1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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, MAY 5, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 17

[ Page 5867 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

M. Lord: It's an honour for me to welcome two special constituents of mine from the Comox Valley: Mayor Ron Webber and John Wilson from the city of Courtenay. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming Thomas Dorash from Surrey, who has come here with concerns about how we operate. He would like to see us and to understand us.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure I have an answer to that question myself.

In any event, I notice seated in the gallery today a director of B.C. Hydro. I'm pleased to see her in attendance. I know that she has been here during the energy forum that's being held in Victoria. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Jean Leahy.

R. Kasper: In the gallery we have four members from my riding. These individuals are actually from the Liberal Malahat-Juan de Fuca riding association. Just to show that we're not always partisan, would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce some grade 11 and 12 students from Gladstone Secondary School. We used to call it "Happy Rock." I know that the member for Nanaimo, who is a graduate of Gladstone, would be pleased to join with me in asking all members of the House to join with us in welcoming the students from Gladstone Secondary School.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS

J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. On top of the protracted strikes in Vancouver Island North and Powell River, today the Vancouver School District has been thrown into turmoil, with over 18,000 students out because of rotating walkouts. What, if anything, has the Minister of Education done to resolve this ongoing dispute?

Hon. A. Hagen: This is a labour dispute between the school board and the teachers in Vancouver.

I can advise the hon. member what we have done with respect to supporting the children, teachers and support staff in Vancouver by providing additional resources to them this year, as we did last year as a government; by informing them that we as government place a priority on services for children and on jobs for young teachers and support staff; and by making clear to them that this year there was not an adjustment in our budget for salaries, so that those people who were bargaining would know that they must bargain very realistically and on behalf of the children and the workers who provide services to children in the district of Vancouver.

J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Education. This minister -- and this government -- is so beholden to the BCTF that we continually see from the minister no measurable action whatsoever to resolve these unacceptable walkouts and strikes. What does the minister have to say to the many parents in the Vancouver district who have to find immediate short-term day care in order to look after their children?

Hon. A. Hagen: Boards and teachers have a responsibility under our system of local collective bargaining, which is the law and the practice, to sit and responsibly resolve the issues that are before them in the interests of children, respecting, of course, the concerns of parents. These boards have that responsibility. Each board at its own table, each group of teachers at that table, must look at the circumstances in the district. At this point, 50 boards and teachers' associations have arrived at agreements, most of them by realistically looking at their priorities and the needs of their districts.

That's the responsible task that this board and teachers' association have, and they must exercise that responsibility and arrive at a decision in the interests of the children.

ESSENTIAL SERVICE DESIGNATION FOR EDUCATION

J. Dalton: I will now direct my final question to the Minister of Labour. As we on this side know and have continually argued, education is an essential service, even though the minister will not admit to that. Considering that post-secondary institutions require both grades 11 and 12 for prequalification or entrance, will the minister direct the Labour Relations Board to examine the grade 11 situation when they're dealing with the essential service designation?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that if any school board in British Columbia wishes to, they're entitled to make that application to the Labour Relations Board. In addition, as the hon. member should know, there is currently an application from one school district -- I'm told there's another one pending -- with regard to grade 12.

As to action that this government is taking with regard to disputes that remain outstanding, let me advise the hon. member as follows. A private mediator is endeavouring to resolve the dispute in Powell River. Just yesterday we appointed a special mediator to look at the dispute in Vancouver Island North, with instruction to make public recommendations. As I understand it, one of the parties in Vancouver has made an application for the appointment of a mediator to help resolve that dispute.

Therefore, in all three of the disputes that are currently active and outstanding in British Columbia, we are lending the assistance of the Ministry of Labour

[ Page 5868 ]

to try to help the parties resolve the dispute in an expeditious way, given the limitations in their budgets.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECALL AND INITIATIVE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Last Friday, 3,000 tax protesters gathered on the lawns of the Legislature and demanded that this government implement recall and initiative. Can the Premier tell us if he is still committed to implementing recall and initiative, as he promised during the last election campaign?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Third Party is aware, when he was in government it was the stand of his government that they were going to set up a committee to examine the two ideas, which they had not fleshed out and had no public discussion of prior to the referendum that went before the public. Carrying out what I'm sure his party still wants to see happen, we have established a legislative committee to do the homework that should have been done by the previous government on this issue.

J. Weisgerber: On April 19 the NDP chair of that committee was reported as saying on Kamloops radio that he's now convinced that most people don't support recall and initiative. Will the Premier confirm that the select standing committee is only examining how to implement recall and initiative?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member communicates now and again with his large caucus, and I'm sure he's able to talk to talk to the member of that caucus who can remind him of the terms of reference of that committee.

J. Weisgerber: It's precisely for that reason that I rise in the House today to ask questions of the Premier. This government has stonewalled; it has used every trick in the book to delay implementing recall and initiative. Two months were sufficient for a select standing committee to examine changes to the Canadian constitution. Why does it take this select standing committee two years to examine recall and initiative?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member realizes that the committee has been out actively seeking and soliciting the opinions of British Columbians about what other areas of recall should be added. There already are ways to recall MLAs. One of those is through elections. That happened to an awful lot of Social Credit MLAs last time. MLAs can also be recalled after committing and being convicted of a criminal act, insanity or bankruptcy.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I hear remarks from some members of the opposition about those criteria. We are now looking at other areas that can be added to those already existing areas of recall.

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday I asked this minister to confirm that a $500,000 contract was bypassing B.C. firms. The minister's response today is to finally check the facts, blame the bureaucrat and cancel the contract. The question to the minister is: with our growing deficit, will this minister now admit he should have been informed of a potential $500,000 leaving British Columbia, out of his ministry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the minister to wait until he's recognized by the Chair, which I will do as soon as we have order.

Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the research should have been done. Perhaps if the other side had done the research on the ten previous contracts....

Interjections.

Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Speaker, we have let ten contracts since last fall. They have ranged from $1,500 to $46,500. All ten contracts have been with B.C.-based and B.C.-owned companies: nine in Vancouver and one in Victoria. This is not a departure. My critic mentioned that there was a contract. There was no contract at all; there was not even an MOU. So I don't know where he got the idea that there was a contract. There was not. It is not a departure from our stance. We believe that this is not only a buy-B.C. project but also an invest-in-B.C. project.

R. Chisholm: Again to the same minister: now that the minister has said he was wrong, in 500 words or less, will he now admit we seem to have an outright contradiction in his Buy B.C. program? How does the minister expect British Columbians to buy B.C. when this government is buying south of the border? Will his emphasis now be on British Columbia companies?

Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the critic would like to go down to one of the Thrifty Foods stores in James Bay or somewhere in Victoria, Colwood or Nanaimo. They were so impressed with the success of our program last fall that they are having, by their own hook, 5,000 T-shirts printed with the Buy B.C. logo on it.

Perhaps the critic has not got in touch with the restaurants of B.C. Seven out of the ten provinces in Canada have imposed a provincial sales tax on restaurants. We have not.

Finally, the door is always open in my office. If he wishes to discuss the contract with me, he's certainly

[ Page 5869 ]

welcome to come, too. All the businessmen do; I expect the opposition should as well.

R. Chisholm: My last question is to the Premier. Now that we have heard this response, maybe the Premier can clarify it for us. Yesterday your Agriculture minister completely misrepresented a very important issue -- not only to the Legislature but also to the people of the province. His restaurant program is a failure. He does not listen to his committee in Agriculture. Hon. Premier, in light of this, you have a duty to ask your minister to resign. He's incompetent.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I know that the member, the Agriculture critic for the Liberal Party, just had to read the last question in his script. But if he had come to the very fine dinner that I attended here in our Legislature with the restaurant owners of Victoria, who had operated a very successful Buy B.C. program in the meals and wines of British Columbia -- it was put together by the best chefs in this area, who are not only the best chefs in Canada but are going to the world olympics for culinary arts -- he would have seen B.C.'s products, B.C.'s wines and B.C.'s best chefs in operation in a Buy B.C. program in our restaurants.

PRIVATE ADOPTIONS

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister has invited responses from the public with regard to her plans on adoption. One set of responses has asked why the minister does not follow the good experience of Ontario in recognizing non-profit societies and licensees regulated by the province. Why is this not a reasonable process for British Columbia?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be more than happy to debate the issue of adoption with this member, but I'm afraid he's going to have to wait until the legislation is tabled in the House.

V. Anderson: Will the minister explain why on one hand she is inviting responses regarding adoption through private agencies, and on the other hand she is saying that this is taboo? Is she saying that she will not listen and really doesn't want to hear the people of this province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member has a script to follow, so let me again refresh the member's memory of previous questions he has asked in this House. I have made a commitment to deal with the issue of regulating private adoptions. It's well known that this House will see a piece of legislation this spring. I also have made a commitment to the people of this province for an extensive legislative review of adoption policy as directed by the community panel -- an extensive process that has been underway in this province for the last year.

There are two pieces, two initiatives, and the review of the legislation governing adoption in this policy will be conducted over the next year. We have invited public input and have invited and briefed the member on that extensively.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled two annual reports, one of the Ministry of Tourism for 1990-91 and one of the Ministry of Tourism and Ministry Responsible for Culture for 1991-92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I should remind hon. members that in Committee A we'll be having the estimates with regard to the Ministry of Attorney General. At this point, given the conclusion of Labour in that committee yesterday, I would call the

summary debate on the Labour estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

L. Hanson: As the minister has said, we have finalized the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, and some very interesting revelations came as a result of that. We did learn that the cap on Hydro fee increases of 2 percent above inflation does have a very clear relationship to the government's interest in getting a return on the Hydro investment relative to private enterprise or to a private firm.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I hear the Minister of Finance suggesting that that is very perceptive. I think, hon. Speaker, that we as the House members have been very aware of that, but that the public hasn't always been as aware as probably it can be now by scrutinizing the Hansard record of the estimates debate.

We also learned that the hiring of Mr. Eliesen as the chief officer of B.C. Hydro does have a bonus condition that Mr. Eliesen is entitled to. We did get the commitment of the minister that that bonus entitlement would be triggered on the basis of measurement relative to some private utilities, but we didn't really get a definitive or clear answer as to what the triggering level might be. The question of the salary payable and how the bonus was triggered is still a little unclear, but I'm sure, as the minister develops the philosophy that will trigger that bonus to Mr. Eliesen, he will inform the opposition.

