1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1998

Morning

Volume 10, Number 1

[ Page 8021 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm really pleased to introduce Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998. This bill is . . . . [Laughter.] My apologies, hon. Speaker. I think this is Friday morning.

The Speaker: I think this is Friday, yes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Court Rules Act, Crown Proceeding Act, Employment Standards Act, Evidence Act, Health Professions Act, Hospital Act and Tobacco Tax Act. Of course, we will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Hogg: Just with the levity of the morning, I am reminded that this is the birthday of the hon. critic for the Attorney General ministry. I thought the House would want to recognize both his levity and his birthday. Please join me in congratulating him.

The Speaker: Indeed, many happy returns of the day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

MANAGING DISABILITIES

G. Janssen: Last Friday, May 15, representatives from labour, business and government gathered in the rotunda of the parliament buildings to watch the signing of a groundbreaking agreement between the International Labour Organization and the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. The memorandum of understanding signed by Mr. Ali Taqi, assistant director general of the ILO, and NIDMAR's business and labour co-chairs, Mr. Peter Lawrie and Mr. Brian Payne, is expected to lead to the first International Labour Organization code of practice in disability management.

An international code of practice will provide invaluable guidelines to workplaces and ensure fair and equal treatment of workers with disabilities around the world.

Mr. Ali Taqi spoke briefly after the signing, acknowledging the significance of the project in examining the ILO's interest in disability management initiatives. Despite favourable legislation and regulatory environments, the availability of vocational rehabilitation and other services, and the existence of special positive measures and programs, persons with disabilities everywhere continue to experience major barriers to employment. While returning to work is not the full solution for the equitable integration of people with disabilities, it does achieve positive social and economic results for workers, employers and society at large.

Brian Payne, vice-president for Western Canada of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, spoke about his support of the memorandum of understanding between NIDMAR and the ILO:

"Individuals who are unable to return to work often feel alienated, lonely and abandoned. The alternative is effective disability management and reintegration. When it's done right, you have success. From my perspective as a workers' advocate and someone who has worked for many, many years to move this issue along, this signing will have huge significance for workers and their workplaces, here in British Columbia, in this country and internationally."

Peter Lawrie, general manager of human resources for MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., explained his perspective:

"The business case for disability management is compelling. But it is not the statistics, it is the inherent worth of the people. This agreement will allow us to address some major barriers and find some best-practice solutions with international applicability."

The hon. Premier of British Columbia and Hon. Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, signed as witnesses to the historic agreement and expressed their support for the development of an international code of practices in disability management. The Premier was enthusiastic about the potential implications of the project. He said:

"I believe that what we're seeing here today is the beginning of something extraordinary for working people, not just in British Columbia but around the world. The joint project that the institute is undertaking with the ILO will be expanding our opportunities to learn and adopt the best practices from other jurisdictions, and will also be sharing B.C.'s expertise and contributions with the global community."

Pierre Pettigrew reiterated his government's support of NIDMAR's efforts to minimize the human and social costs of disabilities and discussed the benefits HRDC foresaw for partnerships such as the ILO-NIDMAR agreement:

"Through this project, valuable information will be gathered. We can all learn from the successes and failures and, hopefully, with determination and partnerships, we can discover ways to improve disability prevention that will result in more effective ways of getting injured workers back to work."

Many of the speakers at the official signing ceremony in Victoria underscored the importance of the involvement of government, labour and business in any efforts to develop an international code of practice in disability management. Mr. Ali Taqi commented on a similarity between NIDMAR and the ILO's tripartite structure in that both organizations represent all three major stakeholders, because they recognize that long-term significant change requires that all be involved and work collaboratively toward a solution. Today's signing by NIDMAR and the ILO will have a far-reaching impact.

Forest Renewal B.C., the Canadian government, the British Columbia government, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and private industry together established a $7 million endowment fund to ensure the ongoing work of the institute. The B.C. and federal governments have been supportive of NIDMAR's work for many years, organizing and

[ Page 8022 ]

recognizing the importance of a disability management program in minimizing the enormous personal, social and economic costs of disabilities.

The Premier, speaking at the signing ceremonies, pointed out the impact of disabilities in B.C. He said:

"Our own statistics show that last year alone, 4,000 British Columbia workers suffered permanent disabilities on the job. Many of those individual workers -- the vast majority of them -- will never work again. Only 6.1 percent of workers who are injured and off the job for one year are able to maintain employment if they return to work. That, to me, represents a tremendous loss of talent."

He also pointed out the inherent benefits of the return to work for employers:

"Returning disabled workers to the workplace isn't just good social policy, it's very good economics, because every time a disabled worker goes back to work, we're increasing our competitiveness by reducing compensation costs for employers and the cost to society in general."

Pierre Pettigrew provided some startling statistics to illustrate the impact of disabilities on a national level: "In Canada, there is one workplace injury every nine seconds. That means 60 million days of work are lost and $5 billion of compensation is paid out annually for occupational injuries.

These figures are astounding and put considerable pressure on employers operating in today's challenging business environment." Pettigrew acknowledged the potential role that disability management practices could play in minimizing the impact of disabilities: "Sound disability management practices, combined with knowledge and experience can reduce these costs, and that is why this project is so important."

Mr. Taqi expressed the feelings of all participants and NIDMAR supporters in his closing remarks: "Let us strive to make our joint project the first step in a vigorous new campaign towards equality of opportunity and treatment for people with disabilities."

[10:15]

C. Hansen: We certainly want to share the sentiments that the hon. member has brought to the House of the importance of programs that will allow those with disabilities to get back into the workforce, to become gainfully employed, to get their self-worth back and to be able to contribute to their families once again.

There is a recent study that was done by the organization the member mentioned, the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, which is based in the hometown of the hon. member, Port Alberni -- which is actually the place where I was born as well. It's interesting that their study shows that the direct and indirect costs of disabilities in British Columbia is totalling $3.6 billion annually. It is a huge amount of money, hon. Speaker. But as the member noted, it's not something that we can put in statistics or in dollar terms.

We're talking about people's lives, about their ability to have pride in the contribution that they're making to our society. Certainly over the last 20 years we've made some enormous strides in enabling those with disabilities to function and to become full participants in our society, but we obviously have a long way to go.

I think that we have to be very cognizant in this chamber, as we develop new legislation and new rules, of some of the spinoff effects that some of those rules may have. I note, for example, that if we start looking at the employment standards legislation and the regulations that have been brought in in this chamber, we wind up . . . . What we do in order to give certainty and rigidity to the workplace, on the one hand, causes inflexibility that is to the detriment of those with disabilities, on the other hand.

I note in the report NIDMAR has produced that they talk about some of the structural barriers that those with disabilities have when it comes to being able to get back into the workplace as fully functioning individuals. One of the things they talk about is the need for assistance devices to help them fit back into gainful employment. They talk about modified hours, something that would be vitally important to those with disabilities. Yet what we have done, on one hand, is to reduce the flexibility towards modified hours.

Certainly as we stand up and advocate for those with disabilities, we have to look at some of those issues -- changes that we can make to existing regulations -- to ensure that those with disabilities can take their rightful place.

Also, when it comes to the number of job opportunities there are, I think that what we have today in British Columbia is a declining number of jobs all around. Clearly it is those who are the most vulnerable that pay the first price. It is the young and the disabled who pay a much higher price for the lack of job opportunities than does the rest of society. One of the things that we can do and that I think will be of benefit to those with disabilities who are seeking to get back into the workforce is to ensure that we have generally more job opportunities in this province. That obviously is a very large problem that we have to solve in this chamber.

I will wrap up by just saying that I think the sharing of information, as a result of the initiative with the ILO, is very important. We have an opportunity in British Columbia to make a very valuable contribution to the world in terms of the research that is being done in this province. Certainly I support that initiative. We look forward to some very positive benefits for the disabled in the years to come.

G. Janssen: I thank the hon. member for his comments and support. Some 15 years ago an organization met in the basement of the IWA hall in Port Alberni. They met in the basement because the upstairs was not accessible. They formed the injured forest workers of British Columbia, the forerunner to the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. Attending that meeting was Wolfgang Zimmermann, now the director of the institute. He was there on crutches. There were four people in wheelchairs, including Sven Fredrickson. Also there were Bob Skelly, then the member for Alberni, Earl Foxcroft of the IWA and Henry Nedergard, the president of the labour council.

They produced a film called Every 12 Seconds , which was shown at Independence '92, the disability conference that was held in Vancouver, and started the institute off in its role as a leader in Canada in its research and management of disabilities. In 1994 the institute was formed, and various levels of government, private industry and some Crown corporations came on board and formed the endowment. Now Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba have signed on. The institute is going to expand, I believe, across Canada and have a leadership role.

In just six years we see provinces and countries -- Germany, the United States and Australia -- involved in research activities with the institute. It has been a long road from Port Alberni to Geneva, but I'm very proud today to stand as the member for Alberni and congratulate the institute and congratulate the community. Even though the institute has gone to an international standard and international recog

[ Page 8023 ]

nition, they have kept their headquarters and their roots in Port Alberni. I'm very proud, as the MLA for Alberni, to congratulate them today and to have them in that community.

NEW GAMES FOR A NEW CENTURY

L. Reid: On June 16, 2001, Vancouver will make Canadian sporting history. I speak of the Pacific Games 2001. I believe this will be an amazing private sector initiative. It will be the third time the Pacific Games have been held, so Vancouver is only the third city to be selected. Vancouver was unanimously awarded these games by the National Olympic Committee of the Pacific region.

The Pacific Games 2001 program features a triple thrust: the 2001 Pacific Games, the Pacific Economic Forum and Sport Exposition and the Pacific Cultural Festival. Forty-three countries, with 46 percent of the world population and 56 percent of world GNP, will compete. The games include 13 sports and up to 4,000 athletes. All sports have high Pacific TV appeal. The sports include athletics, aquatics, badminton, basketball, boxing, gymnastics, judo, rugby, rowing, soccer, skating, softball, triathlon, table tennis and volleyball. Again, selection is subject to confirmation from the International Sports Federation.

The games will be athlete-centred, gender-balanced and fully accessible for persons with disabilities. The Pacific Games will be green games. It's interesting, having heard from the member for Alberni . . . . Indeed, I was present when our disabled athletes went off to Nagano. What's appealing about these games is that those athletes will be in attendance at the same time as the other athletes. It won't be something that happens as a follow-up. All athletes will receive the accolades of their spectators at the same time.

Top competition is assured. Pacific countries win 44 percent of Olympic medals and comprised four of the top five countries in the 1996 Olympics in popular sports. B.C. athletes will have the rare opportunity to compete at home and inspire our youth. To me, that is a remarkable event, for individuals who wish to represent Canada and British Columbia will have the opportunity to do so on home soil.

Existing facilities will be used. Ten million dollars in construction and upgrading is needed: pools, athletic stadiums, a rowing venue, a canoeing basin. Most of the seating and spectator amenities will be temporary.

