tremendously successful exhibit for the Royal B.C. Museum.

We look forward to that.

The museum

has faced some considerable challenges in the wake, particularly, of September

11. Again, there's no news here. As a consequence of the tragic events on

September 11, air travel — whether it was between destinations in the Pacific

Northwest or whether it was international — was severely curtailed for a time.

We seem to be strongly in a recovery position now, but there's no question that

it made life very difficult not just for the museum but for a whole range of

tourism-oriented businesses in Victoria and elsewhere in British Columbia in

those months immediately following the tragic events of September 11.

[1640]

The museum

responded, from a marketing perspective, to the events of September 11 by

focusing — and I think this was a very wise strategy — on the Pacific

Northwest. I think that effort has borne fruit. The museum has had a very good

month of March, and they anticipate they are going to have a very successful

summer. I suspect, hopefully, with the Queen's visit to Victoria and the

excitement around the new royal feature to the museum, that we'll have a very

successful year.

J. Bray:

Hon. Chair, through you I thank the minister for that answer. I'm very pleased

to hear that the museum is also going to tie into the anticipated royal visit in

October.

I'd like to

focus on just a couple of other areas if I may. The first is: one of the key

challenges identified is the ability to diversify revenues. I'm wondering if the

minister could advise me as to some of the activities the museum is doing to

diversify its revenues. Certainly, some members of this House are aware that the

museum is doing things like catering events and hosting events very successfully

as a revenue source and actually, I think, adds a tremendous experience for

visitors from conferences and meetings. It's a very unique venue. I'm wondering

if the minister could just advise us a bit more on those types of activities

that perhaps would not be thought of when one first thinks of a museum.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is correct. There certainly is ongoing a very strong

initiative to diversify revenues. There is not only the rental of the galleries

and the hosting of events, which the member referenced, but as one who has

participated in a number of them, they are recognized as being very fine events

and always very well done. Gallery rentals are an important part of it. As well,

the museum has some of its own publications and publications of others, which it

sells in its retail space and elsewhere. Retail is an important part of the

operation of the museum.

There are

also efforts to raise funds corporately and privately to enhance the museum. The

museum has, as well, of course, a public-private partnership with IMAX, which

generates funds to the museum. There is an ongoing attempt which we will

continue to work at, because we're by no means there yet. We will continue to

look at ways in which we can get the museum on an ongoing secure basis fiscally.

J. Bray:

I am very pleased to hear those plans are going on. Certainly, the feedback in

my community here in Victoria is that they've been very successful. I think it's

important for the community at large to see the museum expanding its role and

looking for new ways of developing revenue sources independent of government. I

applaud the museum's successful efforts so far, and I certainly encourage them

to continue in that way.

Two other

areas, if I may. The first is the Friends board, the board that is looking at

fundraising from the perspective of donations and legacies and that type of

fundraising arm. In the strategic plan it's clear that this has not perhaps been

as successful as one would have liked. I'm wondering whether or not the minister

can address the issue of what the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum is doing to

address its ability to attract a larger share of donations, either as a

percentage or certainly getting larger individual donations. In the information

provided, the median donation was about $50, and given the comparison to some of

the other museums around North America, that's a relatively

[ Page 2196 ]

low amount. I'm wondering if the minister can comment a bit more on the

Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum.

[1645]

Hon. G.

Abbott: There's a couple of elements to a full answer to the question the

member poses. First of all, the Friends board, I'm advised, has only been

actively fundraising for a couple of years, so it's a relatively new initiative

for the board. I think we're seeing increasingly some success in the fundraising

efforts. That's not at all unusual for institutions or boards or organizations

that are relatively early on in the fundraising business.

The other

side of the equation, and certainly one would encounter quite a strong argument

on this point from the Friends on the board, is that the museum is currently a

special operating agency of government. It's the view of some, at least, on the

board that as a special operating agency the museum lacks the opportunities for

flexibility and innovation, partly for capturing greater fundraising amounts and

endowments and so on, by being rather closely tied to government.

What we are

doing through the core review process is looking at the range of options that

would be appropriate for the museum as a future entity. That may range from the

status quo — I suppose it's a possibility — to Crown corporation status or

possibly some other realignment or reconfiguration that would work for the

museum.