We also learned that the WCB is experiencing some difficulties in terms of the length of time required to handle some of the appeals; in some cases, lengths of time that appear to be almost punitive to those people who are in need of assistance as a result of an industrial accident.

We learned also that Bill 84 is working as the government had predicted it would work and as the opposition had predicted it would work. I think, if you remember the debates that went on with that, the general recognition was that it was a bill dedicated to unionization of all workers in British Columbia, with very little influence by the employer on the outcome. We did get some figures showing that in the short time that Bill 84 has been in place, the number of

[ Page 5870 ]

certifications has been quite a number larger than had been experienced in similar periods under the old legislation.

We also learned that Mr.... What is that gentleman's name?

An Hon. Member: Mr. Brown.

Mr. Hanson: Mr. Brown. My apologies. I have trouble keeping up with all of these appointments. My computer memory only has so many megabytes, and it's all filled up.

We learned that Mr. Brown was hired as a facilitator-coordinator of the Ministry of Labour to organize, facilitate, and probably provide some policies for the transfer of the appeals that now go before the employment standards directors to transfer to the Labour Relations Board. We also learned there is a....

[2:30]

The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but your time has expired. I now recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to start off with a recap of the estimates by saying what the minister has done well in the last year. The one thing he's done well within the Ministry of Consumer Services is that now the ministry is providing services and brochures in a number of different languages. That is a laudable achievement, and I'm sure that a great deal of the credit goes to the minister himself. That's where it stops. What's become clear in the process, not just in the last week but in the last year, is that this minister does not have a grip on his ministry.

Twelve months ago this minister gave me his assurance that he would send me a vote-by-vote analyses of his ministry. I received that documentation on March 19 of this year. It took the minister almost a full year. Now that he is no longer responsible for ICBC, I received the information from the present minister of ICBC only yesterday, information I requested a full year ago. How can the minister possibly expect a thorough analysis of his ministry when he can't even get his act together enough to provide information to the opposition?

It doesn't stop even there. This minister called his estimates in an attempt to punish the opposition because the opposition wouldn't give him Bill 3 on the day he wanted, and he gave the opposition five minutes' notice.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's not a problem because we've been ready for estimates at any time. What became clear during the estimates is that the minister himself is not prepared. The minister himself does not know what's going on in his ministry. Time after time we asked the minister questions and he had no answers for us. It wasn't until he managed to drag his people in from B.C. Hydro, three or four days into the debate, that we finally got answers on the Hydro estimates. In fact we had to adjourn the sitting early one day because the minister didn't know what was going with B.C. Hydro.

Every time this minister was asked a question dealing with issues in his portfolio that he didn't have an answer to, he would stand up and engage in personal attacks on members of the opposition. That's not good enough. The minister must be prepared. The minister must have those answers. The minister must be accountable to the people who are paying the money he is spending. Why is it that time after time in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour the minister would stand up and not have answers to questions, or give flippant answers to questions, which directly related to his responsibility.

That's only part of it. We also saw during the estimates that this minister has personally appointed Mr. Hans Brown, longtime NDP favoured son, the gentleman who ran their last campaign, to a four-month, $30,000 contract to engage in the transfer of the employment standards appeal provision to the Labour Relations Board.

We also found out that the ministry has allotted for an additional vice-chair within the ministry, a $90,000-a-year position, and the minister has no idea what the job description of that person will be; he couldn't answer. We can only presume that the minister plans to appoint Hans Brown as a full-time vice-chair of the Labour Relations Board to handle those types of things.

The minister is not being forthright with the people of this province; he is not standing up and accounting for the dollars he's spending in his ministry, and it is becoming clearer and clearer as the 18 months go by, and the future months will go by, that this minister does not understand what's going on in his own ministry. That's why he had ICBC taken away from him, and that's why this minister is not doing his job.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me thank the critics who wrote the Social Credit and Liberal Parties for their positive and constructive...

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: If I may start again, let me take this opportunity, first of all, to thank members from both the Liberal and Social Credit Parties for their positive and constructive input during the course of the Labour estimates; it was a most enjoyable experience for myself. While I am positive, let me recap some of the major achievements of the Ministry of Labour over the last little while, and some of the things that we expect to do over the course of the next year.

I'm pleased to confirm that effective April 1 this government announced an increase in the minimum wage through the Ministry of Labour. We think that as a government we have obligations to the working poor in this province. Eighteen months ago, shortly after we were elected to government, we increased the minimum wage for the first time; we've increased it for the second time now; and we will increase it again before the year is out.

[ Page 5871 ]

Secondly, I'm pleased to confirm, in terms of positive developments with regards to the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, that effective January 1, 1993, through the provisions of this year's budget, we will be able to implement the regulations with regard to pension standards benefits legislation.

This means that seniors, part-time workers and women in particular, who have often lived in poverty, will now be eligible for pensions at an earlier stage in their lives, will be able to be vested into pensions at an earlier stage in their lives and will be entitled to pension benefits at an earlier stage in their lives. The regulations are progressive and positive, and it's a development which we within the ministry are very proud of.

In addition to that, I'm please to advise all members of the House that this year the Ministry of Labour, in another positive development, has put an end to 75 years of injustice with regard to agriculture workers in this province. We announced on April 30 that for the first time in the history of our province, farm and ranch workers in British Columbia, the 30,000 who work in the industry, will now have health and safety regulations. We have eliminated that black spot in terms of our history, another positive development.

I am pleased to advise hon. members that we will be doing additional work with regard to regulations, and I anticipate that some time during the next week we'll be making further announcements with regard to regulations which will cover other workers in British Columbia who have been denied coverage in the past.

There needs to be more done in the area of workersss'ompensation. I pointed that out during the course of estimates, and I wish to reiterate the commitment of this government to solve the difficulties that we have at the Workers' Compensation Board, both in terms of eliminating the backlog of some 6,000 cases, which I talked about, and at the same time bringing about some of the administrative changes that are necessary. It is fundamentally important, in my view, that working people have access to professional assistance with regard to workers' compensation cases.

I am pleased to advise all members of the House that this government, as part of making those services available to all workers, has stepped beyond the boundaries of Vancouver for the first time and opened a workers' adviser office in Prince George. Allocations are also in this budget for additional offices, which we will be announcing in the weeks ahead, should the House see fit to approve this budget.

I'm also pleased to advise members of this House of another significant achievement of this ministry: we have made a commitment, as the hon. member from the Liberal Party indicated, to improving the service and the quality of programs we offer at Consumer Services. We have moved for the first time in our history, as the member pointed out, to providing those services in Punjabi, French, Spanish and Chinese. We will continue to provide additional consumer assistance for British Columbians from one end of the province to the other.

In addition to that, we anticipate, as I indicated during the course of estimates, to modernize consumer legislation in this province, and now that the House has seen fit to debate these estimates, there will be changes forthcoming in that regard, and allocations have been made in that sense as well. We will also stand up for consumers and the need to protect consumers in British Columbia. We did that yesterday with regard to the initiative that I articulated regarding Payless Gas Co. and the sale of Payless here on Vancouver Island to a major oil company.

We are deeply concerned about the impact that move will have with regard to consumer gasoline prices in British Columbia. In defence of the consumer interest, we will continue to take issue with those kinds of initiatives, whether they be pushing the federal or provincial governments.

We have made some headway over the past year with regard to fair wages. We have not completed our work, as I said during the course of the estimates. I want all hon. members to know that that work will continue within this ministry, and we will have an improved, revamped fair wage policy to present to members of this House in due course.

It is true that during the course of the estimates, we discussed the progress that has been made with regard to certification -- and it has been significant -- since the introduction of the Labour Relations Code. It is true that some 40 percent of the certifications have occurred with employers with one to ten employees -- in other words, within the small business sector.

We make no apologies whatsoever for introducing labour legislation which gives working people -- whether they be in the retail, restaurant or any other small business sector -- the opportunity to engage in collective bargaining and to secure collective bargaining rights. We applaud the work of unions in securing those rights, and we recognize that workers freely making those decisions are entitled to the protections provided under the code.

This year, as another of the significant and positive developments of this administration, this ministry has started a review of the Employment Standards Act. Sixty percent of British Columbia workers are not covered by collective agreements; they're covered by the minimum provisions under the Employment Standards Act. We as a government believe that the Employment Standards Act defines the minimum floor in terms of rights that ought to be available to workers. We think it's wrong when workers are not paid overtime, vacation pay or maternity benefits. We think it's wrong that there are trade unions in this province that....

The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, the purpose of this ten minutes is for the minister to talk about his estimates; it's not for him to stand here and boast about what he's going to do in the future. He's supposed to be reporting on the estimates that took place in

Section A over the last three days.

The Speaker: On the point of order, hon. member, the Chair has no knowledge as to what discussions might have gone on during the estimates. In the absence of guidelines, time limits have been provided to the three parties to report on the discussion of those

[ Page 5872 ]

estimates. On that basis, I must ask the minister to continue on the discussion that went on during the estimates debates.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I hope that interjection doesn't cut into my time.

Let me make it abundantly clear that there have been significant developments within the Ministry of Labour. We will continue to make that kind of progress. I don't care.... If it bothers the opposition that we provide protection in terms of minimum wages for workers who don't make enough money, that we provide protection in terms of farm health safety regulations for agriculture workers....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands will withdraw the inappropriate language used in the chamber.

C. Tanner: I will not!

The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands knows that heckling across the floor is inappropriate during debate. The minister did have the floor to report on the discussion of the estimates. A representative of the official opposition had an opportunity to comment on the estimates. The language used by the hon. member was clearly inappropriate in the House. I'm sure that it was perhaps spontaneous, but I'm sure that the hon. member, upon reflection, would now like to withdraw it so that we can continue with the reporting of Committee A estimates.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it if the minister reports on his estimates instead of giving us some tirade.

The Speaker: Has the hon. member unconditionally withdrawn the language? If I can confirm that, then I can certainly ask the minister to continue.

C. Tanner: Is the Speaker telling the minister to withdraw the stupid comments he made or not?

The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair is being patient. I can only deal with one aspect at a time. I'm asking the member if he has unconditionally withdrawn his language. Then the Chair will address the minister. I'd just ask him to confirm that. Thank you.

C. Tanner: No, I will not unconditionally withdraw.

The Speaker: Again addressing the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Chair has tried to give the member the opportunity. Having asked a couple of times now, I give the hon. member a last opportunity to simply and unconditionally withdraw the language, or the Chair would have to comply with standing order 19 and ask the member to leave the chamber for the rest of the day. So I ask for the final time, hon. member, if you would please withdraw the language unconditionally, and then we will continue with the debate.