The Pacific Cultural Festival will highlight first nations as the original host culture and will feature guest performances from both the Pacific region and the diverse cultural groups of Vancouver, B.C. and Canada. A celebration of the Pacific will be held on Canada Day, July 1, 2001.

The Pacific Economic Forum and Sport Exposition will foster improved ties across the Pacific and among Vancouver's many Pacific cultures. This capitalizes on the hidden advantage provided by our new citizens of Asian-Pacific descent and can help improve Canada's share of the trade with Asia. The Asian business style is based on strong personal relationships, both formal and informal. The synergy of the games, forum and festival will strengthen the ties between Canada and Pacific countries. The Olympics and other games are proven winners for corporate hospitality. Sport is possibly the single best informal entrée to Asian decision-makers.

Vancouver is fast becoming a Pacific city, with 33 percent of the population now of Asian background -- up from 10 percent in 1986. Cross-cultural relations arising from a large change in Vancouver demographics have been respectful, but the self-image of the new Vancouver has not been established. This Pacific Games program can do more to build cross-cultural understanding and bonding than any other initiative. The games will be managed to foster ethnic and gender balance across all games, committees, objectives, programs and activities.

Through these triple thrusts, the many cultural threads of Vancouver can be tightly woven into a magnificent multicultural, first nations, European and Asian tapestry -- unique in the world -- to help form Vancouver's and Canada's new identity and position for the twenty-first century.

The focus on youth, in which I believe very strongly, includes youth employment with the organizing committee, curriculum support, greater cross-cultural appreciation, inspiration for B.C. youth by B.C. athletes competing in popular youth-focused sports, opportunities to volunteer, opportunities to perform in the opening and closing ceremonies, and the Pacific youth sport legacy fund.

It is projected that 15,000 foreign visitors will attend, including 10,000 from overseas and 5,000 from the United States. The games family will total 17,000 visitors, including 9,000 from outside of Canada. A conservative estimate of 100,000 television spectators is projected, of which 85,000 will be from B.C., 9,000 from other provinces, 4,000 from the U.S. and 2,000 from overseas.

The economic impact of these games, the forum and the festival will provide a conservatively estimated $247 million from direct games budgeted spending and indirect off-budget spending. This is good news for our province. The games will provide $15 million in GST and $13.5 million in PST from direct and indirect spending. Conservative estimates of visitation project an incremental $38 million to the B.C. economy, with $2.7 million in PST and GST revenues.

I'm here today because one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Dhillon, is a member of the steering committee for these games. I can only applaud his energy and commitment in terms of taking these private sector initiatives forward. I think these games will do some wondrous things for British Columbia and Vancouver. Certainly we have all been part of the wondrous events that followed the 1986 Expo in Vancouver. So if these games can build upon what will happen for the next Olympic Games that come to this country, to Canada, that would only be to the good, from my perspective.

I await my hon. colleague's comments.

J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member from the other side of the House for her comments on the upcoming plans for the Pacific Games. I certainly agree with many of the benefits that she has outlined in terms all of these kinds of games that come to our communities, whether they are Summer Games, Winter Games or the Games for Athletes with a Disability that each of our communities host, or the larger Olympic-style games, such as the Pacific Games that are being talked about. Yes, there is a tremendous interest in these kinds of sports, as I know from my own community of Burnaby, which hosted the B.C.

Summer Games last year. It can be a tremendous coming together of communities to host and sponsor visitors from all over the world or all over British Columbia. It is also an opportunity to build sport facilities -- enhancements or a legacy that is left behind.

But on the very basic element behind sports, we also need to hope -- and work hard to maintain -- that the skills and character-building aspects of sports are reflected in games at all levels. In that sense, I'm talking about the sense of self, the growth to full potential, sportsmanship, the sense of fair play, the sense of team play -- in addition, of course, to the

[ Page 8024 ]

emphasis of late on physical fitness and healthy living. These were and, I hope, still are or should be the values that are reflected in sport.

[10:30]

Regrettably, while the topic of the member's statement is "New Games for a New Century," I think all of us recognize that perhaps we also need new ethics for games for a new century, because sport has also had its dark side. We only have to look at some of the stories that have come out of Olympic sports. Even in our own communities the great push for overexcellence has led many young people to try to emulate it by pushing their bodies beyond the normal limits of competition and using things like steroids to do that.

We only have to look at professional sport, and at the risk of offending some, I might say it is an outrageous buying and selling of bodies for exorbitantly high salaries. Also, I think we have to recognize that those parts of sport exist.

In closing, hon. Speaker, I just want to say that I certainly agree with many of the points that have been raised by the hon. member in terms of enhancing trade with Asia, through many kinds of dialogue. There are still a great many details to be worked out. As we know, in games of this nature we need to wait and encourage the federal government to take some leadership role here. In British Columbia I think our government, on a very basic level of encouraging the value systems that community sport can engender, has demonstrated that we are prepared to support those kinds of community sport values.

I hope that we can bridge the gap that perhaps has occurred between the aspects of sport that we all want to encourage and some of the darker sides of sport that have come about in the last few years.

L. Reid: I would like to thank my colleague opposite, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, for her comments, particularly around ethics in sport. I think that's fundamental to the success we will experience as we go forward into the next century. Certainly I think people's perceptions of what is required and what is decent and proper in terms of sport proceedings will continue to be evaluated. So again I thank the hon. colleague.

Hon. Speaker, I want to end with a number of quotes, the first from a five-time Olympian, Charmaine Crooks: "I think any athlete that has the chance to carry the Canadian flag into the stadium right here in Vancouver will forever feel a sense of pride." "There are not that many opportunities when we as Canadian athletes get an opportunity to show our stuff to the Canadian public." That is from Lori Fung, another of our Olympians. "The potential of the games will be extraordinary.

The economic impact and the spending when the games are on, the follow-up trade and tourism that will happen years after, will leave a legacy in the hundreds of millions of dollars." That is a comment from Rick Antonson, president and CEO of Tourism Vancouver. "I think the games have the potential to bring the diverse ethnic and cultural communities in our city closer, with a feeling that we all live in a smaller world." That quote is from Mason Loh, the chairman of SUCCESS. "Cultural ties are a very essential part of developing the business relationship.

These cultural ties create an element of trust and from that spawns the business relationship. It's a very essential part of doing business with Asian countries." That quote is from Milton Wong.

The legacy of the Pacific Games. "When you bring people together for a common goal and a dream, it has a powerful impact on the community. It goes far beyond just the dream itself. I saw that happen in the Man in Motion World Tour, and the legacy has been such a powerful thing. The legacy of the Pacific Games will be very, very powerful. It will make such a difference to the city of Vancouver." That quote is from Rick Hansen.

I will close by saying that sport allows all nations to come together as one. I believe we will bond as a city and as a nation and, frankly, will have the opportunity to embrace the games, the Pacific and the future.

SAVE YOUR LIFE -- QUIT SMOKING!

F. Randall: I want to make some comments this morning with regards to tobacco and its impact on our economy and certainly on people's lives. I think most people are aware that in June 1997 the B.C. Legislature unanimously passed the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, which will enable the government or B.C. residents to take tobacco companies to court to recover health care and related costs caused by tobacco use. Our province believes that any attempt to deal with the tobacco epidemic without dealing with the tobacco industry itself simply can't be successful. That's why British Columbia is taking a three-pronged approach to the battle with the tobacco companies.

Our goal is to expose the truth about the dangers of tobacco and the behaviour of the tobacco industry in pushing this lethal addictive drug onto our children; to pursue the matter of holding the tobacco industry accountable for the first time ever for the damage it's done in targeting kids and hiding the true danger of tobacco; and also to achieve improved public health by protecting young people from tobacco addiction and by helping smokers to quit. This kind of approach has been successful in the United States and has brought that country to the verge of very significant change in how the tobacco industry does business and ultimately in how young people are protected.

Legal action is the key to this success. Legal action will force the industry to (1) admit the truth about how it portrays itself as a good corporate citizen while actively working to get young people addicted, (2) pay the future costs of prevention, cessation and treatment programs, and (3) change its behaviour and its products so the health of British Columbians is better protected.

British Columbia's ultimate goal is a public health agenda that is no longer undermined by the tobacco industry but supported by it. The British Columbia government is inviting partners across Canada to join us in going after the tobacco industry to get at the truth, achieve justice and change the industry's behaviour forever.

To change the behaviour of the tobacco industry, we must begin to (1) challenge the industry's influence in Ottawa, (2) initiate or expand provincial smoking-prevention efforts, including strong measures against the tobacco industry's marketing to children, (3) take legal action to hold the industry accountable for the damage it's done in targeting kids and in hiding the true dangers of tobacco, and (4) work with public health organizations to determine how the tobacco industry and its lethal addictive products must change so the health of Canadians is better protected.

Hon. Speaker, there are certainly a number of hazards related to smoking, and I'll just name a few of them here. Heart disease: smoking is a major cause of heart attacks. Lung cancer and emphysema: if you smoke, you're as much as 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer. Mouth cancers: smoking is the main reason people get cancer in their tongue and mouth. Throat cancer: four out of every five cases of cancer of

[ Page 8025 ]

the esophagus are due to smoking. Cataracts: the more you smoke, the greater your chance of cataracts. Stomach ulcers: smokers are more prone to peptic ulcers. Skin damage: tar from tobacco smoke turns your fingers yellow and stains your fingernails. Psoriasis: smokers are twice as likely as non-smokers to develop psoriasis. And hair loss: smoking weakens the immune system, so a lot of people can lose hair from smoking. It's surprising.

Also, scientists have identified about 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes and cigarette smoke; many of them are deadly. Every year almost 6,000 people in B.C. die from smoking.

These are some of the thousands of chemicals smokers inhale: turpentine, which is very toxic and is commonly used as a paint stripper; acetone -- the tobacco industry refuses to say how it gets into cigarettes -- which is one of the active ingredients in nail polish remover; benzopyrene, which you'll find in coal tar and cigarette smoke, is one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals in the world; propylene glycol, which the tobacco industry claims it adds to keep cheap, reconstituted tobacco from drying out, but which scientists say aids the delivery of nicotine, tobacco's addictive drug, to the brain; arsenic, a deadly poison which makes your lips burn and gives you bad breath; butane, which is highly inflammable and is one of the key components of gasoline; methoprene, a chemical used to get rid of fleas on your pets; cadmium, which causes damage to the liver, kidneys and brain, and stays in the body for years; lead -- lead poisoning stunts your growth, makes you vomit and damages your brain; ammonia, which the tobacco industry says adds flavour and scientists have discovered helps you absorb more nicotine, keeping you hooked on smoking; formaldehyde, which causes cancer and can damage your lungs, skin and digestive system, and which embalmers use to preserve bodies; benzene, which is a cancer-causing chemical used to make everything from pesticides to detergent to gasoline.

Those are just a number of the problems with tobacco. I also want to mention that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in British Columbia. As I mentioned earlier, close to 6,000 people die every year as a result of tobacco-related illness.