J. Bray:

I recognize that the museum is still going through the core review process, and

the minister very nicely segued into what was going to be my grand finale area,

which was the area of its current governance structure.

Under core

business area 3, revenue generation and business operations, in the strategic

plan under goal 2 it speaks of increased independence, a governance structure

that is built on business principles and encourages philanthropic donations. If

my understanding from the meetings I've had at the Royal B.C. Museum…. The

intent is to try and be a bit more separate from government to give confidence

to those who are looking to make larger donations — a sense that it's not

somehow going to fall into the black hole of other government expenditures.

I note that

objective No. 1 is to achieve new governance status in 2002, and strategy 1 is

to follow requests for a legislation process. Certainly, those of us in the

capital regional district strongly support the Royal B.C. Museum and want to see

it strengthened and are very encouraged by this process. I was wondering,

perhaps, as my grand finale question on this area, if the minister could let us

know what exactly is meant by "follow requests for a legislative

process" and new governance — maybe just expand a bit more on his

perspective of what that might achieve for the museum.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I would love to be more precise, but I probably can't be. With the

core review processes on, I would be bold — some would say foolish; in fact, I

would say foolish — to attempt to speculate on what the direction might be out

of core review. If this offers reassurance to the member, I do think that a

greater autonomy and greater independence is very much one of the critical

features we will have to capture if indeed the museum is to enjoy the success

around fundraising and endowments, and so on, that we would like to see happen.

That's certainly the direction that I hope to see come out of core review.

Again, I

hold only so many of the marbles in this particular game. Depending on the

timing of core review and what the outcome is, there remains a possibility of

some legislative action in the current session. Again, that is an issue which

involves a number of players that are even beyond this room.

[1650]

J. Bray:

I appreciate that answer. The minister is very reassuring. Just so the minister

is aware, my congratulations always go out to not only the staff at the museum

and also those who serve on the board and on the Friends but also the many

volunteers. Many people don't realize when they go to the museum that there are

a great number of volunteers from the community, both mine and the others of my

South Island colleagues, who donate a lot of time in the museum both in the

front lines and also behind the scenes, and who really serve the community very

well.

I continue

to support the efforts of the museum and will always lend my assistance, and I

know my other colleagues on the South Island will do so. The minister is always

assured that we will visit him on a regular basis when we need to.

If I may,

hon. Chair, one other area I would like to canvass is the Provincial Capital

Commission, which is a topic that the minister is familiar with from visits from

myself as well as many other of the South Island MLAs over the last eight or

nine months.

The act

itself basically has been unchanged since 1956. Many in the community have

stressed that perhaps there's a need for a revitalization or revisiting of the

Provincial Capital Commission. In reading their annual report, there do seem to

be some areas that have stagnated over time. They carry a large amount of cash

assets as a proportion of their overall assets, and they seem to be involved in

all sorts of activities in the community — none of them negative — but going

back to the act of 1956, they sometimes do seem to be out of sync. I'm wondering

if the minister can advise us what the status is of the Provincial Capital

Commission at this point.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'll just introduce Larry Beres, who's with me from the Provincial

Capital Commission. The PCC is still undergoing core review, and the results of

that will be revealed, I guess, appropriately in due course.

J. Bray:

Obviously, as the minister has indicated before, when things are in the middle

of core review, he'd be foolish, as he says, to actually try to prejudge it.

[ Page 2197 ]

Is it fair to say that there'll be some information that may come out before

the end of this session as to the results of that core review? The reason why I

ask is that it has been an issue that's been in the news somewhat, and we just

want to ensure that our community partners are up to date on where things are

at.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes, I expect that would be the case.

J. Bray:

Those are the questions that I have for the minister.

J. Kwan:

I'm going to turn to the area of the Vancouver agreement and ask the minister

some questions in this area of his responsibility.

First, I

wonder if the minister could just update the House on the status of the

Vancouver agreement at this stage.

Hon. G.

Abbott: The government remains committed to the Vancouver agreement. We have

continued our meetings and discussions at the political level with formerly

Minister Fry from the federal government and, of course, Mayor Owen from

Vancouver and now with Mayor Owen and Minister Owen as our partners on the

Vancouver agreement. We have continued our efforts together. As well, at the

public service level, of course, there is ongoing and, I think, daily contact

between the partners in the Vancouver agreement.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise what activities are now going on under the

Vancouver agreement?