C. Tanner: I'll withdraw the remarks.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I would ask the minister to please continue in a moderate way to report on the discussions that occurred during his estimates in Committee A.

[2:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your intervention with regard to that issue, and I accept the hon. member's uncategorical withdrawal of statements that he made.

I would continue with regard to the work that the ministry is doing and the issues, of course, all of which were canvassed during the course of estimates. There has been remarkable progress made within the ministry.

Hon. Speaker, with that interjection I've lost sense of the time. Could you please advise me how much time I have left?

The Speaker: The Chair will check on that and advise the minister. I think there's probably about three minutes left, but I will confirm that.

Hon. M. Sihota: During the course of estimates, as I indicated, the opposition did raise a number of issues. One of those issues, of course, related to Mr. Brown, as the opposition has pointed out. I wish to advise members of the House that the contract in question has been terminated effective today, and a decision has been made to appoint Mr. Brown to the vice-chair position. The Liberal critic referred to the fact that there was one position open. I wish to advise members of the House that that one position remains open as a consequence of the decision taken today.

In addition to that, during the course of estimates we discussed a whole series of other issues. As the Social Credit critic pointed out, the issues facing B.C. Hydro are within the realm of my responsibilities. With regard to the rate increase proposed by B.C. Hydro, I want to make it abundantly clear.... I'm glad to see the Socred leader here, because I certainly think we had an enjoyable discussion regarding those rates in the course of estimates.

If I may assist him in putting his argument on the record, I think he was trying to suggest that we're looking at rate increases of 25 percent -- as I would of course expect him to do, given that he's in opposition. I wish to remind hon. members that we have developed a rate structure at B.C. Hydro which caps rate increases at inflation plus 2 percent. Therefore it is impossible that rate increases be more than inflation plus 2 percent -- or this year in excess of 3.9 percent. The reason we've done that, quite frankly, is to protect the interest of consumers. Through the guidelines we've set, which go to the B.C.

Utilities Commission, we have also tried to make sure that B.C. Hydro meets the same kind of tests that apply to private sector utilities within the province.

[ Page 5873 ]

So the consumer interest is protected, and we will be able to maintain in B.C. at least the second-lowest electricity rate to consumers. Manitoba has traditionally had rates lower than us; we will have the second-lowest rates. In terms of being able to attract industry and development, we will be competitive with Washington State, where rates are scheduled to go up this year by about 20 percent.

I see B.C. Hydro's key role in terms of economic development. With the structural changes that I out-lined during the course of estimates, we think we can bring about the prosperity and economic development that is so necessary in British Columbia to deal with our unemployment problems and so instrumental in the kind of role that one would expect B.C. Hydro to play.

With that said, let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the input from the members opposite. There were a number of good ideas, and some of them we'll take up. And as we said, we shall get back to members on other detailed questions.

The Speaker: That completes the reporting on Committee A estimates for the Ministry of Labour.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee stage on Bill 3.

BUILD BC ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3; M. Lord in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

J. Weisgerber: Just to be clear, hon. Chair, we're talking about

part 1,

section 1. We have now passed the "definitions" and are now on to "purpose."

The Chair: That's correct.

section 2.

F. Gingell: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

My amendment to

section 2(

c) has the effect of eliminating from the purposes of this act the references to public sector investment. The reason I believe that this is an appropriate amendment is that it is important for this government to recognize that public sector investment should be made in reaction to needs that are required. This government must encourage private sector investment. That is the key to good economic growth in this province. We can't grow the economy in this province and deal with the deficit and debt problems that we have by increasing government spending. We simply have to find better means; that is to allow the private sector to do the job it's there for.

I therefore ask the minister to consider this amendment and to give it his support.

Hon. G. Clark: I agree with the member that private sector investment is key to economic development in the province. In fact, private sector investment is larger than public sector investment, and that's as it should be. We have lots of opportunities for more private sector investment and capital spending by private sector companies in the coming years, especially as the recovery takes hold, some commodity prices come back in lumber and a few other very positive things happen.

The Leader of the Third Party talked about B.C. Hydro, and that there were also lots of opportunities for energy projects, both public and private. You'll notice that

section 2(

c) says, and I quote: "encouraging public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner." I agree that the private sector is important, but it's also true that the public sector does invest in the province, in particular through our Crown corporations. B.C. Hydro is one example. What we're trying to do here is coordinate capital spending planned by Crown corporations and the accelerated social capital spending, and to target specifically, out of the special account, money for investment in the economy and in job-creation activities.

Take the silviculture initiative as one. I'm sure the member opposite, even though he's moved this amendment, will agree with me that there is a role for public investment in the province; there's a role for the public as owner of the natural resource base to invest in the forest industry; there is a role for the public as owner of B.C. Hydro to invest in hydro construction.

In fact, if you talk to members of the business community, they will say that government is not spending enough on infrastructure, on job stimulus and on things that help build a climate for private sector investment; that they're spending too much on social projects. That was a refrain I heard over the year, and that's a refrain I heard when I went around the province to 11 public meetings. People said: "Look, you're not spending enough on the land base; you're not investing enough in silviculture; you're not investing enough in strategic infrastructure, like hydro projects."

So this is the result of that consultation. And it's important that while the private sector be a key component for investment activities, the whole notion of this is to take our public sector money, try to match it and target it with the private sector, and stimulate job growth. That's why I'm afraid I have to reject the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

It's not because I disagree with anything he said about private sector investment, but because it's important that this say "public and private sector investment." I think that to eliminate the public sector is not productive, given that there is a lot of public investment and that we're trying to target it in ways which create jobs, in ways which stimulate regional economic development and in ways which help the private sector and stimulate private sector development.

The Chair: The Chair has had an opportunity to review the amendment, and finds it contrary to the intent of the bill as passed at second reading.

J. Weisgerber: On

section 2. It seems to me that the thing missing from the purposes of this bill is a clear

[ Page 5874 ]

indication that the purpose of the bill is to facilitate the capitalization of highway construction. Everything else that is proposed under this Crown corporation is already within the ability of the government to accomplish under existing legislation. The only thing that Build B.C. does is provide a mechanism for the capitalization, the financing, the deferral of payment for highway construction. It is unfortunate that the bill doesn't reflect that in its purposes, because that's the essence of the bill. The rest of it is all window dressing.

The Ministry of Forests is quite capable of silviculture activities, and it doesn't have to and shouldn't have to capitalize them. The building of schools and hospitals is already handled under the existing legislation. So all we have in this bill is a new vehicle that will enable the government to finance highway construction. I'm not going to move an amendment to that effect, because I don't agree with it. But I find it unfortunate that the government, in its drafting of the legislation, wouldn't put the purpose of the bill up front.

The purpose of the bill is to allow someone to pick it up, read the purposes

section and know what government is setting out to achieve with this. I think that if the government and the minister were going to be straightforward with people, the minister would simply put the purpose there, and then we would move forward in looking at the legislation and dealing with it. Most important, those British Columbians outside this chamber who have an opportunity to pick up and examine this document would know what the government set out to achieve.

We can have, as we have had, a debate around whether or not it's appropriate to capitalize highway construction. I would enjoy continuing that debate. But that clearly is the purpose of the act, and I think that the bill should reflect that if the government is determined, as it appears to be, to push ahead with the bill.

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to comment on that, because it's not correct. It is correct that we are capitalizing some highway construction with a dedicated revenue source. It requires a bill to do that, and this bill does it. But the bill is also required to create the special account in order to spend money out of that account.

I'm surprised, given that the member was once in government, that he wouldn't appreciate that if the government gives money to ministries to administer, sometimes the ministry's priorities are different from the government's -- or at least, the ministry's priorities might be better focused for targeting purposes.

The previous government set up the sustainable environment fund so that there was dedicated revenue to spend on the environment. They could have put that money into the Ministry of Environment, but they didn't; they put it into a special account. We want to promote job stimulus, training and, in particular, regional development. We want to make sure that we're trying to move people off welfare and into work. We could rely on the Ministry of Social Services -- you're right.

But it will be done much better by having a special account which ministries can compete for and through which we can put in place job-training targets. We can more aggressively drive to move people off welfare and into work through this mechanism. The member might agree that the sustainable environment fund was an attempt by government to do the same kind of thing. We've modified it, but that environment fund still exists.

[3:00]

It's quite correct that line ministries will deliver the programs, and we could put the money into the ministries' base budgets. But I think the member would agree that if you really want to drive job stimulus, and particularly training initiatives and getting people off welfare and into work, having a special account vehicle would allow us to do that. It would allow you to question more carefully the government's job stimulus initiative. Because we've made this a feature of the bill, it's now more accountable.

Every year members of the opposition can ask how that money was spent and how it is different from other kinds of government spending. You will be able to make those arguments. It's significant that there's a special account. There are going to be all kinds of training initiatives and other initiatives attached to it, which are different from the line ministry functions in most cases. So we have the special account.

The Transportation Financing Authority is also part of the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to capitalize highways; it's to promote highway construction. To do that, there is a capitalized vehicle.

In addition to that, in terms of the purpose of the bill and why it's required, it's in order to coordinate capital spending by the Crown corporations. It was important that the Crowns be required to submit their business and capital plans, so we can impose on the Crowns, if so desired, training criteria, criteria for trying to get people off welfare and into work, regional development criteria -- all of those kinds of things. Can we do it anyway? Can governments simply get all that information from the Crowns? Yes. But this bill allows us to really coordinate that activity and promote economic development, particularly in the regions.

I think it's clear from the purpose of the bill that there are broad initiatives and priorities in it. It does coordinate the activities of the Crowns for the first time and has the legislative power to do that. It does coordinate social capital, although that's not in the bill; that

part is done by existing vehicles. It does allow for capitalizing highways, but again, that's coordinated, and there are very tough controls over that Crown, which we'll get to later in the bill. Finally, it sets up a special account which allows a committee of cabinet and members to drive job stimulus -- not to rely simply on giving more money to ministries, but to make sure that those ministries are delivering on the detailed initiatives that the government wants to pursue: job creation, job stimulus, getting people off welfare, and training initiatives.

There has been this kind of special account in the past. They haven't always worked. I have some concerns about some that we had in the past. We've tried to set this one up fairly tightly, with very specific

[ Page 5875 ]

purposes. Each year I'm sure that we'll be held accountable in the House for that spending.