Hon. Speaker, I see the red light is on.

T. Nebbeling: Let me first say that I share with the member opposite many of the concerns that he has expressed in speaking on the use of tobacco and on the availability of tobacco to groups of people who we just do not want to be exposed to tobacco.

When I travel through the province, one of the most appalling things I always find is the area outside theatres where people mingle during the interval to get a quick puff of a cigarette. It's a public display. One of the things that is really a concern to me is that it is often young people that are involved in the use of tobacco in the 15 minutes they're given between movie performances. What that says to me is that when we talk about tobacco use, we should primarily focus on young people at this point.

When I go to an airport I see the same type of public display of people sitting in a little cubicle getting the last smoke into them before they have to enter a plane. It clearly shows how serious the tobacco addiction is for people. Anything that we can do in this House to stop people either from being introduced to tobacco or from getting involved with tobacco is worthy of our attention.

I have listened carefully to the member, and one of the things that actually surprises me is that the speech he made today is very much like the speech he made last year when he introduced a bill that I thought was a good bill. It was a private member's bill -- Bill M203, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act -- that would have stopped tobacco manufacturers from flavouring chewing tobacco in order to make it more tasty for users. Chewing tobacco specifically targets the young people's market. I thought it was really worthwhile to introduce that bill in the House.

The member talks a lot today about all the damage done by tobacco and how we have to get involved as members of this House to stop that. Well, it is surprising that the bill that the member introduced never came back. I would suggest, as one of the recommendations for the member to deal with the problem he is concerned with, that indeed he bring back that bill. I can guarantee that this side will support that bill. I think the time of making speeches and talking about how we're going to stop the evil consequences of tobacco . . . . Let's walk the walk, and let's get this bill back into the House.

[10:45]

The second point that the member quickly mentioned was the fact that there was a bill introduced called the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. First of all, the one problem I had with that act is that every penny this government will get in the future from tobacco companies -- if they succeed and proceed on this route -- is not going into a fund that is specifically created to deal with the problems of tobacco use. The funds will go straight into general revenue, and we do not know how much of that money will effectively be used to stop our youth from getting involved with tobacco or to assist people to get off tobacco.

We know there are mechanisms: the patch, the chewing gum, acupuncture, hypnosis. There are ways of helping people to get off tobacco use, but it's a costly exercise. This government today has not in any way, shape or form committed a dollar to assist people to get the tools that are available today to wean themselves off tobacco. I would suggest that the member opposite start focusing on that element, as well, so that the money taken from tobacco companies, if that worked in the past, does not become just profit-sharing for this government in revenue derived from the use of tobacco.

These are the two points I want to make. I am committed, like the member and like my caucus, to do anything we can do to effectively use our powers to reduce the use of tobacco and reduce the exposure of tobacco products in a manner that entices young people to start using it. If we in this House can start taking that leadership role, I think we will make a difference. That's what I ultimately hope will happen.

F. Randall: I'd like to thank the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for his comments and certainly for his support in appreciating this serious problem. He did mention the private member's bill that I put in last year with regard to chewing tobacco. The reason I did not put that in yet is that private members' bills have a tough time getting dealt with in this Legislature, and I have been endeavouring to convince the Minister of Health that it should be included in a tobacco package that is coming. I'm not sure what's happening with that. If it's not coming forward, I will be introducing it again.

The other matter raised by the member with regard to money . . . . I know that money for educational purposes about tobacco has been increased from $2 million to $5 million this year, so there has certainly been a substantial increase in money available for education. I think a lot of members have seen the ads that are on TV, etc., and the province is certainly doing an excellent job with those ads in making people aware of the dangers of tobacco. I know that when I went to school,

[ Page 8026 ]

we really had no education with regard to the use of tobacco. The young people today are certainly receiving lots of information about tobacco and its dangers and how addictive it is.

I feel strongly about the issue. I have, in effect, been out on a sting operation with two 14-year-olds to see if we could buy tobacco, and I can tell you that there was no problem in buying it with 14-year-olds, which was interesting. Arising out of that, there was a manager of a Shoppers Drug Mart who made the comment that they keep tobacco only as a convenience to the customers and that there's no money in tobacco. It's interesting that Shoppers Drug Mart is owned by Imasco, which is Imperial Tobacco -- and they say there's no money handling tobacco in their drugstores.

The other thing I want to mention briefly is the matter of the lobbyist who was working for the tobacco industry, a Mr. Robert Parker. He has made the statement that with the comments about all the costs of health care related to smoking, the cost of smoking to our society is not high when you consider that smokers die early and therefore can't collect pensions. This is the rationalization of the tobacco industry.

HAVE A HEART

S. Hawkins: Today I want to recognize and pay tribute to someone who I believe epitomizes the spirit of community service. He's a special person from my community, and his name is Harold Hawkins.

I can assure you that I'm not related to him. I wish I could take some credit for that, but unfortunately I can't. I can say, however, that we do have a couple of things in common. Harold lived in Alberta and Saskatchewan before moving to Kelowna, and he has a very strong interest in helping people with heart disease. On April 3, Harold Hawkins started a five-month, 4,000-kilometre journey that he often dreamed of doing and that he proudly calls his Wagon Trek for Heart.

Harold's mission is to drive his horse-drawn covered wagon across the three western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan in an effort to raise awareness and funds for cardiac research. Wagon Trek for Heart began in Victoria on April 3, and it was officially launched on April 6 in front of St. Paul's Hospital by Harold's original cardiologist, Dr. Dodek. A couple of weekends ago, I had the pleasure of joining Harold on a wagon ride from Winfield through to Oyama.

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit with Harold on his Wagon Trek for Heart. I learned that Harold has a very personal interest in helping heart patients. Harold is 64 years old, and he's been living with heart disease for 28 years. He had his first heart attack when he was only 36 years old. He has twice survived heart surgery: he had a double bypass in 1977 at St. Paul's Hospital, in Vancouver, and ten years later he had a quadruple bypass. His experience with heart disease gave him an inside view of the progress made in new equipment and procedures, and Harold feels that he's a living example of the benefits of cardiac research.

He felt the need to give back to those who helped him, but he wanted to do that in his own personal way that would promote the benefits of cardiac research and also raise awareness of heart disease. I guess it only seemed natural for Harold to use horses for his mission because he's been around animals all his life: he was raised on a ranch; he had a very accomplished career in rodeo; he won first prize in the chuckwagon races in the Calgary Stampede; and he is, apparently, a cowboy known worldwide.

His Wagon Trek for Heart has been a labour of love. He personally built the covered wagon and trained the pair of horses that pull him in it. He's worked hard to raise support from sponsors for food for his horses, and he's lined up barn dances and fundraising events across the three western provinces for his heart research fund. Harold is doing all of this on a shoestring budget because he wants all of the money to go to his chosen charity. He tells me that he sleeps in his wagon most nights.

His wife Carolyn and his good friend Walter Woolridge have accompanied him on parts of his journey. I think it's important to recognize the significant and extraordinary contributions that ordinary citizens make on behalf of their community and on behalf of all of us. I believe that Harold Hawkins is one of those special people who decided that he wanted to make a real difference for people with heart disease in his community and then actually put his plan in action. He apparently has been dreaming about doing this since his first heart attack and has spent a lot of work putting it all into play.

I understand that he has written to the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to the Premier here, to join him on a wagon ride. I know that several of the MLAs have taken him up on it. In fact, I understand that the MLA for Okanagan-Boundary has been on the wagon ride with Harold, and I took the opportunity. I'm sure he's written to some of the others, and I hope they will take the opportunity to ride with him.

He tells some very interesting stories about his cowboy days and about how he was able to continue with his chosen path of working with horses because he was able to get his surgery and his cardiac treatment.

Well, I'm really proud of Harold for his commitment to help people with heart disease. I'm very, very grateful for people like him. I think our communities are a better place because of people like him. With that, I'll receive comments from the member from the other side.

G. Bowbrick: I thank the member for Okanagan West for her comments. It sounds like Harold Hawkins truly is a credit to the people in his community -- to all of us, really -- and he's made a substantial contribution to a cause he believes very dearly in. It raises in my mind the broader issue of service to people -- service to people in need, in particular -- and service to our communities.

In my community of New Westminster, there are also people who contribute greatly to our community and who I have a great admiration for. We have service in so many sectors. We have, as I mentioned, service to people in need. In my community we have New Westminster Family Place, which is an organization that devotes itself to helping young mothers, in particular -- single mothers who are low-income and who often do not get much of a chance to get out and have much support in the community. They provide that kind of support, and I, as a member of a community, am very proud of the work they do.

Century House is a seniors' community house that provides recreation and a social life for seniors. It provides public education on the use of pharmaceuticals, personal safety and issues of that sort.

Also, along the lines of service to people in need, we've just acquired funding for a transition house for women in need -- for women who have been battered, and their children. While I was involved at the tail end of that process, the only reason it's happening is because of people in my community who worked long and hard to make the case that it was a service that was needed and that they were willing to be a part of that. We also have in my community, fortunately, many people who are prepared to provide service to young people. They volunteer their time for two sports in particular that I'd like to highlight. We have a swim club, the Hyack

[ Page 8027 ]

Swim Club, in New Westminster. Lacrosse is a very big sport in New Westminster. These types of volunteer activities on the part of adults helping our young people are fundamental to the development of young people. It takes a great deal of time and energy, and they have to be commended for that.

On the subject of young people, we also have service by young people in my community. I'm very proud of the fact that at New Westminster Secondary School, we have students who are very, very active in a number of causes. Just recently there was the 30-hour famine which was put on by students to raise the issue of famine relief and to raise money for that cause. I think it's extraordinary that young people are willing to do that. It certainly goes against the grain of those -- and the media in particular -- who have almost nothing but negative things to say about young people.

We also have people in our community who are committed to a broader sense of civic duty. We have nine residents' associations. All of those people do essentially what politicians do: they take flak because they believe in their community. Unlike us, they don't get paid for it.

I wanted to draw some attention to the issue of volunteerism and service in my community, but I think it's very much in keeping with the same theme that the member opposite raised, which is certainly . . . . I have to acknowledge the contribution that Harold Hawkins has made. It's an important issue, and I'm pleased that the member has raised it today. I think it's an important issue that a constituent of hers, I believe, has raised.

[11:00]

S. Hawkins: I certainly agree with what the member opposite has raised, in that people in all of our communities do good things and provide community service. In particular, I just want to mention that while I was on the wagon trek with Harold, we rode for about an hour and discussed some of the hardships that people with heart disease face today, especially on waiting lists in our province. The reason he went on this wagon trek is because he has friends and people he knows who are facing long, arduous waits on the waiting lists.

Certainly we saw a report last week that indicated a very sad and disturbing picture for patients in the province on wait-lists. Harold felt that he had to do something about it, because he felt that in the last few years it has actually become worse. Certainly the report we saw released last week showed that the median wait for cardiac surgeries has more than doubled since 1991. Many, many patients are forced to wait longer than six months for cardiac surgery. In fact, the number of patients waiting more than six months has tripled.