[1655]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Generally speaking, in terms of the activities, we now have a

greater focus on economic activity and, in particular, revitalization of the

downtown east side of Vancouver. Among the programs is one called Neighbour

First. As an example of an event, there is in fact a Chinatown lighting event

tomorrow night in Vancouver, which I do hope to attend.

J. Kwan:

Before I go to new activities, perhaps the minister can advise. Under the

Vancouver agreement previously there were a number of different initiatives that

were slated to move forward. Are those initiatives still going to move forward?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The short answer is yes. I'm advised by staff that there's an

ongoing assessment of priorities.

J. Kwan:

So the initiatives that were agreed to with the previous government under the

Vancouver agreement will continue to proceed.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Then I wonder if the minister can go through them individually with me and just

walk me through those initiatives that are now on the table — which ones are

proceeding, and which ones are not proceeding. If he doesn't have that

information, I welcome a list, as well, down the road to save time in the

estimates.

I am

interested to see whether or not those initiatives are proceeding. His answer

was yes, which was a short answer. I'll take his word for it, but I want to

clarify to make sure that that is in fact the case.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We'd be happy to accommodate the member by providing her with a list

of the ongoing activities.

I just

wanted to have a bit of caution around…. I know the member was very actively

involved in the Vancouver agreement as a member of the executive council for the

former government. She may have knowledge or understanding of the programs. If

there are specifics, we'd be glad to deal with them here now, but if it's just a

general question, we'd be glad to provide a list.

J. Kwan:

Under the Vancouver agreement there were a number of different initiatives that

were approved and were to proceed. For some of them, though, because of the

pending election, it was determined that it was best not to make the

announcement at that time, but rather to wait, although the approval from all

three levels had been made and the funding from the respective levels of

government had been identified and committed.

One of

those initiatives has been announced since that time. That is the Contact

Centre. I know that's opened in the community. I know they are struggling with

some issues at the moment with Contact Centre, but that was announced after the

election. As an example, that was one area.

There was

another program called the Destinations program. That was slated to move forward

as well. I can go through each one, but, generally speaking, if the minister is

saying that all of those programs that had been approved by all three levels of

government are still going to be moving forward, then I'll take his word for it.

He can supply me with the list at another time. I'll just match it up with my

list to make sure that indeed all the programs are proceeding.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Yes, that's fine with me.

J. Kwan:

In the Vancouver agreement…. I think part of the interesting thing when you've

been in the executive council with your area of responsibility is that you

retain way too much corporate information, and therefore it makes the estimates

process perhaps longer and more detailed, but I am trying to shorten this

process. Thank you to the minister for committing to provide that information.

With the

Vancouver agreement, on the next piece, the minister mentioned that they're now

going to focus on economic revitalization for the community in the downtown east

side — Gastown, Chinatown and the

[ Page 2198 ]

entire surrounding area. He mentioned one initiative, which is the light

initiative.

[1700]

Could the

minister please advise of the contributions towards that initiative from each of

the respective levels of government? Also, what other initiatives have been

slated to move forward or have been approved under the Vancouver agreement for

economic revitalization?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The funding is from the federal government and the city government

on Chinatown lighting, but as you know, sometimes the partners change in terms

of the funding. In this case, it's the federal government and the city

government, but as is the practice around the Vancouver agreement, we've been

invited to participate as a partner.

J. Kwan:

It was always the intent with the Vancouver agreement that different partners

would play different roles at different times. It's not always the case that the

province would contribute, nor is it always the case that, let's say, the

municipal government would contribute. It would very much depend on the program,

so I can appreciate that.

Does the

minister know how much money is being dedicated towards the lighting program

from the municipal and federal governments?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We don't have that information immediately available to us, but we

can provide it to the member.

J. Kwan:

Are there other initiatives slated or approved under the Vancouver agreement for

economic revitalization? If so, what are they, and how does the funding split?