J. Weisgerber: I think we should all be a bit concerned about the response from the minister. If I heard the minister say that he couldn't always depend on the ministries to respond to the political wishes of government, he's probably correct. Let's examine highway construction, for example. There will be, as I'm sure the minister will find out, a political agenda that will drive certain highway projects.

He will also find within the Ministry of Highways objective criteria about needs around the province that are driven through the ministry and, in the case of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, by the regional transportation advisory committees. There are committees in each of the eight regions of the province that examine highway needs and put those in priority. Those have been brought together, and so there is a priority.

What I heard the minister say is that you can't always depend on the ministry to follow political wishes; they may want to follow the criteria that they've established for a more objective prioritization of highways. The minister's comments go exactly to the concerns that we've been talking about in this Legislature through second reading of the bill. There has to be accountability, and there is accountability through the line ministries. We see in this Crown corporation an opportunity for some manipulation of processes, manipulation of decisions around capital spending that are not accountable to the Legislature. We should be deeply concerned about that.

As near as I can see, we're only talking about decisions around new highway construction and major upgrading of highways. Everything else is pretty much already managed under some pretty good processes -- through school boards, hospital boards, etc. Highway construction is the one thing that has been driven by the ministry, and over the last four years or so, in a very public process of priorities. I would be worried, and am worried, to think that what we're doing now is creating a Crown corporation that can more easily reflect the government's wishes and override decisions that might be made in the ministry.

I hadn't expected that answer from the minister and I think we should examine it a little bit.

Hon. G. Clark: To allay the member's concern, I apologize if my words weren't chosen as carefully as they should have been.

First of all, we're talking about the purpose of the bill, not the how-to, which is what the member keeps talking about. The how-to of a Crown corporation is really a different question than the purpose of the bill.

I wasn't saying that the ministries don't do an excellent job objectively prioritizing, etc. That will clearly continue. I was saying that if we want to promote training, to promote getting people off welfare and into work, to promote regional initiatives and that kind of priority, as a corporate view, then this allows a corporate entity, a committee of cabinet, to review and reflect these kinds of initiatives with that corporate view intact.

Sometimes the ministries are diligently working and doing an excellent job prioritizing, but the Ministry of Highways may not be as concerned about training initiatives. That's not been their mandate. Their mandate is to build roads. It still will be, but we as a corporate entity, as government, may want to say that it's important when we're building these highways to use local people in building them. It may be important to have some training component if we can. It may be important that we try to promote aboriginal participation in some regions. It may be that we want to reflect regional concerns.

These are the kinds of initiatives we'll be looking at. What we now have through this act is the ability to overlay those kinds of corporate priorities of government, and particularly a major training and job stimulus initiative.

I don't think there's anything nefarious in that. We'll be accountable. The line ministries are still accountable. This vehicle allows an attempt to overlay corporate objectives. That's what I think and that's the purpose of this section, if you look at what we're trying to accomplish rather than at the how-to, which we will get into later. The purpose is promoting training, getting people off welfare, and job stimulus. Those are the purposes.

The member is quite correct in saying that there is also a Transportation Financing Authority, which is how to implement that purpose, and we will get to that later on in the debate.

J. Weisgerber: It seems to me that the other purposes the minister describes are the purposes of government. That's the responsibility of cabinet, in their influence on the ministry's decisions. That's the kind of direction you would expect the cabinet table or a committee of cabinet to give to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, without needing a Crown corporation, without needing any amendments to the processes you have in place. To involve aboriginal people, to include regional considerations -- that seems like a description of the primary responsibilities of government and cabinet. So again I'm surprised that we would see the need to use a Crown corporation.

I will go back and say again that I think the purpose is pretty clear. The purpose is to provide off-balance-sheet borrowing for the construction of highways.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to introduce us to the two gentlemen.

Hon. G. Clark: I certainly apologize to members. This is Steve Hollett, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; and this is Chris Trumpy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance responsible for Treasury Board.

F. Gingell: Under this discussion of

section 2, we have moved along quite a bit, and I don't want to miss the opportunity later on to deal with many of the issues that have been discussed this early.

It seems to me that if you look at

section 2, all of the five subsections describe very clearly the role of the

[ Page 5876 ]

Minister of Economic Development. It doesn't talk about building roads or schools at this point; it talks about developing the economy of B.C., ensuring that it expands and diversifies. Haven't you emasculated the Minister of Economic Development by bringing this bill forward under your auspices?

Hon. G. Clark: No, quite the contrary. That's why the Minister of Economic Development is a key person on the committee. You're quite correct, there's a variety of initiatives in the Ministry of Economic Development that will be brought to bear on this kind of initiative. Again, this is largely a coordinating approach and driving a broad, corporate agenda through government. But the ministries themselves will be the delivery vehicle. We are not setting up a big bureaucracy to deal with this; we're not duplicating Economic Development.

The Ministry of Economic Development has first-class, capable staff, and they will be doing their economic development work. The committee of cabinet and caucus set out in this legislation will be drawing on the Ministry of Economic Development staff and assisting the Ministry of Economic Development in their agenda. So it's not a duplication of effort or an emasculation. In fact, it's building on the Ministry of Economic Development's work and trying to ensure that there is a consistency and a corporate agenda brought to bear on all of the activities, largely the economic development activities, of government.

So I think it's really a strengthening of the role of the minister and the ministry in delivering government programs.

F. Gingell: I'm afraid, hon. Chairman, that the minister's....

B. Jones: Point of order.

The Chair: The member is rising on what point of order?

B. Jones: I know the Leader of the Official Opposition does this only out of habit and certainly means no malice by it, but I think on five or six occasions he's referred to you as Chairman. There are lots of other options to use: Chairperson, hon. Chair, Madam Chair, all kinds of things. But I think it's time that the Leader of the Opposition.... I'm sure it wasn't out of malice, but I think it's inappropriate in this chamber.

F. Gingell: I wish to assure you, with all my heart, that there was no malice whatsoever intended. Unfortunately, when I was a small boy at school -- which is a long, long time ago -- I was taught that the word "man" was short for human. Humans, as we know, come in all different shapes and sizes -- some of us getting a little larger -- but it does include both male and female; the word "human" does include both male and female. So old habits die hard. When I was on the school board and the college board, we used to refer to a female chairperson of the college board as Madam Chairman.

Nobody worried about it, and I'm surprised that this becomes an issue. If, by mistake, I do say something wrong, I will promise to be a good boy and do my best.

[3:15]

An Hon. Member: A good child.

F. Gingell: Yes, a good child.

The minister's explanation gives me concern that instead of creating two organizations that will intermesh and work with each other, you're creating an additional organization that could very well come into conflict.

I believe one of the problems that all British Columbians have is the growing size of our government. It really is an important issue, and the more one gets out to talk to the public, the more one finds it is a major issue. I even had somebody come up to me yesterday and offer to join the Liberal Party if I would make the commitment that we would reduce the number of MLAs by half. You will remember that you and I had a discussion about that some time ago.

I really would like you to rethink this, because I think you are creating a set of circumstances that will add to the bureaucracy. You have been saying you will not add to the bureaucracy. Just now you said you will not be adding a big bureaucracy, so I presume that you're going to add a medium-sized bureaucracy. I would like you to talk to us and give us a little more certainty that there are, within this description of purposes, things that are clearly outside the mandate of the Minister of Economic Development.

I have one other item. Did you say, during your previous response, that the Minister of Economic Development would be a member of the committee?

Hon. G. Clark: To answer the latter question, I did say yes. It's not in the act, but you're quite correct. I'll just say for the record that the Minister of Economic Development is on the committee.

I share the member's concerns about the size of government; I know that's a concern of all of our constituents. But also a concern in modern government is that each ministry has a kind of mandate -- a kind of line mentality. Then you have other ministries like Economic Development, which are horizontal ministries as opposed to sort of vertical ministries. Oftentimes it's difficult: Ministry of Environment versus Ministry of Forests; and Ministry of Energy versus Economic Development. These kinds of questions....

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: We have significantly fewer ministers, Mr. Member from the previous government.

I would say that what is important to the taxpayer is not just the size of government, but improving the effectiveness of government. This bill tells people that economic development is a corporate -- meaning governmentwide -- objective, not just a line function of a ministry. We want to use the Crown's and other initiatives to promote economic development, not just a

[ Page 5877 ]

Ministry of Economic Development. This is an attempt to make government work more efficiently. I'll say one specific thing: it says training here. Training is also in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

This is an attempt to overlay, particularly our capital spending and some other specific initiatives, training initiatives, regional initiatives and other broad corporate objectives.... In fact, what we have done here is say, not usurp the minister responsible for training or the Minister of Economic Development, but rather, try to pull all the pieces together, and spend smarter and more efficiently. I said not a big bureaucracy. It won't be a medium-sized bureaucracy. In fact, we'd like to have virtually no bureaucracy at all. But we will need people to help coordinate.

Right now the staff people associated with this are all seconded people; we're not going to be having a big bureaucracy of any size at all. There may well be some people to help coordinate the activities on the training side and the regional side, but it will not be a bureaucracy to speak of. This is an attempt to spend smarter and to coordinate existing activities of the Crown.

The leader of the third party said: "Well, a lot of this stuff can already be done." To some extent he's right. But what we're trying to do is spend smarter and get those corporate objectives overlaid -- the objectives we think British Columbians want, like getting people off welfare and into work, to try to coordinate that activity and achieve those objectives in a way that does not set up some big bureaucratic structure. We're confident that this bill will do that. Over the coming months we'll be able to give you more updates on that, but early indications are, I think, that it will be quite successful.

G. Wilson: In light of the point of order, as it's correctly made, I will definitely have my name changed to Wilchild from Wilson so we can be completely politically correct.

I'd like to come back to the point that the minister's made, and actually elaborate a little on the Leader of the Third Party's comment. The minister said -- and I think I've paraphrased correctly here; I jotted it down -- that a ministry's priorities are sometimes different from government priorities. If that's at work in this government, then we've got a problem here, because one would assume that there is an overall direction from government that is given to ministers, that allows ministers to administer their line budgets as they have been allocated, to be able to accomplish the goals they set out to do at the beginning of each year.

I completely agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that we have to spend smarter. Everyone in this House would agree that there is a need for governments, of whatever stripe, to spend smarter. But how smart is it when we look at the purposes of this bill, and we see that it has a coordinating function, a function for economic development and diversification -- as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out just a few minutes ago -- and also to recognize that the encouraging of public and private sector investment in job creation is tied to two other components of the purposes: promotion of training and the targeting of activities under this act to disadvantaged individuals and groups?