I guess what the report indicated to me is that the wait-list for cardiac surgery is the worst it has ever been.

When I talk to people like Harold, who knows people that have died waiting and people that are stressed waiting . . . . He's very grateful for the opportunity to have had his surgery, ten and 20 years ago, within a fairly reasonable amount of time. He's hoping that his contribution and his Wagon Trek for Heart will result in some good things and in patients getting the treatment they need when they need it. Harold hopes he can help others with his Wagon Trek for Heart. I fully support his efforts, and I encourage those MLAs who do get the opportunity to ride with him to take advantage of it.

He's a very colourful, delightful and very intelligent man. He is absolutely talented with a horse and wagon. We had a lot of traffic going by us on the highway, and it's just amazing how competent he is in his wagon. A few times I was a little frightened that the horses might actually run off the road into the lake, but he kept it on the straight and narrow. He hopes to complete his journey by Labour Day, and I want to wish him happy trails and a very safe, successful journey. I'm sure all the members in the House wish him the same.

The Speaker: That concludes private members' statements for today. I call on the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply B; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm pleased to rise to begin the debate on the estimates of my ministry, Small Business, Tourism and Culture. It's a very important ministry in government these days, with lots of things happening. First of all, I'd like to introduce my staff. I have with me on my left Jay Chambers, who is the general manager of the liquor distribution branch of British Columbia, and Philip Halkett, the deputy minister responsible for this area.

I hope that we can deal this morning with the liquor distribution branch and questions around that and the estimates. I have some remarks I'd like to address just to that. But before I do -- and I see my hon. colleague the Liberal critic there, across from me -- I want to just take about two minutes, if I might . . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. Sorry to interrupt you, but I think it would be appropriate if you moved the vote first and then made your comments afterwards, so that we can begin the committee.

Hon. I. Waddell: Vote 57 -- resolved that a sum not exceeding $373,000 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, minister's office.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Well, I just didn't want the vote going through. I'll yield to the minister, who'd like to make an opening comment, hon. Chair.

On vote 57: the minister's office, $373,000.

Hon. I. Waddell: I just wanted to say something -- since we are in the big House here and we are available to people who are watching all across the province, as well as in this House . . . . I just want to take two minutes to talk about a part that we will no doubt come to later on in these estimates, and that is sport fishing and the tourism industry.

We have a crisis today in the sport fishing industry as a result of the decision by the federal minister to restrict coho salmon fishing. Many of our tourists come up from the United

[ Page 8028 ]

States to fish for coho. I think we all agree that we have to conserve the coho species and that conservation comes first. We have to protect the fish, because when we protect the fish, there'll be lots of fishing and jobs in the future. We hope the Alaskans will feel the same way.

I want to tell the House and my colleagues opposite that I've instructed Tourism Vancouver to meet on Monday with the sport fisheries industry. They'll meet in Vancouver with the key stakeholders in sport fishing. I believe the Canadian Tourism Commission will also be part of that meeting. This is very positive news, because this is the beginning of a strategy which I think we all share -- I don't think this is a partisan matter -- to tell tourists coming to British Columbia that B.C. is still open for fishing. Let me repeat that -- B.C. is still open for fishing. There are species other than coho: spring salmon, sockeye -- a whole slew of species that people can fish for.

Tourism B.C. had allocated $50,000 to market the sport fishery this year. I've asked them to look at increasing that amount. I'm encouraged that the Canadian Tourism Commission -- because really it's a B.C. question, but it has national implications -- appears to be interested in putting in some money as well. So we have to market the message. Let me repeat the message again for a third time: we still fish in B.C. There's still sport fishing in British Columbia, and Americans and other people -- Europeans -- can still come here and fish. We've got a problem with the coho species.

We're responsible conservationists -- as are many tourists, you know. We have a much more sophisticated world, and tourists who come to British Columbia understand, too, that conservation and the environment are very important. Indeed, that's what B.C. is famous for.

I just want to say strongly today that B.C. is indeed open for sport fishing. We're going to have to make some adjustments. It might cost some money; we're going to have to do more marketing. We want the federal government to help us with this. We want to work together cooperatively, and we want to get that message out.

Having said that, I'd like to now proceed to deal with the estimates generally. I don't know if my friend wants to reply to that. I wouldn't mind yielding the floor to him to reply.

The Chair: The member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, and through you to the minister and to the British Columbians that are watching today and will watch later today.

First of all, I'm very, very encouraged by the minister's comments. I think that what all British Columbians want from their elected officials, no matter if they're from the government side or the official opposition side, on urgent issues that are so important to all of British Columbia is that all elected officials work together to solve the problem and not use it for political advantage either within the province or within our country.

I was encouraged this morning by the early press coverage. Both the federal and the provincial solutions and assessments of this issue apparently mirror each other, which is also a sign of encouragement. I believe the minister made a comment that Tourism Vancouver would be meeting on this issue; I believe it will be Tourism B.C., as our provincial marketing organization.

Sport fishing is open for business in British Columbia today, tomorrow, for the rest of the year and for all of the years to come. There are lots of fish off the coast of B.C. for the people in Alberta, British Columbia, Washington, Idaho and all over the United States to come to British Columbia and catch. We have a great tourism industry here, and we should be supportive.

The official opposition is fully supportive of Tourism B.C. and the sport fishing industry of British Columbia. In that regard, I think it would be very important that both the minister and the official opposition critic forgo their estimates on Monday to attend those meetings in Victoria, to show that this Legislature can work together in a non-partisan way to solve problems for British Columbians -- to solve problems for British Columbia business operators and tourism operators.

I would ask that the minister talk with his House Leader, and I will talk with my House Leader, so that we can show British Columbians on Monday that we will work together in a non-partisan way to ensure that everyone knows that sport fishing is open in British Columbia.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for his remarks. That's exactly what I was hoping he would say. I said Tourism Vancouver; it's Tourism B.C. He said the meeting is in Victoria; it's in Vancouver. It's a good suggestion, and I'll look into it. We can show some solidarity and non-partisanship here. I think we both agree to that, and I'll see what I can do apropos of attending that meeting on Monday.

I'd now like to deal with the liquor distribution branch. I have a few remarks to make on that before we begin. I'm pleased to report that the liquor distribution branch achieved its revenue target for fiscal 1997-98, with a net income of $606 million -- subject to the completion of a year-end audit. This is a 3.2 percent increase over last year. That was $606 million: the fiscal target. Sales during the past fiscal year were approximately $1.6 billion, up 3.5 percent over 1996-97.

The liquor stores and the other sales associated with liquor stores -- the sale of spirits in British Columbia -- were $1.6 billion in total. This is an excellent performance given that operating expenses increased by slightly over 1 percent, and year-end results showed increased sales revenue in the major categories of spirits, beer and wine.

[11:15]

To better serve consumers, many liquor store renovation and replacement projects were completed last year, as the liquor distribution branch strove to provide the most appropriate shopping environment in each market. A new store was opened in Burnaby's Brentwood Mall. This is a little bit historic, because the Brentwood Mall was the site of Canada's first self-service liquor store. Responses to the first-ever customer service survey of licensees, including restaurant, club and cabaret owners, were very positive.

The liquor distribution branch actually surveyed some of the people that it's supposed to serve and does serve, especially restaurant, club and cabaret owners -- in other words, the people that go there to buy liquor to sell to their patrons. This was very positive. The information from the survey will allow the LDB to better meet the needs of this significant market.

Basically, some of the survey results were that these people were happy with the service from the staff in the stores, they were pleased with the assortments that were available, and they were pleased about the timeliness of the LDB putting the orders together. That's really important. I mean, that's one of the basic functions of the LDB, and that seems to be doing very well. In other words, when a restaurant owner needs to get wines and spirits, he can file an order and get it on time and get good treatment. We seem to have a system that's working.

[ Page 8029 ]

I think that's positive, and I think we should keep that in mind when we're thinking about changes or about criticisms and so on. The basic principle is: is the vehicle working? You know, is the cart working? It seems to be.

The vision of the liquor distribution branch is to be consistently regarded as a superior retailer through its excellent product services and relationships with customers and stakeholders. This is the biggest retailer in the province. The LDB business strategies are based on the four pillars of customer service, business effectiveness, workplace cooperation and social responsibility. Adherence to these principles will ensure the success of the branch's major business initiatives for the coming year, such as recycling wine and spirit bottles and meeting the challenge of the year 2000.

In the coming year, I have every confidence that the liquor distribution branch will continue to offer the best service to the public in a socially responsible manner, while contributing significantly to provincial revenues. With those opening remarks, my officials and I will be available to answer any questions that members may have with respect to this branch.

R. Thorpe: I'd just like to make a few brief comments. First of all, there's no doubt that the LDB generated $606 million or $608 million -- whatever it is. And yes, part of that is due to the very good organization they have. But we must also remember that British Columbians pay the highest markup for beverage alcohol in North America. Yes, the service and the organization are excellent; it is run in a very professional manner. But we must remember that British Columbians are taxed very heavily for beverage alcohol, and we cannot forget that.

My first question, hon. Chair. At a May 12 function, the minister made the comment that he and his staff were committed to cutting red tape for brewers in British Columbia. Could the minister be specific on what red tape they are going to cut for the brewers?

Hon. I. Waddell: With respect to the general remarks that my friend made about the high markups and the high taxes, yes -- but we do have the best education system and the best health care system in the country, and we're working hard to finance that. That's where part of this money is going.

With respect to the red tape, we are in discussions with the brewers to see what specific concerns they have with forms and with dealing with the liquor distribution branch. This is part of the government's overall policy of our task force on red tape -- of which I am a member. Basically, the philosophy, as I say to my friend, is to try and get the stakeholders to tell us what the forms are, what the better ways are that they think they could deal with government. Is it electronic filing? Is it eliminating forms and so on? We think the red tape's pretty good -- pretty good, meaning not a lot of red tape.

My friend and I share this: we don't like red tape. I don't like red tape, and I'm committed, as is the government, to cutting it down. That's why we have a task force. So the short answer to the question is: we're working with the brewers to accept any recommendations they have so that we can serve them more efficiently.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On behalf of the Minister of Women's Equality, the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, I have the pleasure of introducing 48 grade 5 students from A.H.P. Matthew Elementary School, who are in the gallery with adults and are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Blaine. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: In this estimates process I want to try to keep it at a higher level, but the minister will appreciate that if we could deal with the LDB issues without making reference to the highest taxation, the best health care and the best education . . . . I don't want to get down into that debate -- how bad health care and education are in British Columbia today. I'd like to stay with the estimates of the LDB.