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. My colleague is here to take over another

section of the estimates,

and in about ten minutes I need to go into the small House to do estimates with

the Attorney General. In the interests of time, because I have a few other

questions to ask on the Vancouver agreement, I wonder if the minister could

provide me with a list of the new initiatives that have been approved, the areas

of responsibility under each government and the financial contributions from

each government. I'm sure that would help the minister out as well as help me

out.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I would be happy to do that.

J. Kwan:

On the Vancouver agreement, it was always envisioned by the three levels of

government that we would advance in the area of harm reduction initiatives. It

was a four pillar approach that Mayor Owen, the mayor of Vancouver, championed.

It was one that was supported by all three levels of government.

Could the

minister please advise? I assume those four pillars are still moving forward,

particularly the one pillar on harm reduction that deals with heroin maintenance

initiatives and safe injection sites. Are those still slated to move forward in

the Vancouver agreement development?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We are supportive of the four pillar approach including harm

reduction, and we are attempting to move ahead in partnership with the city and

the federal government in terms of a balanced approach to harm reduction.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be very specific on the question around harm reduction because it

has all kinds of different

definitions out there as time evolves, and people

have attached different meanings to it. Of course, the piece that is most

controversial around the harm reduction pillar centres around the heroin

maintenance initiative, some portion of which I know the federal government is

funding. I understand from the Minister of Health Planning that the province is

also supportive of this initiative.

[1705]

Under the

Vancouver agreement, on this piece, are there financial contributions from the

government in this area? The second question, on the other very controversial

discussion around harm reduction, is on safe injection sites. Is the minister

supportive of moving forward with that?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member would have to canvass the Minister of Health Services for

specific health-related expenditures. I don't have any authority or

responsibility with respect to that.

I do want

to say, because I know this is a somewhat controversial area, that we are

supportive of harm reduction. What we want to see available in the downtown east

side — indeed, in all communities in British Columbia — are treatment

options that will be readily and effectively available to those who want to move

beyond their addictions and to conquer their addictions.

We know

there is a continuum of addiction services. We want to see a range of addiction

services in place, so that people who want to conquer their addictions have

those opportunities. I do know that there are some initiatives, which are

ongoing and planned, around that.

I know the

member mentioned that

definitions are always important in this business. I think

they're very important around that very contentious issue of safe injection

sites as well. Given that, from what I've seen in the reading I've done,

different people attach different

definitions or different elements to a

description of what that constitutes. What we want to do is work with the

federal and local governments to ensure that what we do in British Columbia is

part of a national drug reduction strategy, a national harm reduction strategy.

We want it to be effective. We want it to be results oriented and performance

measured.

[ Page 2199 ]

J. Kwan:

This is the one area where I think I agree with the minister on the issue around

evidence base, particularly in harm reduction as it relates to substance misuse.

In other jurisdictions, when you look at the results of what they have done with

maintenance programs, heroin maintenance initiatives, as well as safe injection

sites, they actually have found, from an evidence-based perspective, that it

saved lives. It saved the community from harm. When I speak of harm, it's

broadly speaking in terms of criminal activities, nuisance, scattered needles on

the ground — those kind of harms — as well as on the financial side, where

it actually saved governments moneys in social services and criminal justice and

so on. It actually is evidence based; it actually shows that it is effective in

that way.

On the

issue around safe injection sites and heroin maintenance initiatives, am I

understanding the minister correctly that he considers those two aspects as the

continuum of a harm reduction approach, under the four pillars approach, as has

been adopted by the three levels of government and particularly as championed by

Mayor Owen in his efforts to address these concerns collectively with the three

levels of government?

[1710]

Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, at the risk of straying into an area where other ministers

and their staffs would have greater expertise around, for example, the heroin

maintenance trials, and so on, that clearly are a kind of Health Services issue,

I believe that, yeah, in terms of the harm reduction strategy and having that

effective continuum of services, it is important to build on the evidence-based

results that we've seen from past efforts. Certainly, I think we can learn from

what's occurred around this very difficult issue in Europe, the United States

and so on.

I think —

and I'm sure the member agrees as well, given that they are also committed to

the four pillar approach — that all of this is done in combination with law

enforcement and addressing criminal justice issues and so on. We do need to

develop a balanced approach. Certainly, I know the member is not attempting to

sort of heighten the drama around this, nor are we. This is a serious social

issue that is evidenced particularly in the downtown east side but ce