There's nothing in the purposes of this bill, then, that speaks to the main expenditure line -- and I think this is the point that the Leader of the Third Party was getting at -- which is essentially under the proposition establishing the Transportation Financing Authority, which will create the financing of major capital projects such as roads.

I wonder if the minister can comment on that in light of what was discussed yesterday in the Health estimates, when we had heard from this minister in second reading debate that the opposition holding up of Bill 3 was going to stop needed construction on hospitals in the province of British Columbia. I specifically asked the Minister of Health yesterday: what projects would be held up in the health budget? The answer was: none. There isn't going to be any financing coming out of the Health budget through Bill 3.

The question is, then: is this a job creation and training bill? If so, why don't you simply integrate ministries as has been suggested by the Liberal opposition? You would reduce the number and size of ministries by integrating ministries into larger coordinating ministries, such as the ministry of community development, which has been well articulated and well discussed. Why wouldn't you do that instead of creating another Crown agency which, notwithstanding the motives of this government...? And I'm going to take the minister at his word when he says he's not going to create a new bureaucracy.

Crown corporations tend to become bureaucracies. It's the nature of the beast that they become that way.

If it is an opportunity to borrow outside line ministries.... In second reading debate the Minister of Transportation said this bill allows him to borrow money, which he can't do now. Surely there has to be a better proposition put forward in the purposes of this bill. It talks about the extent to which government will be able to commit funds outside the normal budgetary process -- which isn't even mentioned in the purposes of this bill -- yet later on in the bill there is a whole

section that deals with the ability to borrow and the financial administration of it.

Hon. G. Clark: The problem is that we're dealing with the purpose of the bill as opposed to how to implement the purpose. The members opposite have concerns about the how-to in capitalizing finance. The purpose is not to capitalize highways; the purpose is to promote economic development in the region. We will get to the how-to sections later, and we can have that discussion then.

Let me deal specifically with what the leader of Liberal Party has indicated, and that is that we should merge ministries. I understand that argument, but let's deal with what Build B.C. 21 attempts to do. If we were to merge the ministries to promote economic development along the lines that this is contemplating, that means the Ministry of Health -- because it's health capital -- the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways would all have to be

[ Page 5878 ]

merged into one big ministry. I think that is cabinet's role. These are big ministries to begin with. It would be too inefficient to have all of that under one person, as desirable as some people might feel it to be.

This does something which I think makes more sense. It takes the capital spending approved by Treasury Board in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education and says: "Instead of just shipping that out to the school boards to spend, is there some corporate priorities that we should bring to bear on that capital spending?" We say to them: "Yes -- training, getting people off welfare and working. Let's see if there are other creative ways of matching private sector funding, and all kinds of things that we want to try to bring to bear on those kinds of decisions."

While the Health capital is still implemented by the Ministry of Health -- and she's quite correct, this bill doesn't deal with the social capital side specifically, although B.C. 21 does; legislative authority wasn't required -- it's an attempt to try to coordinate those things. That is an important objective of government as we try to get bigger bang for the buck and try to streamline government and spend smarter.

What we're really saying is that all of these things that are done by different ministries are all capital spending and all promote economic development. They don't come under the Ministry of Economic Development; they sort of just happen. What we want to try to do is at least coordinate them -- if not pull them together -- and try to see if there are ways in which we can do things smarter.

Let me just give you a concrete example. It may be that for some reasons the Ministry of Health wants to build some major facility in a small town that has full employment -- if there were such a thing. At the same time, there are two schools they want built in that same region and there is a highway that's going to be built. It may be -- and this happens when you look around the province -- that certain regions suddenly have a huge amount of public investment and private investment at the same time, and prices are bid up higher than they would otherwise be.

Never before, in the history of British Columbia, have you been able to determine that. The Minister of Health does her thing, the Minister of Education does her thing, the school boards are promoting it, and Highways are promoting it on their objective. Trying to coordinate that is not a huge undertaking; it's not a huge, massive bureaucracy.

We're trying to say that maybe it makes more sense to accelerate capital spending in depressed regions. These are things that have to be built anyway; they're on the horizon. Maybe we should space out some public investment in regions which are overheating -- if that were the case in British Columbia. Maybe there's some private sector spending taking place -- major capital spending in some regions -- which is taking all the employment, and any public sector investments simply overheats the economy.

Those are the kinds of things that have never been done before and that will enable government to spend smarter, to target things that have been done to some extent anyway by the various Crowns and social capital envelopes and make sure that they make sense for the region and for other priorities. That's why it's important that we don't simply say this could all be done by one superministry. This is a less dogmatic approach, one that tries more to coordinate those activities and make sure there are other priorities brought to bear, as set out in the purpose

section of this bill.

G. Wilson: With the greatest respect to the minister, that just doesn't cut it at all. We're not arguing at this point on the how-to; we're arguing about what you've stated as the purpose of the act in terms of facilitating the expansion and diversification of the B.C. economy. You've set out five criteria; that's what you've talked about here. There is nothing in what the minister has just said now that couldn't be done through a simple coordinating process among ministries and within cabinet -- absolutely nothing.

So if that could all be done by having a greater degree of communication and a greater facilitation of planning within line ministries, the stated purposes of this act could be accomplished by an existing structure. Why have this bill?

I think the minister needs to explain why the main portion of this bill.... This is where he's going to say: "You're talking about the how-to, so let's pass the purposes." Then when we get to the how-to, he can say: "We discussed that in the purposes, and you've already passed that, so we don't need to discuss it." We've been through that routine before.

The main purpose of this bill lies in the

section that deals with the development of a B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the ability of that authority to establish this new board with the minister and the four appointed people, which I gather will be a different committee than the one the Economic Development minister's going to be on. At least, if that isn't true, the minister might tell us that's not so.

One understands that there are going to be two different committees under this: one to provide advice to Treasury Board and the executive council; the second to have the clout to go out and borrow, spend, lend and decide where the construction of highways is going to take place. That's under the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, with the minister and four patronage appointments. That isn't even stated in the purposes of the bill. The whole

section that deals with that.... In fact, of the four principal parts, the only part that's even discussed in the purposes is

part 2, this Committee on Building B.C.'s Future. The rest of it's just hidden under the rug and shuffled through in the bill.

So I think the minister has to be more specific with respect to the purposes of this act. If we're forced to push this through, he should consider being more direct and forthright with the people of British Columbia and tell them that this is a borrowing authority for capital construction through the guise of a Crown corporation, and that it also has the right to acquire, hold and dispose of capital, which no agency right now has outside of the Ministries of Lands, Transportation, and Forests. I think those are the only three that can do that in government now.

[3:30]

[ Page 5879 ]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would have thought that we could form an internal committee to do some of this work, but this enhances the accountability in the Legislature for our actions. We now have a legislated committee on which you, members of the opposition, can then question us. Rather than a secret committee trying to coordinate this activity of the government in the back rooms, we now have a committee struck by the Legislature, struck in the legislation, which you then can question every year in terms of their plans.

In addition to that, there is another reason, and that's the $100 million special account -- again, a budget item that you can debate every year. There is a requirement in this bill to set up that special account, with the annual amount that may be allocated to this, again to enhance the accountability.

There is also, you're quite correct, a Transportation Financing Authority, which clearly is part of this bill. We're going to canvass those issues and I look forward to them.

Oh the purpose of the bill, this is a broad statement of the purpose of the committee and what the government's intentions are. I would think members opposite would be pleased that we would put in legislation these purposes that you can test us against and question every year. We've set up, by legislation, a committee which allows it. The bill allows us to set up a special account, which again is subject to the appropriation of the Legislature and establishes a financing authority, similar to the hospital and other financing authorities in the House.

I reject the notion that this is simply a financing vehicle for capitalizing highways; it is not, and I'll try to convince you of that over the course of the debate on these questions. There are a variety of other things here. That is one component. I might remind members opposite that Hydro, B.C. Rail and some ministries that the member opposite mentioned all hold property as well. In order to have an income stream attached to the capitalizing of a highway, it requires the holding of that property for the purposes of capitalizing it. That's why the legislation requires that; it's the same for other Crowns and some other ministries of government. But we'll get into that later on in the bill.

G. Wilson: Let's just go through the purposes, because the minister has said that one of the purposes of this bill is this financing authority for capital construction projects and highways. That's only one of them. Well, it's not even in the purposes of the act. The purpose of the act says absolutely nothing. One of the purposes of this act is to facilitate capital financing for highway construction. It's not even in here. We have to understand that if it isn't even in the purposes of the act, we have to ask the question why it isn't a stated purpose, because it is one of the principle purposes.

That's not a how-to; that is a purpose. One of the functions of this act is to establish an authority called the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. That's one of the reasons we have this in front of us today; it's a stated purpose.

My question is: if that is one of the purposes, but is stated as a purpose rather than a how-to -- which the minister is saying -- does that mean that we are going to target an activity under this act, one of the how-tos: capital construction on highways, toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups? In other words, are we going to start to have a different hiring policy for the construction of capital projects, such as highways, that will be targeted toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups?

Is one of the purposes of this to redirect money that would currently be administered under day-labour contract or some other kind of tendered contract work toward these disadvantaged groups? Is that one of the purposes of this bill?

Hon. G. Clark: The purpose of the bill is to try to promote the targeting of activities toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups. The member is correct that we will now be reviewing capital spending by the Transportation Financing Authority to see whether it meets those objectives. That's not the sole purpose; there are others. I wouldn't expect that there will necessarily be wholesale changes with respect to the building of highways in the province, but we will now be reviewing those highway construction projects to see whether these kinds of purposes are being accomplished.

One of the purposes is to try to target activities for traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups. It is only one of the purposes; there are others promoting training and investment in people.

It's more likely that in those kinds of construction there might be some review of apprenticeship and other methods to see whether broad goals of government are being pursued in the construction activities. This bill says that these are our priorities and these are the purposes, and we will now be reviewing these to see whether they can meet some of those purposes. We certainly won't meet all of these purposes in all of our capital spending; no doubt the school boards, obviously, for example, who are administering capital projects....

We will want to engage in a dialogue with school boards, hospital boards and the like to see whether there are ways we can work cooperatively to achieve these kinds of priorities -- and similarly with construction companies and the like.