With respect to the commitment that the minister made on May 12 at a brewers' function, that was a statement in generality as opposed to a statement related to specific issues.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, it was a statement in generality. I didn't give a figure. I noticed that the hon. member . . . . If he wants to present a figure about how much red tape would be reduced, I noticed that in the Cariboo Observer on April 26 there was an interview with the hon. member and one of his colleagues. He said: "There's one thing a Liberal government would do: cut red tape by 33 percent." And he was asked how they came up with 33 percent. The answer was: " 'I don't know.

How did we come up with that number, John?' '' -- this is the member's colleague -- "asks Thorpe, who is sitting at Wilson's desk. 'We made an educated guess,' says Wilson, who is sitting on the visitor's chair holding a cup of coffee."

The Chair: Minister, please don't refer to members' names, even indirectly, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm just quoting the article. All right, I won't.

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not introducing a set figure, because I don't like picking figures out of the air. It appears to me that's what's been done in this instance. So it's a general statement.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, the minister mentioned a surname which is that of the member of Powell River-Sunshine Coast. If the minister would make it clear that he was not referring to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in his remarks.

Hon. I. Waddell: I certainly would make it clear. The name in the

article is with reference to another Wilson who is also a member of this House, a member of the Liberal Party. I'm not sure what his riding is, but it certainly wasn't the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

R. Thorpe: Well, you know, I said in my opening remarks I wanted to keep it up at the highest level, but the minister keeps wanting to go down, and I can't understand why.

You know, there's one thing about this government. I believe it was on March 30 -- not that long ago -- in the budget speech . . . . Someone sitting over there made a statement about a commitment to cut red tape. Then, 15 days later, 1,400 pages of WCB regulations: more red tape. Then we had Bill 14 introduced: 57 pages, 200 sections of more red tape.

Yes, the official opposition is committed to cutting red tape, and we will cut red tape by one-third in the first three years, when we form the next government of British Columbia. The way we're going to do it is by working with stakeholders on a daily basis, to understand their issues and

[ Page 8030 ]

understand their solutions. This official opposition is so committed to cutting red tape that when the government announced their committee to cut red tape -- of which the minister is a member, and I believe the Minister of Finance is also -- they wrote and said: "That's a good idea. On a non-partisan basis, we're committed to doing that. We would like to join your committee." What does this government do? We don't hear back. Once again we can only conclude that they want it to be a partisan issue, as opposed to a non-partisan issue.

Let us put the concerns of British Columbians -- who have their highest unemployment rates in recent history and the highest youth unemployment west of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick . . . .

We should be a very successful province. The students who are visiting us today should have hope and a vision that they can aspire to the same things that we had the opportunities to aspire to. And they will, if we work on certain issues on a non-partisan basis. I would ask this minister that we approach this without trying to clip newspaper articles -- because we can all do that if we want. But if we want to stay constructive and solve some of the problems that British Columbians are facing today, then that's what we can choose to do.

With respect to the recent appointment of this minister and the change in cabinet responsibilities, I am wondering if the minister can enlighten me and perhaps other members who are sitting in this House right now: what is his role and responsibility with respect to liquor policy in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: I understand what the member said, and I listened . . . . Thirty-three percent -- I point out . . . . "How did we come up with the number, John?" Well, it was an educated guess.

Let's get specific. Let's talk about specific policies and I'll answer specific questions. The question was about the role of the minister, me, and the implication of who's responsible for what in the government with regard to liquor policy. I'm responsible for the liquor distribution branch and the practices and policies coming out of that.

R. Thorpe: An educated guess with respect to some comments the minister made earlier is always -- where I come from -- better than an non-educated guess.

With respect to the liquor policy that this minister is responsible for, not too long ago -- I think it was a year and a half and $100,000 ago -- this government had what I think they referred as the Enemark report. Could this minister tell us which of the five or six key items in that report his office will be dealing with?

[11:30]

Hon. I. Waddell: That is a specific question. Tex Enemark gave a report to the government, and he recommended some changes in liquor policy. The recommendations relative to the LDB were: accept payment by credit cards in government liquor stores and open a number of government liquor stores on Sundays and statutory holidays. He also recommended, relative to the LCLB, regulating and licensing U-brews and U-vins, licensing billiard halls, allowing entertainment and games and licensing restaurants. We are still looking at the Enemark report.

The problem in liquor policy is that if you change one thing, it's like a house of cards: you've got all sorts of other stakeholders, many of whom have invested a lot of money, and you have to be very careful with these changes. The answer to the member's questions: there are the basics of the Enemark report; we're looking at it, and we'll respond to it in the near future.

R. Thorpe: Am I to interpret that the two ministries are working hand in hand on this? Or is your responsibility just to look at certain items and the Attorney General's ministry, which is responsible for the Liquor Licensing and Control Act, looks at certain things? Are you working at it together, in a team spirit?

Hon. I. Waddell: The Attorney General is responsible for the liquor control and licensing branch, and that would be the area that I mentioned: the U-brews and the U-vins, the billiard halls, entertainment, games, licensed restaurants, and so on. The area that the LDB would be interested in includes credit cards and openings.

The answer to your question is that we are working cooperatively together -- that's the whole point of the way we're working on this. I'm coming from a Tourism and Small Business point of view, and my friend the Attorney General does a great job in looking after licensing and is one of the senior ministers in the government. So we're working together on this.

R. Thorpe: So here we are -- 16 or 17 months and $100,000 later. All kinds of questions remain unanswered, and small business operators . . . . I can remember February 26. I believe it was in Kelowna: "Advocate for small business -- and I hope it's not downhill from here." I remember that statement.

I guess people want to know yes or no and not a whole bunch of maybes, because they know that when it's maybe -- especially with this government -- it's going to cost them more money, because we're going to have more studies. So with respect to the two issues that this minister is responsible for, or at least that he's said he's responsible for -- credit cards and Sunday openings -- when can British Columbians, when can small business operators in British Columbia, expect answers on these subjects?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the study is not $100,000; it's $25,000. With respect to going downhill, I was making reference to my skiing -- which is all downhill, I hope -- and hopefully everything else will be easy.

With reference to the small business aspect of this, let me put this to the hon. member: here's the problem. You say that you want liquor stores open on Sunday. You've got a whole group of beer and wine store owners who say that they do 25 to 35 percent of their business on Sunday, so they're not going to be particularly happy if we open liquor stores on Sunday. But you know that as the overall policy, you should, because of the consumers, because of the public. Should you only open a few on a trial basis? These are the kinds of issues that you have to consider from a small business point of view.

Does the hon. member want to put the beer and wine stores out of business? I don't. But those are the considerations that you have to look at.

R. Thorpe: I believe, hon. chair, that the minister misspoke. I never said once that stores should be open Sundays, as the minister said. I hope that my remarks are clearly, clearly recorded in Hansard .

It looks like these estimates could be downhill. I'm patient, and I'm going to try to keep it at a higher level here,

[ Page 8031 ]

but there is a limit to everyone's patience. I guess what we're saying . . . . With all due respect to the minister, I am very, very conversant with several aspects of the industry, and I've forgotten about more LRS stores than he's visited in British Columbia. I understand that business very much. I am a proud supporter of the neighbourhood pub associations and the LRSs and the hotel association in British Columbia, which have the courage to take their capital and put it on the line. So let's not make light of the investment that those folks have made in British Columbia to create private sector jobs.

They want less government. They want some leadership from this government. So why isn't this government showing courage and calling the interested parties together and having open round-table discussions in a non-partisan way, if you will? If he's concerned about the political liability of the issue, he should say it. But let's bring the people whose investments are at stake, whose family livelihoods are at stake, whose employees are at stake. Let's get those issues on the table. Let's work together in a round-table discussion, in an open forum, so we can find common ground instead of having people in conflict with each other all the time, as this government apparently wants.

Let us be very, very clear about who is committed to the entire beverage alcohol retailing industry in British Columbia. It is the official opposition in this House. I would like some real answers from this minister on when we're going to deal with some of these issues. In last year's estimates, it was said: " . . . on Sunday openings . . . . " Perhaps the minister, with his new responsibility, didn't have the opportunity to read Hansard and check back.

A consultation process would take place with the very capable executive group from the LDB, and working together with industry, they would attempt to find solutions. People understand that the marketplace changes. People out there in the real world don't continue to hold the smokestack approaches of this government. They understand change. They understand about serving the customer. But they want, as I thought the minister alluded to earlier, some protection, some understanding and some security about their families' investments.

So let us have some clear answers today on how this process is going to move forward, who's going to be consulted in this process and when this meaningful consultative process is going to begin.

Hon. I. Waddell: I've only had the job for -- what? -- a couple of months. I am trying to consult and be open with all the players in this industry. It is a multifaceted industry. I'm sure the hon. member is aware that there are 222 government liquor stores, two warehouse distribution facilities and 3,300 staff in the LDB, mainly in government liquor stores. They have a view on things. The unionized employees and employees of those stores have a view.

We also have a number of beer and wine stores as part of our industry, which operate separately and have their own views. We have hotels and restaurants, and we have stores that sell wines exclusively. So we have a number of players, and it's sometimes a delicate balance. I believe that a good minister consults all the people and listens and is aware that people have made investments and have moved because of certain policies that have been laid out. So you don't go in there like a bull in a china shop. You listen to everyone, and that's what I'm doing.

R. Thorpe: I don't know where the minister got the notion about a bull in a china shop. But these issues have been out there for some time. If the minister is having a hard time learning his new job, which he's had for only a couple of months, perhaps he could rely on the expertise on his left and on his right. Perhaps he could rely on some of the expertise that lies in this industry, in all of the sectors. In my earlier life, I have called upon many of the 222 liquor stores in British Columbia and know many of the employees personally. I know where the coffee rooms are, where the back rooms are and where the empty beer cans are stored.

So let us be serious here. One of the ways the minister could get up to speed really quickly would be to call a round table -- a non-partisan, open forum meeting -- to see what everyone has in common. Why do we have to dwell on people's differences? I think everyone aspires to be successful, and I think that's what the minister should try to encourage. What I'd like to have is an answer to my specific question about how and when a meaningful consultation process is going to start on the two items that are specifically under his jurisdiction with respect to the Enemark report.

Hon. I. Waddell: We are consulting. With respect to the hon. member's suggestion of a round-table open forum, I will consider that.

R. Thorpe: When can we expect some form of resolution to these two issues that fall under the minister's authority?

Hon. I. Waddell: We're working on the issues. I would hope that by the fall we can resolve some of the questions with respect to credit cards and Sunday openings. As I said, sometimes you have different interests playing the . . . . I share the hon. member's view that we should try and get them to work together and come up with solutions that everybody feels comfortable with. That's what we're trying to do.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the potential of Sunday openings, can the minister advise this House on what kinds of capital expenditures have taken place during the past year and are anticipated to take place this year in an effort to equip their stores to provide cold beer and wine?

Hon. I. Waddell: There have been no expenditures in the last year to equip stores with cold beer and wine.

R. Thorpe: I notice the minister said there were none in the last year. I would like clarification about the current budget year, being 1998-99. At this point in time, are there any dollars in the capital budget, any pending presentations to Treasury Board or non-approved budget items that would be contemplating such capital additions?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are none.

R. Thorpe: I just thought of something. I wouldn't want to catch myself on a technicality either. When I'm asking the question about capital, I'm also asking about leasehold improvements or leasehold expense items. None of those are taking place with respect to the areas I just canvassed. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.

[11:45]

R. Thorpe: As we know, this government has embarked upon the expansion of gaming in the province. I've had it expressed to me that there are some concerns with respect to the availability of beverage alcohol in those expanded gaming

[ Page 8032 ]

facilities. Will this minister commit today that before the expansion of beverage alcohol in those areas takes place, he will have timely, meaningful consultation with the small business operators that would be affected in that trading area?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's really an item that falls under the liquor control and licensing branch. It's a question that should have been put to my colleague the Attorney General, who is responsible for that.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise the House if there has been any recent change in any policy in his area of responsibility with respect to the granting of licences to special wine sales stores?

Hon. I. Waddell: There has been no change in policy.

R. Thorpe: Since there's been no change in policy, has there been what I would deem a new

interpretation or a fresh look at guidelines with respect to such activities?

Hon. I. Waddell: We have guidelines for the issue of licences under my control. It's under the sale of VQA wines. Those are the kind of high-grade, if you like, good -- very good -- wines. B.C. wines are all good, but these, called VQA, are the very good ones. The minister can grant a licence under

section 18(5) of the Liquor Distribution Act: " . . . may appoint a person as agent" to sell VQA wines. We have guidelines. I've recently appointed a person to sell here in a store in the Victoria area, and I believe I followed the present guidelines in so doing.

R. Thorpe: Before the minister answers this next question, perhaps he would want to consult with his staff. I'm talking specifically about the 1.5 kilometre guideline. Has this minister taken a new, fresh look at the

interpretation of the 1.5 kilometre past practice?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a number of criteria in appointing a person to sell VQA wines. Remember, we're talking about selling VQA wines. These are high-quality B.C. wines -- not other B.C. wines, not foreign wines, not spirits. We're talking of a very narrow area.

The 1.5 kilometres. Usually you don't grant an appointment to sell if it's within 1.5 kilometres of another seller. Now, there have been some exceptions to this in different circumstances. I recently exercised my discretion and gave a Victoria store -- very close to here -- the ability to sell VQA wines. I weighed all the considerations, including the fact that the store was in a tourist-oriented area. There are 3.5 million tourists going by this particular store. I'm just trying to get the location of the store. It's on Broughton Street. The store was restricted to VQA wines.

There were to be VQA wines brought in from up Island to help the small producers here, to encourage them and to have this kind of synergy between them. There were letters of community support from the city of Victoria, the Victoria chamber of commerce, two cold-beer-and-wine stores and a number of B.C. wineries. The area is unique. There's a liquor store nearby, but it is downstairs in the basement of the Eaton Centre.

Looking at all these considerations and considering the fact that I thought this was good for small business and tourism and that it was substantially within the guidelines . . . . The only exception to the six guidelines being the 1.5 kilometres, I exercised my discretion under the policy to grant the licence. I think it was a good decision, because it's a decision in favour of tourism and of small business. That, I believe, is my role, and this was a particularly good case.

Had it not had the community support, had it not featured the connections with the wineries, had it not been a unique location, perhaps I would not have done it. But it seemed to me that here was an opportunity to showcase B.C. wines, to expose things to tourists and to help tourists. I believe that's a good decision.

R. Thorpe: I don't believe I was ever questioning the minister's decision. I asked for an

interpretation of whether there had been a fresh look at guidelines. Let me assure the minister that some of my own constituents in this city were tied up in government red tape on the 1.5 kilometre issue for a long time. In fact, they said: "We surrender; we've had enough." And they went away. That's why I asked the question about whether there's a fresh look.

I'm not questioning the support for selling British Columbia VQA wines. I think the minister may be aware of my personal background. I have the privilege of having a number -- a very strong number -- of British Columbia wineries, and a new one will open this afternoon at a quarter after five in Naramata. I happen to be the past president of the Okanagan Wine Festival, which supports and features VQA wines. So I'm a strong, strong supporter of the British Columbia grape and wine industry. But I wanted to have some clarification of whether the government is taking a fresh look at this

interpretation. If the minister could just give a short answer to that.

The other area I'd like addressed is with respect to these licences. It was my understanding -- and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong or updated on the current status -- that this was one of -- I can't remember if it was 12 or 13 -- the licences assigned to the B.C. Wine Institute a couple of years ago to be used to help develop the British Columbia wine industry. I'd like just a quick answer on the fresh look or fresh approach and whether this is in fact one of the licences that falls under the scope of the B.C. Wine Institute.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to the second part of the question is yes. One of these licensees is the Wine Institute. With respect to the first part of the question about the fresh look, the member can call it what he likes. I follow the policy that's laid down there. And I look at cases on an individual basis.

R. Thorpe: I just finished canvassing this issue for now. So would the person or the individual or the business -- who, by the way, has been a reasonably strong supporter of British Columbia wines over the years; I think I met the individual at the Okanagan Wine Festival -- to the best of the minister's knowledge or on the advice of staff, have to enter into a business relationship with the B.C. Wine Institute? Would that business relationship then govern the operation of that store?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, that's correct. I'm approving a licence for the Wine Institute.

R. Thorpe: So in the

interpretation of the minister, it's a B.C. Wine Institute licence. Will the applicant now have to have a formal, contractual, operating relationship with the B.C. Wine Institute?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct.

P. Reitsma: A couple of opening comments to the minister. I want to congratulate him on his appointment, of course. I

[ Page 8033 ]

too am very supportive of the minister's endeavours when it comes to the fish crisis. I come from an area -- Parksville-Qualicum and Port Alberni -- where fishing, guiding and the whole industry, both recreational and commercial, is extremely important. I do lend my support to the minister, as well, in terms of the absolute necessity for promoting and marketing the fact that there are indeed lots of fish around. Many operations, very much mom-and-pop operations, are ready and willing and able to welcome people and say to people from all over the world: "How can we help you? Come to visit us.

Have a good time with us, and yes, indeed, there are fish." So I do support the minister's endeavours, because this is a crisis, and this is very much a non-partisan issue that has to be resolved. Everybody benefits from that.

I had some questions about two ministries, the Attorney General's ministry and your ministry, involving the issuing and the approving of licences. My colleague, of course, has canvassed that already. Maybe the minister would repeat that. Is there any possible way that everything when it comes to licensing, issuing and approving . . . ? Can that not be done under one ministry only, rather than two ministries? Applicants are going from one ministry to the other, although I do understand that there is some cooperation. Has the government looked into encompassing it under one ministry only?

Hon. I. Waddell: It could be done under one ministry, I suppose, but one has to look at the law with respect to the enforcement mechanisms that are already in place. That's under the Attorney General. My responsibility is basically for stores. That's why this licence came up -- a store was doing VQA.

[12:00]

P. Reitsma: I would like to canvass for a couple of minutes . . . . It's related to concerns expressed to me, just the other week actually, by some eight pub owners in the Nanaimo area. When the minister talks about the huge amount of revenues and sales and indeed profits that derive from liquor . . . . When I talk to many of the small businesses, of which I am one, and even when I talk to consumers . . . . It's no wonder that policies and rules and regulations and red tape almost drive people to drink. I think that's probably one of the reasons it has gone up. I say that tongue in cheek, of course.

I know that some of the pub owners in my area -- no doubt it extends to all of the province -- are extremely concerned about their falling profit share, if you like, or their cost as it relates to, say, a dozen beer or a litre and a half of domestic wine.

To give an example: for a dozen regular-priced bottles, the gross price -- net to the consumer, actually -- in Canada is $15.60 on the average. In B.C. it's $16.15, and then you deduct $1.20 for deposit. So net to the consumer, the average price in Canada is $14.40, and in British Columbia it's $14.95. The provincial taxes are much more than the cost of a dozen beer to the brewer. The net cost to the brewer in B.C. is $5.95, the federal taxes are $2.03, and the provincial taxes are $6.97. That's the information that's been provided to me.

In percentages, the provincial taxes are 46 percent, federal taxes are 14 percent, and net to the brewer is 40 percent. In Canada, instead of 46 percent provincial tax, it's 37 percent. The federal tax of 14 percent, of course, applies across the board. Net to the brewer in Canada is 45 percent, rather than the 40 percent in B.C.

The share of the retail revenue from 1989 to 1997 . . . . In 1989 the brewer got 44 percent, the province got 41.5 percent and the federal government -- though taxation, of course -- got 14.5 percent. In 1997 that came down for the brewer from 44 to 40 percent -- 10 percent down. The provincial government went up from 41.5 percent to 46 percent, according to the information given to me by the Brewers Association -- that's up 10 percent -- and the federal amount stayed the same.

I would like the comments of the minister on what's gone to the brewers, which has declined, and particularly the taxation, which has gone up. I might tell the minister that it is extremely hard for the hospitality industry, given the fact that other happenings such as the ban on smoking, etc., have really had a devastating effect. I'm not arguing for or against smoking, although I think there should be some designated areas, for that matter. But particularly the ban on smoking in public places has had a devastating effect, as well as the increased taxation and the lesser amount to the brewers.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the hon. member for his question. He put a lot of figures there, and I want to have a look at them. I'll give him a more detailed response, perhaps, when I have a look at them.

I tried to get some figures myself to judge how we compare with other provinces. You mentioned our prices, and I note that if you buy 12 bottles of Labatt's -- I think it's 12 bottles here -- it's $14.95 -- not that I ever go and buy that. Occasionally.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: No, I pay for it, thanks. That's higher than in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but I tried to track some of the figures. I noticed that if you drank some Smirnoff's red label, it's actually more expensive in Alberta than here. The same with Bacardi rum. If you're that kind of drinker, if you like that product, it's more expensive in Alberta. If you like that same Labatt's Blue by the can -- say you bought six cans -- it would be more expensive in Ontario than here. So the prices for different products vary from province to province. For some, we're higher; for some, other provinces are higher. It's hard to get an exact handle on where we stand.

But you know, people say to me, especially Americans: "We like coming up to Canada, but we wish you had cheap booze and cheap gas." Well, their gas prices are going to go up soon. We do have more expensive liquor and beer than in the United States, but we have medicare in Canada, and we have a very progressive education system. We put a lot of money into the environment in Canada. Yes, we take money from liquor; we take a lot. I just announced earlier that we took $600 million from this. The government puts it back into other aspects of making a good life for people in British Columbia.

That's a general answer to the member's question. I appreciate him putting his figures on there, and I would like to have a look at them. I'll get back to him in a week or two with a response directly on those particular figures.