We're not at this time saying that there are going to be huge changes to the way this business is done, except that we now have the vehicle to coordinate, review it and see whether we can promote it. We think significant things can be done. In keeping with the notion of spending smarter, these are tax dollars which are going out anyway, so are they being used to the best advantage? Are we training our young people? Are we trying to target those kinds of investments for those purposes? We now will be asking those questions for the first time.

The Chair: If I could comment for a moment, member, before you continue. I'd like to take a moment to comment on the debate on

section 2. This bill contains a purpose section, although bills rarely contain such a section. The committee stage is intended to provide an opportunity to address the contents of the bill, and what I see happening is a recanvassing of

[ Page 5880 ]

second reading. So I have allowed some latitude, but I'd encourage committee members to exercise some restraint in this area.

G. Wilson: I do want to talk specifically about the content of 2(e). Can the minister provide us some definition as to who are traditionally disadvantaged individuals and what groups are going to be affected in the construction of capital projects under this bill?

Hon. G. Clark: The problem with this kind of discussion is that it's a tautological one. In other words, this is a definition section, and now the minister is saying that we'll be defining disadvantaged people as those who are disadvantaged. It's a circular argument; that's what tautology is.

I will not answer that question right now. As I've said, we will be reviewing all these questions to see whether in fact there are criteria to be established. We will be reviewing them. If there are criteria established, I assure the member they will be announced in due course. They will be made available to all members of the House at the time of the announcement, and we can debate them then.

What we are saying is that there is, for example, capital construction by government in regions with structurally high unemployment; say, aboriginal people or the like. We want to take the opportunity to see whether or not it is possible to work with the local regions, with the developers or with the agency sponsoring the capital investment to see if we can maybe do a better job of incorporating disadvantaged groups or local groups in the construction of public facilities that this bill contemplates.

So there are no criteria or quotas established. None of that is in the bill. We're simply saying that there are disadvantaged groups. That's a fact. There are these regional concerns. We now want to review these projects to see whether there are ways in which we can work. There would be no blanket. In my view, it is very clear that there's not going to be any kind of diktat or standardized rules from Victoria. We're going to try to look at specific cases across the piece to see whether there are ways in which we can simply try to meet the purposes that the bill sets out.

G. Wilson: As I understand it, then, one of the stated purposes is toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups, although that's not clearly defined.

Yet the minister has acknowledged that capital expenditure will be targeted toward these individuals in order to be able to make these individuals and groups less disadvantaged and therefore no longer eligible for the money in the second go-round, I would assume, because they will have had the advantage of the dollars, that they would no longer be disadvantaged and therefore would be disqualified from being able to continue under the construction activities that they were hired under in the first place. That would seem to be the logical argument.

I wonder if I could just come back to the comments from, I think, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, where one of the stated purposes.... I don't want to go back into second reading debate, but this does specifically tie into this question. The member said, "I must say I'm disappointed in the opposition's failure to understand what it's all about" -- i.e., the purpose of this bill.

He said that this project focuses on people, and then he talks about the fact that one of the things it will accomplish is to increase the number of women contracted into things such as carpentry, sheet metal, heavy equipment operations, mechanics and so on, which would, of course, dovetail nicely into capital expenditures on highway programs.

Can the minister tell us whether one of the things we can look forward to, as one of the stated purposes under

section 2(e), is essentially a labour makeup within the traditional day labour contracting service that would provide for gender equality and other kinds of specific labour makeup in order to make contractors eligible for highway capital construction money?

Hon. G. Clark: I know that the leader of the Liberal Party is having difficulty understanding the purpose of this, because it's new and innovative and it is an attempt to move into the twenty-first century. I think the leader of the Liberal Party is stuck in the last century.

What we're saying very clearly -- and the member for Vancouver-Hastings made an excellent point -- is that there are disadvantaged groups that we want to try to help. This bill now allows us to screen and review capital spending to see if there are mechanisms we can employ to try to promote women, say, in the construction industry. We will be attempting to do that. No decision has been made as to precisely how to do it.

[3:45]

Lots of companies are coming forward and saying: "We want to play a role in promoting training, and we're prepared to take people off welfare and put them to work." We're getting lots of people who are interested in this idea and private sector people who want to work with the government on this initiative. So we will be trying to work with them and the people of B.C. in order to tailor our projects to promote women in the trades, for example. We make no secret about it. But there is no blanket policy statement saying exactly how that's going to be accomplished. We intend to try to work with private sector companies, in particular, to see if there are ways in which we can do that.

G. Wilson: Can the minister then confirm that under the comment with respect to the purpose of this bill -- and, again, I'm trying to be specific on the purposes of it.... As was pointed out, the member for Vancouver-Hastings said that the B.C. initiative has an employment equity program built into it. What we're hearing now is that under this, traditionally disadvantaged individuals or groups are going to take advantage of those capital construction programs.

Will the minister then tell us whether or not contractors, who will be contracting for dollars that will be spent on capital construction programs, are going to have to have some kind of means test with respect to the employees they have within their service?

[ Page 5881 ]

Hon. G. Clark: The leader of the Liberal Party is calling for something that the federal government has had for some time, which is that all contract work done for the federal government requires an employment equity program. We haven't yet made the decision that all government work would have those kinds of strings attached to it. Clearly we are going to be reviewing it to see whether or not there are ways of promoting disadvantaged groups in capital construction projects funded by the taxpayer if in regions with high unemployment. We're going to be reviewing that.

That is one option which the federal government has pursued; it's not an option which we have made a decision on. Implicit in the purpose

section is the promotion of trying to use government construction projects in a smarter way. So, again, we're targeting the money to get people off welfare and into work and also to deal with disadvantaged groups in society.

G. Wilson: I think we're beginning to see a lot more clearly what this government has in mind. This isn't so much an innovative bill; it's a somewhat deceptive bill, as my colleague from the third party has just said. The purpose of this, then, is to essentially coordinate the redirection of taxpayers' money into make-work projects by the government -- albeit some of them may be necessary, and we would certainly argue that capital construction on highways is necessary. It would appear that in order to be able to benefit people and groups that are traditionally disadvantaged.... If I can just look at (

d) then, and how the training component comes into this. It talks about promoting training and public sector investment through public sector investment activity. Does the minister say then that one of the stated purposes of this is to implement in British Columbia a government-driven apprenticeship program in the trades? Is that one of the bill's stated purposes?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, no. The purpose is to promote training and investment in people. But during the last administration -- when I was sitting in that chair, actually, that the Leader of the Liberal Party is sitting in -- it came to our attention that B.C. Hydro, one of the largest corporations in British Columbia, had not a single apprentice. I don't know whether that has changed in the last little while; I suspect it has, because of the government's agenda in this area. But I just say that that's not acceptable.

It's not acceptable that public sector corporations -- commercial Crown corporations -- are not investing in training young people in the province. So what we're saying -- the member is correct -- is that the government is going to be looking at spending by the government. We're asking whether these private companies that are benefiting essentially from public construction dollars are doing a good enough job on training young people. I think that's an example of spending smarter. We're already spending money on schools and hospital construction, for example -- and have been for some time.

We're now saying: are we as taxpayers getting a big enough bang for that? Are they doing a good enough job of training? Should we impose some restrictions on public construction, which requires an apprenticeship ratio or training component? That's precisely what this bill contemplates. The member is correct.

The Chair: The member.

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, sorry, Madam Chairman.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Well, I take the Leader of the Opposition's definition of a portion of "human" being man. I think we're all becoming sort of gender neutral in this world, anyway.

Let me come back to this, because this is a very important point. I'm not certain that I disagree with all of it. But it's a very important point in terms of looking at what this bill is all about, in terms of purposes. If I'm to then understand what the minister said earlier on, which was that they were going to try to target some of this public sector spending into traditionally depressed regions, because they want to do something about the regions.

There are capital projects that need to go under construction, anyway -- highways, schools, whatever they may be -- and they are now saying that they are not only going to target that money to those traditionally disadvantaged regions but they're going to do so in a manner that will make those successful bidders have an enforced apprenticeship program, already have one in place or have a workforce that is made up of some kind of equity program that the government can accept. If that's true -- and I think that's a fair

summary of what he has just said -- where are these contractors going to be found in the small communities around British Columbia, contractors whose livelihoods are dependent upon government contract work, who already have employees on staff, who already have capital investment in equipment and who have operators standing by? Where are they going to find the additional capital that's required to put in place the kind of additional training programs and the kind of hiring program that's going to give them that equity in order to make them a successful bidder?

Is it in fact going to be a situation that will favour union contractors, who may already have that as a result of their union contract, over non-union contractors, who traditionally do not participate in those kinds of activities because they are often smaller, often not capitally financed to the same extent and often are very regional -- i.e., they operate in a very small radius in terms of their job potential. That's a very important point, because it's likely to affect the livelihood of an awful lot of small contractors in this province.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if it disproportionately affects one group or the other. But I'll give you the opposite argument. In some regions one of the concerns we found as MLAs -- I'm sure you have, as well -- is that contractors are brought in from Vancouver to do work, and there are contractors out of work in that region; it's a depressed region.

[ Page 5882 ]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: No. This is the opposite. This says that we have regional economic development as a priority, as a purpose. I say that it would be better for us, as part of the criteria, to try to work with local people to get the job done. I wouldn't say, if we were to do what you suggested, that it would necessarily disproportionately favour big union companies over non-union companies. Lots of non-union companies have apprentices and apprentice training programs. Lots of local companies do as well. We're not saying this is designed to favour one segment or the other.

We're saying that it is a priority for the government to promote those kinds of training and investment initiatives. This is the purpose of the bill, and we'll work with private sector employers to try to achieve those goals.

J. Tyabji: When we asked for a definition of traditionally disadvantaged individuals, the minister said earlier that the criteria for that is being set up by someone else. Could the minister be more specific? We've got here, as part of the purpose, that the activities will be targeted toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups, and we have a member of the back bench indicating that those groups would include, for example, gender groups or perhaps ethnic groups or however it would be. Who is setting the criteria?

Is it the Minister of Women's Equality in conjunction with the Minister of Economic Development? Who is drawing it up? Is this minister having some input? If this minister is having some input, what kind of direction is this minister providing?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is quite correct. The Minister of Women's Equality will be involved in this. This is a broad government initiative. Anything to do with employment equity or that kind of initiative is the Minister of Women's Equality's area. Government personnel services division, which is my responsibility, also has some expertise in this area. These would be the people reviewing any B.C. 21 initiatives we do in this regard. We're not duplicating work that's already been done. In fact the ministries themselves will be feeding into the B.C. 21 committee to see if there are things that we can work on.