P. Reitsma: With tongue in cheek I was going to mention to the minister that those figures have been obtained independently, I suppose. Having said that, I don't think the minister has really addressed the fact of the provincial cut, if you like. I'll give the minister the amounts: $6.97 out of $14.95, which is just slightly under 50 percent, goes into provincial taxes. That is significantly more than the provincial tax medium in Canada, which is $5.33. I appreciate that the minister will throw in and use the examples of medicare, schooling and what have you. Those can be used, I suppose, at any time for any of those

[ Page 8034 ]

subjects. It's a good umbrella. I'll give the minister some figures on . . . . In fact, it's 46 percent at $6.97. Forty percent goes to the brewer and 14 percent to the federal government on a dozen brewery beer.

I'll give the minister some numbers on a pricing model for a B.C. wine. For one and a half litres of B.C. wine, the selling price per bottle to the British Columbia liquor distribution branch -- the BCLDB -- is $4.52. If you add the federal excise tax of 77 cents, that makes it $5.29. Then there's a volume markup of 12 cents a litre, which is 18 cents, which makes it $5.47. Then the markup at the BCLDB is 110 percent, $6.02, which makes it $11.49. Then you add the PST of 10 percent and the GST of 7 percent. That makes the current retail price, rounded up by one penny, $13.45.

Yet the selling price of that litre and a half, the pricing model for a B.C. wine, is $4.52. It's about one-third the cost of the wine from the brewer to the BCLDB. That's a huge cost to, ultimately, of course, the consumer, who pays for that. I wonder if the minister would want to comment on that.

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a lot of figures there. As I said, I would like to see them in writing, see them in Hansard , and then I'll respond in a more detailed way. Again, yes there are markups, and yes we make money, and yes we use the money for public services -- specifically in the two areas of medicare and education, which are priorities of the government. I think our government spending in these areas is leading Canada. When I have a look at those detailed figures, I'll get back to the hon. member.

P. Reitsma: A little change but still, of course, with this subject . . . . Where I was born in Europe, particularly in western Europe but even in eastern Europe, where I've been, and in the U.S.A., of course -- and it was touched on a little bit peripherally -- many stores are open on Sundays to start with. The wine and beer stores, of course, are open on Sundays in B.C. But many of the retail stores or specialty stores are able to sell particular brand names that their customers have come to like. Many stores -- grocery stores, other stores -- do sell spirits: wine, beer, hard liquor, and what have you.

Again, as I mentioned, this is done in most of Europe, Mexico, the United States, etc., as well. Is any consideration anticipated to be given in terms of permitting wider distribution of alcohol through stores, other than the regulated cold-beer and wine stores and the liquor distribution centres, the government liquor stores? If that is contemplated, is there any discussion going on? Is the minister maybe considering a roundtable discussion by the particular stakeholders to discuss this possibility?

Hon. I. Waddell: I've been to Europe; I've seen that. It's interesting. We've evolved a different model here. There is at the moment no movement towards or discussion of putting beer and wine in grocery stores.

P. Reitsma: Has there been, to the minister's knowledge -- and I appreciate that he's just been the minister for a couple of months, and that's fine -- any pressure from either the business community or a particular segment of the business community or even a suggestion that particular stores be allowed to be set up to sell any type of spirits? Again, I refer to what I'm used to in Europe. There are particular stores that are so specialized in certain brands according to the wishes of their customers that they have developed a very specialized product and marketing tool.

Has there, to the minister's knowledge, been any approach to the government from any business organization or big retail outlets to sit down and talk about the potential of allowing that to go through or at least to have some initial discussions?

Hon. I. Waddell: We do have stores that specialize in beer and wine. We have the government liquor stores, which have all the products. We have wine stores that are specialty wine stores, if you like, and we have VQA outlets. We have outlets at wineries, at wine museums and at the source, if you like. But there's no discussion or pressure at the moment to change the system to the European model that you've mentioned.

P. Reitsma: Is it within the realm of the minister's responsibilities to talk about the U-brews as well, or is that more the AG's department?

Hon. I. Waddell: No, that's the responsibility of the Attorney General.

[12:15]

P. Reitsma: A follow-up question, then. Would the minister know, since it's a bit overlapping in terms of issuing licences and providing or approving licences . . . . I appreciate that it goes to the AG's ministry, but some concern has been raised -- and I think that's why I'm trying to get into that circle -- by the pub owners in particular. I'm not rendering any judgment, because I happen to use a U-brew myself, as a matter of fact. I'm making my own wine, for that matter.

Concern has been raised by pub owners and restauranteurs about the proliferation of U-brews. I don't have particular difficulties with that. That's consumer-driven, of course. Their concern is that they're not paying for any liquor licence and they're not paying any liquor taxes into the general revenues when it comes to sales off-premises. They have the freedom to advertise with no restrictions, and there's some concern that they're not regulated by the liquor control branch and local authorities. If that's not in the minister's purview, that's fine. I'll direct those questions later, in writing, to the Attorney General.

Hon. I. Waddell: I've heard the same concerns raised by the breweries with respect to the U-brews selling their product, or that product coming out and being unregulated. It has been raised by some vintners, who are saying the same thing: "We're regulated; you're not. We're paying mark-ups; you're not." Of course, it was part of . . . . My hon. friend across the way in the Liberal Party raised the Tex Enemark report, in which that was one of the instances. As I answered to him and as I'll tell the hon. member, that's a matter under the Attorney General.

We were under the liquor distribution branch, talking about whether or not to do retail on Sundays, the method of retail -- the credit cards or not -- and so on. So the U-brew issue is under the Ministry of Attorney General.

P. Reitsma: A last question. Again, it probably comes under the AG's ministry, but it applies, of course, to the retail business, the retailers and the hospitality industry ultimately, because rules and regulations and red tape are not only extremely disruptive but stifling. It's unnecessary work, and I applaud anything that can be done -- being in small business myself -- to reduce the red tape. It provides work for other people, I suppose, but . . . . Is the minister aware . . . ? Again, it filters to the hospitality industry -- quite greatly, actually.

Is any review of the liquor laws anticipated, or are there any new liquor acts forthcoming, particularly with a view to some relaxation and making it easier, with less red tape?

[ Page 8035 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that we're always looking at changes and at matters to make this a better system, especially for the consumer. But I think I answered, with respect to the Enemark question, some of the matters that were raised there. You know, I've spent my political life fighting red tape, and we're together on this. I don't like to see red tape at all, and I'm working hard to eliminate it. That's why I was happy to see at least two matters in the discussions with the liquor distribution branch.

One is that in their survey of their customers . . . . One of their customers is the industry -- the restaurants, the pubs, the people who are getting the liquor from them, not from the stores -- and that group seemed to be happy that they were getting their supplies on time. They could open the restaurant; they had the wine there to serve. They had the beer in the pub. That's really important. So I looked at that, and I'm looking at any other instances of red tape. As I said to the other members across the way, be specific on red tape. Bring it to me, and I will have a look at it and deal with it.

R. Thorpe: I think some of the questions that the member for Parksville-Qualicum was raising were out of a recent document that I believe all members of this House, including the minister, received from someone in the neighbourhood pub business. I would ask that the minister read this document carefully and have the officials that are with him read it carefully. I really think it is a plea: "It's time to listen to us; it's time to meet with us." And since the minister said in his earlier comments that he wants to be an advocate for small business . . . . There are small businesses out there that are struggling.

This particular constituent of British Columbia had written a letter -- it happens to be a government member, but I won't mention from where on the Island -- on March 6, 1997, outlining concerns and has yet to hear a response.

When someone takes the time and effort to gather the information that they gather, to put a package together and send it to 75 members in this House, I think we should take that as a signal that there are some concerns out there. I would just simply ask that these concerns be addressed as soon as . . . . I realize that the minister doesn't have a copy with him. I understand that, and I accept that; I'm not being critical of that. But as soon as you can track it down in your office -- because I know you're inundated with mail -- these issues can be addressed.

Maybe they can't all be resolved today or tomorrow, but we can show people that take the time and effort, that have concerns about surviving in their business, that we do care and that we could address some of these issues in a timely manner. So I would just ask the minister to comment briefly on that, and then I'll move on to the detail.

Hon. I. Waddell: Certainly, if the hon. member wants to get me a copy of the letter, I'll make sure that it's replied to. I have my deputy minister right here. Under this system, he can't speak; if he could speak, I'm sure he would tell you that he responds very quickly. I instruct him to respond very quickly. We try to respond to any letter that we get, and we try to deal with these issues. Some are more complicated than others, and it takes a little while, but we will respond.

R. Thorpe: If we could now move on to the liquor distribution branch and its operation, could the minister please tell me what the three key strategic issues are that the LDB has to address this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: In response to the hon. member, I would list the three as these. First is business efficiency. I've talked about this earlier -- getting those orders out on time and making sure that the largest retail operator in the province operates efficiently. If you've got any complaints, let me know, and I'll make sure that they're remedied. The second one is a responsibility to our customers -- meeting their needs and being responsive to any changes or any concerns that they may have in terms of dealing with the liquor stores. The third is a social responsibility.

Alcohol, when it's taken in mild forms, can be very pleasant and very sociable. We all know that; that's why we don't have prohibition. But when alcohol is abused, it can have disastrous and costly results for the province: spousal abuse, accidents on the highways, tragedies in families, tragedies with individuals. We all know that. So I would put that as the third area. I want to see our liquor stores in the province making sure that people don't, for example, drink and drive. Advertise that and have that right up front and talk about social responsibility in the use of liquor.

The vast majority of customers of the liquor distribution branch are responsible. It's a very small minority that can abuse alcohol, and I think that's part of the responsibility of the branch as well.

R. Thorpe: Obviously those are three very broad-brush . . . . Now, if we could maybe funnel it down just a little tighter: what are the three key issues the LDB has to deal with in its current fiscal year?

Hon. I. Waddell: Specifically, I would list these three. First, the new beverage container issue. As the member would know, there has been a direction to recycle spirit bottles and all sorts of things in British Columbia. I think this is a very positive initiative, but the LDB has to decide: "How do we play a

part in this, and how do we get the most efficient system working for this expansion of recycling?"

Second is the year 2000 issue. I mentioned that earlier in my opening remarks. That's a computer issue. It's not a problem for the liquor distribution branch alone; it's a general issue in our business society.

Third is achieving the budget. All businesses and all branches of government must come within their budgets and estimates.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Government must do too, and we're trying very hard.

R. Thorpe: Well, the minister did leave me an opening, but I've been the one advocating all day to take the high road, so I'll stay on the high road for now.

With respect to the issue of the year 2000, can the minister advise on the status . . . ? I'm going to give you about a four-point question, and then we can deal with it and move on as best we can. Is the year 2000 issue under control? Are the management group and the LDB confident that they have it totally under control? If not, when will the problems be corrected? How much is budgeted this year to fix those problems?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm going to make reference to my notes on this, if the hon. member doesn't mind. It's a very good question. Those of us who aren't kind of computer wonks -- I'm computer-literate, but barely -- wonder what all this year 2000 problem is about. Well, it's apparently a very real problem, and here's what the liquor distribution branch is

[ Page 8036 ]

doing about it. Indeed, they were aware of it, starting in September 1996, and they had a project charter and plan developed to manage towards the year 2000. They want to have it ready and have all their core business processes compliant by May 1999. That's the plan.

The scope of the plan includes renovations of systems, system re-engineering, system sunsetting, contingency planning, personal computers, the system software, third-party software, embedded systems, business partners year 2000 compliance readiness verification and any other changes required to ensure that the LDB can continue to do business as a result of millennium changes. I've heard people say: "Well, the airlines have to do it, but we don't want to be in an aircraft in the year 2000." This is perhaps a little less serious, but people still want to be able to come to the liquor store on January 1 -- it better be January 2 -- in the year 2000 and make sure it's still open for business.

[12:30]

We've done an inventory and an assessment of 111 key applications. The total cost is estimated at $11 million. So these are serious matters. That's as much detail as I can give the hon. member. I can follow that up later, but it seems to be under control, and we are spending a fair amount of money on it.

R. Thorpe: The other issue that he brought up was the beverage container expanded deposit. I'm just wondering what the current status is. I stand to be corrected here, but it's my understanding that in fact the LDB is the designated steward of beverage alcohol containers in British Columbia now, with respect to the stewardship plans that were filed on February 15, or whatever. So what is the status of the workings that are going on at the LDB, and how are they going to deal with this issue? I believe it is scheduled to become actionable on October 1 of this year.

Hon. I. Waddell: The LDB is working with the wine, spirit and beer industries to ensure that the beverage container collection system is convenient, is customer-friendly and operates at the lowest possible cost. It's actually through the brewers that work in the present system of recycling the beer bottles and the beer cans. As I'm sure the hon. member knows -- since he outlined before that he knows a lot about the industry -- the current system of recycling beer bottles and cans is highly successful. We estimate that 93 percent of the bottles and cans are recycled. That's a good system.

I understand that to do the spirit bottles it will mean only 10 or 11 percent more volume that we'd have to do in the stores. It may necessitate some expansion of the area -- you know, when you take your bottles and cans to the back of the liquor store. I don't know if the hon. member does that, but I'm sure that if he buys it, he does. In any case, I know that when I take my beer bottles back, I go back there. They take it from me, and it's recycled. We may have to expand the premises a little bit, and we're looking at that.

But other than that, the LDB has filed a plan under the Ministry of Environment rules, and I understand that plan has been approved. We're talking about bringing back spirit and wine bottles to liquor stores.

R. Thorpe: It sounds like the LDB's plans are well advanced, and I guess they should be if we're going to be implementing them on October 1. I think October 1 is the scheduled date.

Since for all intent and purposes we're at the first of June, could the minister outline for us the capital cost -- that is, estimated; I know things aren't finalized and can't be finalized at this point of time -- that's involved in this project at the present time?

Hon. I. Waddell: It is $2 million to $2.3 million.

R. Thorpe: Since we have an estimate of our capital cost -- albeit not a final estimate, I'm sure, and I understand that; but directionally we have an estimate -- could the minister then advise what the best guess for cost now is for a container -- or, if you want, a dozen beer bottles or a 7.5-litre wine bottle or a 1-litre rye bottle, whatever? Just advise the general parameters of what those costs are going to be to the individual industries that are going to have their containers recycled through the LDB.

Hon. I. Waddell: I appreciate the member's question: in other words, what's it going to cost the customer to recycle the wine bottle or the . . . ? It's a bit too early to have the costs. We'll know within a month or before. As soon as I get the figures I'll make sure the hon. member gets them.

R. Thorpe: On the assumption -- and I know that sometimes making assumptions is not the best thing to do, but let's just do this . . . . Is the mode of operation . . . ? Let's say it's going to cost a nickel per container. Is the approach the LDB is going to take is that it will be buried in the price, or will that be a separate charge? And will it flow through at actual real cost, or will the government attempt to make a markup on this?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we're looking at all options. They're looking at all options. I think they will pass it back to the manufacturer. We're not planning on any markup on that particular fee. In other words, we're looking at the cost of doing it, not at making money on it.

R. Thorpe: So I guess the consumer, then, can expect a cost increase on this in one form or another. If, for argument's sake, it's going to be a nickel a bottle and there are millions of bottles flowing through, one could expect that the manufacturer would eventually pass that through to the consumer. Is that the understanding in the work that the LDB has done in understanding its customers and its past practice in dealing with its suppliers when such cost increases are incurred?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that I don't know as of yet. When we've worked that out, I'll get back to the hon. member on it.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the beverage alcohol industry, and trying to find the most efficient and cost-effective approach to this, is it the intent of the LDB -- at this point in time, realizing plans aren't finalized -- to try to bring people together to try to find a unified system for removing the recyclables, if you will, out of the stores?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: With the LDB working with the suppliers on this side and then the handlers of recyclable goods on that side, has the LDB in fact worked with people to understand in what form goods have to be returned, so that they can be further processed? Have they worked with people -- i.e., glass companies -- to understand that if recycling or crushing is required on site, it has to be done in certain ways so that it can be recycled into finished product?

[ Page 8037 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to that is that that's precisely what we're doing now.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the expanded container deposit, I believe we have an undertaking here from the minister that within a month we should have some answers with respect to the cost factors related to this project -- because, quite frankly, we'll be near the end of June, and with July and August, it doesn't give us a whole bunch of time. Is that the correct understanding?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's correct. I don't like the word "undertaking." I'm a lawyer, and undertaking has a particular meaning in law. I want to say that that's what we're going to do. You have my commitment.

R. Thorpe: I was hopeful that we were going to be able to finish today. We'll keep moving here.

Let me just ask: is any work currently being done or contemplated with respect to what some other jurisdictions have done with respect to what's called in the industry "flat tax application"?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we looked at it. Alberta has a flat tax system. We think that the flat tax model would generate about $225 million less in net income if we were to adopt that. I'm a little bit concerned. It seems that in Alberta it raises the price of lower-priced products but it dramatically reduces the price of very expensive products. Very Alberta, you know -- help the upper types. I'm a little concerned about that. In other words, the prices of the high-priced products go down quite a bit and the lower-priced products go up a bit. I'm not sure that that's what we want to have in British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: I was just asking where it stood; I wasn't putting forward a position. But with respect to my

interpretation of the minister's comments about Alberta, perhaps we should aspire to some other economic development achievements, some other taxation achievements, etc. Let's not just give that impression that Alberta is not doing very well, because I think they are doing very, very well.

With respect to the LDB and achieving its third stated goal of achieving its budget, I wonder if the minister could advise us: in their estimates when doing their business plan, what is the impact of the sale of illicit beverage alcohol in British Columbia on their bottom line? What are their estimates?

Hon. I. Waddell: What the member is asking is how much revenue we are losing because people are selling it illicitly. The answer is: we don't have a reliable estimate on that, and it's very difficult to get, because it's illegal; it's under the table.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that factual numbers are hard to get, but we are very fortunate at the LDB to have a very solid management team, a very solid organization that approaches business planning in an extremely professional manner. What would be the educated estimate of the management group? Is it $50 million? Is it $100 million? Is it $200 million?

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, I can tell the hon. member that that very solid management team, the chief of whom is sitting beside me, says that they could pull out any number. They just don't have a reliable number, or indeed any numbers. I can't respond to that.

[12:45]

R. Thorpe: I'm troubled and, as a minister on the other side often says, perplexed that a billion-and-a-half-dollar organization that is in contact daily with the professionals in the industry does not have an estimate. I guess I'm further perplexed because the minister said earlier that he's going to work together with the Attorney General in reviewing some of the Tex Enemark issues. I believe that, if they're going to address those issues in the professional manner that British Columbians would want them to, they're going to have to, at some point in time, have an educated estimate on those numbers.

I'm just going to ask this for the last time: does the government or the LDB have an estimate of the moneys that are being lost through the sale of -- as reported to me -- some 350,000 cases of illicit beverage alcohol in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is . . . . I don't have the figure, but I will do this for the member: I will work at exploring that matter -- hopefully with the member's assistance -- and get back to the member with any reliable figures or estimates that we have. I'll look into that and get back to the member on it shortly.

R. Thorpe: Just before we move from this issue, which I didn't know was going to take so long, can the minister confirm or deny that we should, and in fact do, have concern about the sale of illicit beverage alcohol in the province?

Hon. I. Waddell: I would say that that's absolutely right. We should have concern, and we do have concern.

R. Thorpe: Moving into the current business year . . . . I guess you're into it already; you're into your second month. You must be thankful for the great weather we're having. What are the sales estimates for the fiscal year 1998-99, in dollar terms?

Hon. I. Waddell: Could the member please repeat the question?

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what the estimated dollar sales are for the LDB for the period of 1998-99? The comparable figure for the previous year is $1.59 billion.

Hon. I. Waddell: It is $1.636 billion.

R. Thorpe: So we're looking at an increase in sales -- quickly here -- of about $42 million for the coming fiscal year. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, it's a 2.6 percent increase.

R. Thorpe: Without going through all of the different lines -- commissions, net sales, etc. -- does the minister expect the same business ratios or percentages? For example, gross margin runs around 48.2 percent to 48.6 percent, net operating profit runs between 37.7 percent and 37.9 percent, and net income runs around 38 percent. Does he expect those ratios to be maintained for this current fiscal year?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

[ Page 8038 ]

R. Thorpe: It's interesting -- based on that, the profit is only going to be $620 million this year. Your plan says that your profits are going to be $635 million. So where is the $15 million to $20 million going to come from?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not sure it's $15 million to $20 million, but I can tell the hon. member this: we're going to do our best to achieve our 1998-99 net target of $635 million. Now, in order to achieve that, we're looking at some efficiencies in the branch. We're looking at an increased volume. Our costs are stable, and we're going to look for further efficiencies so we can come in within our target.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister confirm that currently in the business there seems to be a substantial amount of price discounting going on in the marketplace? Does he have any concern that that is going to have an impact on the profitability of the branch this year -- in attaining its goals?

The Chair: Minister, noting the time . . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: At this point, we don't anticipate a problem, as in past years.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

The Chair: Perhaps the minister could make the motion.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; R. Kasper in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 54: minister's office, $341,000.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the 1998-99 fiscal year. First, I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are here with me today: Suzanne Veit, my deputy minister, who is sitting to my right; Ken MacLeod, assistant deputy minister for local government, sitting in the back; Lori Wanamaker, assistant deputy minister for corporate services; and Harry Diemer, acting assistant deputy minister of the safety and standards department. These are some of the people in the ministry who make it possible for the province to meet its commitments to British Columbians and their communities.

The work of the ministry is felt in every village, town, city and regional district in the province. The ministry's mission is to work with the people of British Columbia to create and sustain the kinds of local and regional communities in which they live. We fulfil this mission through programs which enhance local stability, promote safety, strengthen local and regional planning and support good administration.

The ministry has specific responsibilities in two broad service area