Hon. G. Clark: This is public sector investment, but almost all of it is carried out by private sector employers and there won't be any change in that. Clearly we'll want to be working with those private sector employers in any of these initiatives. No criteria been developed at this stage. We simply have this as a purpose. We'll be involving various groups, and particularly the Minister of Women's Equality, in reviewing the capital spending to see whether there are things that we can do to promote activities for traditionally disadvantaged groups.

F. Gingell: Just following on, will the Minister of Labour have input into those that are traditionally disadvantaged. If one listened to his report from his estimates debate, he certainly seemed to indicate that anybody who wasn't unionized was disadvantaged. Will this purpose

section be used to assist the Minister of Labour in what he sees as a desirable effect -- the unionization of the B.C. labour force?.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: This line of questioning points out the desirability of this approach to development, because these initiatives are underway. I'm not talking about the latter comments by the Leader of the Opposition but initiatives with respect to training in the Ministry of Advanced Education. All of the spadework will be done by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training.

But the committee is trying to draw on that expertise and feed it into capital planning, so the Minister of Labour would likely be involved in areas which affect his jurisdiction; the Minister of Advanced Education would be involved in areas which affect his jurisdiction; and the Minister of Women's Equality likewise. We're trying to streamline and feed those into the mix. So he will be involved in areas of his jurisdiction.

C. Tanner: When I first read this piece of legislation.... Before we came into the debate on the second amendment and before we made our amendments, and since we've got into the committee, I was nervous, but now that we've had an opportunity to listen to the minister, I'm terrified of what he's going to do.

He's dispensing with Treasury Board, he's dispensing with the departments, he's dispensing with the control that he has as a minister and that government has over the various departments of government, and he is taking unto himself -- because through this bill he's going to chair the committee -- and four other people, authorities which rightly belong to the Legislature and to this cabinet.

[4:00]

The minister scared me even further, because when he was talking about who was going to participate, he inadvertently mentioned the cabinet and caucus. He didn't mention anybody over on this side of the House, so it's very obvious which way he's going. He's going to

[ Page 5883 ]

take a select few people out of his cabinet, and he's going to run the various projects around the province for the benefit of whom? Not school board, because the school board already does it; not hospitals, because the hospitals already have the authority to do it.

Why can't this minister do exactly what he's doing here with a committee of government? Why does he have to take it out of the Legislature and put it in a Crown corporation? The minister keeps telling us that we get to see the Crown corporations. We get to see them a year and a half after they've done it, when they want to report to this House. We don't get the same opportunity to offer criticism with a Crown corporation that we do now with a minister. In my view, the minister hasn't given any reasonable explanation for separating this from government into a Crown corporation. Why can't he do it with a committee of government?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's not really the purpose of the section, and I disagree with most of the member's comments. This notion that you can't question a minister responsible for a Crown corporation doesn't hold up under any scrutiny. Last year in this House the leader of the Liberal Party spent about three hours on the Ferry Corporation. They were excellent, thoughtful and constructive questions on the Ferry Corporation. It was a good discussion, one of the best discussions we've had in criticism and construction. That kind of debate is encouraged, and I think it is useful.

Because there is a Transportation Financing Authority, no doubt the Minister of Highways will be accountable in this chamber, and all those questions can be asked for the public record. There is no material difference between the questioning that the leader of the Liberal Party undertook last year on the Ferry Corporation and my opposition spokesperson for Finance on the financial questions. We are all open and accountable on that question.

C. Tanner: If that's the case, would the minister tell this side of the House -- and the public, I guess, for the same reason -- why you can't get a coordinating committee of departments to do exactly what you're doing here? Raise the money through Treasury Board, which is the right way to do it. You still haven't said why you've got to take it outside of government to do it. Why can't you do it within government? Why can't you do it in the normal process of government, which you were used to and we were used to? You criticized the previous government for doing this very same thing.

You were most critical of them when they set up a separate fund to do some of these things. Why can't you accept your own criticism of the previous government and do this within government?

Hon. G. Clark: I think we're getting a little bit repetitive. I'm not criticizing the member, but we've had this discussion at some length.

The member is correct. There could be a committee coordinating this without legislation. We thought it better to put it up front in the House so the public could see exactly what we're doing and the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish. That's number one. Second, we did need legislation for the special account in order to try to make sure that that money goes to job stimulus and job creation initiatives. And third, we needed legislation for the Transportation Financing Authority in any event.

So we thought it best to be up front with people, put it all out in the legislation and encourage this kind of debate and discussion so that we could be up front about the purposes and what we're trying to accomplish, rather than doing it in the back room as a little committee that no one gets a chance to debate in the House.

C. Tanner: The minister is making my point for me. That's what I'm saying. In my view, up front means the cabinet sitting down, making a decision and appointing a committee which answers to cabinet. That's the way it's been done in Canada for 100 years. The minister is saying, under this legislation -- not only this, but in other parts of this legislation -- that as few as three people can buy and sell and administer public funds. I'm saying that that is not up front; that's in the closet. Well, you yourself can do it; that's even more worrisome. But you're doing it in the closet; you're not doing it up front; you're not doing it in the cabinet process.

Hon. G. Clark: Treasury Board still approves all spending from the special account. So there's no diminution of the authority in the bill. I want members to know that. It happens at this time that the chair of Treasury Board and the chair of this committee is the same person. It needn't be so. Treasury Board still has the authority.

G. Farrell-Collins: I can probably answer the question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands. The reason the government is doing this is that just forming a cabinet committee and getting together in some room and making these arrangements and agreements isn't glitzy; it isn't sexy. It's not something you can take around the province and market as a big re-election campaign. Quite clearly the strategy of the government in this bill is to do those types of things that we're talking about but to put it in a package and give it a nice name.

In fact they've tried three different names in order to come up with one that they thought would market. I imagine there was a bit of polling that went into that, too. Then they'll take that package around the province and sell it as some wonderful new program that the government's been doing -- this wonderful thing they are giving the people of the province. But the part that he's not going to tell people about is that somewhere along the line they're going to have to pay for it. Clearly it is a step backward for the government to....

In fact, I suppose we're looking at vote-buying at its best, in the old political way of doing things.

But if I can ask the minister a question -- it does tie in fairly well, and I'm glad we're doing it today. The Minister of Labour stood up about an hour or so ago in this House and stated that non-unionized employees

[ Page 5884 ]

were disadvantaged; that if you weren't part of a union you were disadvantaged. That may be his philosophical point of view; I'll let him have it. I don't tend to agree with him. I think it's the employees that choose whether they want to be unionized or not.

But if non-union employees are disadvantaged or underrepresented.... In the construction industry we know the views of the minister -- in fact, we know the views of the government. The union sector of the construction industry, according to the minister, is underrepresented to the point where, he said last year, he had trouble finding a union company to build his house. My question to the minister is: is there going to be any preferential treatment given to union or non-union under the purpose clause of this bill when it comes time to look at some of those disadvantaged groups?

Hon. G. Clark: No. As you can see from the purpose section, there's no reference to union versus non-union. The purposes of what we're trying to accomplish are very clear. If it means that it can be accomplished with a non-union employer in certain cases, clearly that will be desirable. If it can be accomplished with a union employer, that would desirable as well. The purposes are clearly spelled out, and there's no preference with respect to union versus non-union.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to get the minister on record saying quite clearly that there will be no provision in this bill, or in any of the expenditures of this bill, stating a preference for union or non-union companies and whether or not they may be involved in the process of construction that goes along with the expenditures of this authority.

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. We have some clear priorities, and the purpose

section of the bill spells them out very clearly. It may be that from time to time a unionized employer would best be able to accomplish those purposes, or it may be that a non-union employer would best be able to accomplish those priorities. I suspect that there would be regional variations on that, depending on the project. We have nothing in here which biases one way or the other. Our objectives are clear.

One member stood up -- I can't remember who; maybe it was the leader of the Liberal Party -- and said that apprenticeship programs, which are a priority of the government, may advantage unionized contractors. I don't know the answer to that. That may be the case. But if that is the case, it won't be because we're trying to promote unionized contractors; it will be because we're trying to promote apprenticeships. To be honest with members, in the 1990s there were lots of apprentices working for non-union companies. So I would not say categorically whether that would benefit one or the other. Our purposes are very clearly spelled out in the bill.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't believe that the purposes of the bill are as specifically and clearly spelled out as the minister would like us to think. In fact, there's only one statement,

section 2(e), which says: "targeting activities under this Act toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups." Quite clearly, we've had numerous statements, not only by the minister himself but also by his fellow ministers, to the effect that traditionally disadvantaged groups in this province include the union sector of the construction industry. The minister has said that even the employees of the non-union construction firms are disadvantaged, and they have actually brought in a fair wage policy to try and deal with that.

There are quite clearly some very strong feelings among the ministry staff and members of this government about who is and who is not disadvantaged as it relates to union and non-union employees, particularly within the construction field. While it doesn't state union and non-union construction workers, it's quite obvious that the government can pass this type of bill and then come back and set policy under

section 2(

e) and say: "The reason we have to expand the fair wage policy to include all these other things, and the reason we have to include union labour as opposed to non-union labour on this project, is that we're trying to ameliorate the traditional disadvantage of the union sector as a group, a union company or non-union employees in another firm." Does the minister agree that that's certainly a possibility? If it is a possibility in his mind, will he give us some clear guidance on that today -- much clearer than he has so far -- that those factors are not being taken into consideration?

Hon. G. Clark: I think the member is reaching to say that traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups are unionized construction companies. I guess as we move forward, if there are agreements to deal with apprenticeships and the like in public construction, then those will be scrutinized by members of the opposition of the day. We will make the case, based on the principles and priorities laid out here, that they meet our objectives for the bill. I guess it will be up to the public to decide whether in fact we're doing that. But we have not specifically biased the bill in favour or against unionized or non-union construction companies.

The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That brogue sort of makes me want to ask you to beam me up; I'm just a Trekker fan at heart. The real question is: beam me up to where?

Coming back, if I may, to 2(a), where it talks about coordinating activities. I understand the minister first started off to talk about this as a coordinating function, that this is going to have an activity to be able to coordinate. I think I understood, when the leader of the Third Party was questioning the minister, that this was not only going to coordinate government activities but would have an opportunity to coordinate the Crowns.

If that's the purpose of this act, can the minister tell me whether or not this is going to fall under the Crown

[ Page 5885 ]

corporations secretariat, and if it does what's the relationship between the Crown corporations secretariat and the control over this project?

Hon. G. Clark: An excellent question -- although I'm not sure your time couldn't be more productively employed, to the leader of the Liberal Party.

The Crown corporations secretariat will be precisely the body dealing with the coordination of the Crown corporations capital, and then it will feed into B.C. 21 as we try to coordinate all the activities, including the Crown's.

Again, there's no duplication. There will be no staff people hired. There are some staff people hired at the Crown corporations secretariat, and they will be the people doing the work in terms of reviewing business plans and the like.

But now what will happen is we'll be asking the Crown corporations secretariat to review the business plans of the Crowns and capital spending plans of the Crowns, in light of government priorities, and report to the B.C. 21 committee with that so that we can again try to not just coordinate activities between the Crowns but now coordinate activities of the Crowns with the overall government objectives that are laid out here -- training and economic development, and the like.

G. Wilson: I know when we get way back to the end of the bill -- and I don't want to jump ahead because I realize we're only dealing with the purposes -- but I think it is important that under the consequential amendments....

Section 30(2.1) deals primarily with the reporting function of the Crown corporations, and it amends by providing an addition that says that there now has to be business plans, strategic plans, and so on.

Does that mean then that the Crown corporations secretariat essentially becomes the driving agency for the expenditures of Crown capital. If it isn't that, does it mean that the Crown corporations secretariat is going to become the project -- under the purpose of this act, and we're coming back to the purpose of this act just in case there should be an attempt to foist this off to some other debate later on when we've already passed this and then we're told we should have brought that up when we were in the purposes section....

Is it the purpose of this act, in that coordinating function, to integrate an overall strategic plan for Crown corporation expenditures that will be facilitated through this bill, and if that's the case, who from the Crown corporations secretariat will control that process?

[4:15]

Hon. G. Clark: No, that's too strong. It's not a centralizing strategic plan for all the Crowns: it's merely the capital spending of the Crowns. Their business plans with their board of directors, their ministers, will now be reviewed. Remember I said earlier that we may find there are some regions that -- for a series of unrelated initiatives -- have a lot of capital spending, and we want to try to coordinate that. But it's more information and coordination; it's not direction to the Crowns, except in a cooperative way working with the Crowns to try to achieve these kinds of objectives. There's no kind of super control mechanism.

I'll say for the members that one option for the bill in its early stages was to have the capital spending by Crowns approved by this committee, and you'll notice that's not in there. This now simply says that capital spending will be reviewed by the committee. So there's not an approval or veto approach. That's quite properly up to the Crowns, their boards of directors, management and the ministers responsible. We simply want to get the information about their capital spending plans, see how they overlay the social capital and other initiatives and then talk to them about training and other initiatives on which we can work together in those regions.

Again, I'd prefer it if we could.... We've been a long time on the purpose section. That is obviously a very important question, which we will get to later on in the consequential amendments. It might be more appropriate to have a discussion then.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this to the point of repetition, and I'm really not trying to do that. I am trying to understand, though. The difference between approval and review is an important one, and I guess we can debate that at a later time. But when it says that it's going to coordinate "the government's activities to achieve the...economic development and job creation goals," does that mean that in that review process.... The purpose of this bill is essentially to target capital construction projects or expenditures under the Crowns to meet criteria that are set out in these purposes.

So you're not saying they have to get their expenditures approved, but how they spend their money is going to have to meet the purposes of this bill. B.C. Hydro, in its construction projects, for example, is going to have to meet the same kind of apprenticeship and pay equity program targets, whatever those targets are that are brought out by this committee. So this won't only apply to line ministerial expenditures, but it will now also apply to every Crown corporation. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: Essentially, that's correct; a bit overstated, but correct. The criteria will be established by B.C. 21, and then the evaluation of that will be done by the Crown corporations secretariat. It's more a guidance to Crowns. Again, I don't think there will be blanket rules applied to everybody in every sector. It's more trying to work with the Crowns to see what's doable. But we will expect our Crowns -- not simply the line ministries and private sector development -- to be leaders in training, apprenticeship and those kinds of objectives. We want to see the Crowns do that job.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we now have embarked on a discussion regarding Crown corporations that a reading of this bill would not indicate. I've just thumbed through again all the sections of the bill, and I don't see any reference to Crown corporations.

Hon. G. Clark: The consequential amendment.

[ Page 5886 ]

J. Weisgerber: A consequential amendment, the minister says. What we are talking about, then, is not a purpose for a Crown corporation, but a bill which will amend the Financial Information Act and have an influence on all the Crown corporations. The minister says such things as that the committee, which we will be investigating in a moment or two, will examine and review the capital spending plans of the Crown corporations but not require the Crown corporations to take action.

We have large Crown corporations now -- B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail -- that have legislation and are administered by boards of directors that involve ministers of the Crown. I think that we are putting the employees and executives of these corporations through a great deal more uncertainty than they are used to. I don't think there's going to be a very clear understanding of the reporting relationship or the responsibility of the Crown corporations.

It seems to me that what we hear in the purpose of this bill and the consequential amendments that follow is very much a continuation of the consolidation of power that we first saw under the Crown corporations secretariat. We now see some legislation which will give more authority, whether it be moral or implied, to the Crown corporations secretariat and those people who are obviously of influence in it. Should we once again mention your mentor, Mr. Williams?

We see very much again the spectre that we've seen all through the administration of this government here again in this bill, although it's done in a way that is circuitous, to be kind. The Crowns don't quite get mentioned, but by a consequential amendment through the Financial Administration Act, the reality is that we're just bringing in a bill that has implications for our Crown corporations far beyond what I think most of us anticipated in second reading.

I really believe that at least I entered into second reading debate believing that we were talking about a new Crown corporation and borrowing to an extent that I didn't agree with, but I didn't believe that we were once again seeing Bob Williams, the Crown corporations secretariat and this increasing influence over the lives of British Columbians coming by way of this Build BC Act.

I'm disappointed with it. If that's the intention of the government, they should be more forthright in stating their objections and identifying the Crown corporations that they apply to. They should name the Crown corporations and clarify if there is a reporting relationship between the Crowns. It's important for the benefit of directors of Crown corporations, like the ones that were here visiting us today. Coming, as that person did, by way of an election defeat, we know that this person is not likely going to understand the reporting process of Crown corporations very well, which is going to make it even more difficult for those people to follow.

Hon. G. Clark: The member's characterization of this as just a big bill to capitalize highways was incorrect, but he's also now incorrect in saying that this is some kind of centralizing authority. What the leader of the Liberal Party said is closer to the truth: what we're having with this B.C. 21 committee is the establishment of criteria for public investment, which includes Crown corporations. Training, as I said.... I don't know if you were in the House when I said that B.C. Hydro had no apprentices at all a few years ago. Now, after a change of government, they have some apprentices.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'm being a bit unfair, but there was a period of time a few years ago when they had no apprentices at one of the largest corporations in the province. That's not acceptable, and I'm sure the member opposite agrees. We're saying that if we're going to require training of, say, construction companies doing public construction, then we should require it of our Crowns as well. We are going to be simply reviewing their.... We're establishing criteria and asking the secretariat to review the plans to see whether they're meeting it.

But it's not a heavy-handed approval mechanism; it's simply reviewing and trying to work with the Crowns to do a better job on training and some of the other purposes. That was made clear.

By the way, I'll say to members that every member of the House, including the members of the opposition, got a whole package on the B.C. 21 initiative which clearly spelled out the Crowns' involvement in this, and I'm sorry if the member chose not to read it.

J. Weisgerber: Well, just to set the record straight, and for the benefit of those who didn't have the opportunity to be aware of the conversation that was going on across the table, the minister knows that B.C. Hydro has had apprentices for most of its existence. He also knows that the reason there were no apprentices at one time at B.C. Hydro was because of the requirements of the union agreement. It was not there by the wishes of the board of directors at B.C. Hydro or the management at B.C. Hydro. They didn't want to be in the position of having to lay off all of their apprentices.

So if we're going to talk about the lack of apprentices and the responsibility for that, then let's put it out on the table and be forthright and upfront about it. There were not good reasons, but very real reasons, why at one point in its history B.C. Hydro didn't have apprentices. Nevertheless, let me finish again by saying that I am concerned that what we see is this continuing concentration and centralization of influence.

I'm delighted that I've had an opportunity to take

part in this debate, because if there was material that came out from the minister -- and I'm sure there was -- it probably got lost in one of the 28 press releases that came that day, or it probably got sandwiched in something announcing some small grant or other that the minister might have given to somebody or other. Anyway, I don't approve of but now understand the growing influence and centralization of control over the Crown corporations.

G. Wilson: I only have a half dozen or so more questions on this. I would like to very thoroughly canvass the purposes of this act. It was through this

[ Page 5887 ]

canvassing that we have discovered this is a much different creature than some had originally believed it to be. To give some credit to the minister, I think that this was a very clever manoeuvre to try to get this through. But careful and close reading of what has come forward does demonstrate that this Crown corporate entity was in this bill. It's around this that I have a couple of other questions.

[4:30]

With respect to the overall goals of government with Crowns, and how this coordinating function is going to work in expenditure of dollars, I'd like to know to what extent there will be an involvement of the chair of the Crown corporations secretariat. We notice that two committees will be struck. I understand the first committee is the minister and other members of the Legislative Assembly, which would presumably preclude the chair actually sitting on that committee. However, there are some connections that can be made with respect to assisting staff.

With respect to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, it's possible for there to be delegation of authority to the board and appointment to the board. Given that this is going to be a Crown agency, what will be the involvement of the chair of the Crown corporations secretariat? What role is Mr. Williams going to play?

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Excuse me -- Bob Williams. I stand corrected. I've so long believed that Bob Williams is the chair, the secretary and the board of directors that I just had forgotten, in fact, that it's the minister who is the chair.

What role will Mr. Williams play in this particular agency?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't mind answering, though it has nothing to do with the purpose of the act. But if the member is talking about the Transportation Financing Authority -- no direct role. It is a Crown corporation or financing vehicle, and so it will be expected to meet criteria set by B.C. 21. The Crown corporations secretariat will evaluate the capital spending plans to see if they are meeting that criteria. That's all.

G. Wilson: The role that will be played, as I understand it -- if we can take it beyond.... I disagree that this has nothing to do with the purposes of this act; I think that it in fact speaks to the heart of the