Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 24

Part 2

[ Page 4463 ]

The House resumed at 6:37 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. In the main legislative chamber, we will continue debate on the Ministry of Finance estimates.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND

CORPORATE RELATIONS

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $348,000 (continued).

R. Thorpe: Just before we broke for that short dinner recess, I had asked a question. I ask it again. It appears that the FTEs in this area have moved from 51 to 58. Could the minister confirm that and also outline what those increased positions are?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the number of FTEs in the previous year, which is to say '95-96, was 66. Then the actual reduction that occurred in the previous year was down to 57 FTEs; the 46, I guess, was a number that had been set and was in place for one month. But in fact, the actual number declined to 57, and then there was a further reduction down to 53 FTEs in this year. So, in fact, there has been a declining number of FTEs that have actually been attached to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

R. Thorpe: Again, I'm getting a little confused here. The documentation we received from the minister's office on Friday clearly states for the '97-98 period a budget of $7.384 million and FTEs of 58, compared to 51 for the year before. Is this document incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to explain this. If it's the same document I'm thinking of that the member is looking at, there are two lines, and I'm focusing on the cabinet policy and communications secretariat line. What I'm suggesting is that the numbers stated in the previous year to the one shown here -- '95-96 -- is 66 FTEs. The 46 number which shows here was adjusted during the course of the year, so the number declined from 66 -- not to 46 but to 57 actual FTEs, as opposed to the budget amount of 46. I'm trying to figure this out myself as I go along.

Therefore, the reduction this year is in fact a further reduction of four FTEs. So the budget amount of 46, which it shows here, was in fact never experienced in reality. It was a budget amount that saw a reduction of 20 from the previous year, but the actual reduction from the previous year turned out, in the result, to be nine, and now we have a further reduction of four in this year.

R. Thorpe: Does that make a lot of the FTEs and the numbers suspect in this document that we received in a briefing Friday, or do we just have one error here?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't think it's a question of error or no error. The number in the column was the number that was originally authorized, and it was authorized in this particular case, as I understand it, at a level that saw a very ambitious reduction of 20 from the previous year. In the result, the reduction was about half that -- nine -- and add in this year a further four.

But I think what happened was that in the course of the last year, the reduction of the full 20 was not achieved; rather, the reduction went down to 57. So this column here, which indicates 46 and 5 for a total of 51, is the column that indicates the number of FTEs that were authorized. And in this case, the secretariat overburdened that authorization in what was, admittedly, a fairly ambitious reduction from the previous year, which wasn't fully achieved.

R. Thorpe: I would very much appreciate it, then -- and I don't want to debate it here -- if we could perhaps go back a couple of years, if the minister would undertake to do this in the next few days, and have someone in the minister's office or area of responsibility provide a chart that clearly shows the flow here so that we understand what's going on. If I could have that commitment from the minister tonight, I'll move on to my next question in this area.

[6:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'd be happy to make sure staff provide the member with that information, but I think it will bear out the numbers that I indicated, which are: in '95-96, the actual FTEs went from 66 down to 57 in '96-97, and in '97-98 down to the 53 that's shown here. But we'll provide that information to the member.

R. Thorpe: I guess the other thing that appears to be a little confusing . . . . I just wonder if the minister could make some brief comments on it. When we look at the estimates book for a year ago, we see a number of $6.9 million, and then we see a restate of $8.3 million, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand, and now we see an estimate of $7.4 million, rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. I'm sure someone's going to get up and say: "What a great job! They've had this prudent fiscal management." But I just wonder if someone could take us through that flow.

If some budget has been moved from other areas, is that where the $8.255 million that's been restated comes from? Could you just maybe share some details with us on that?

Hon. A. Petter: I should, as I have before, just introduce staff who are with me for this

section of the debate. Sitting to my left is Tom Gunton, who's deputy minister in charge of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, and behind me is Allan Cohen, who's director of corporate communications for cabinet policy and communications secretariat.

Yes, there was a reorganization that took place, and that resulted in the restatement in the '96-97 numbers, carrying through on an apples-to-apples comparison to the '97-98 numbers. Part of cabinet would have been previously considered cabinet operations. As I understand, it was folded into the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, and that's why the adjustment was made.

But the result is that the numbers here, which show a year-over-year reduction in expenditure, are comparing apples and apples and therefore demonstrate that in this area -- as in others throughout this government -- we have made significant reductions in accordance with some of our fiscal objectives over the past year.

[ Page 4464 ]

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the editorial comment will grow larger as the evening goes on, but I'll just refer the minister to the earlier comments of my friend from Delta South on fiscal management. But I don't want to get dragged into that, because obviously we'll agree to disagree.

Just for background so that we have a clearer picture of where we're going, could the minister give us a brief overview of what cabinet operations were shifted into the cabinet policy and communications secretariat?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand it was the component of cabinet operations that coordinates legislation and strategic planning, and that component of cabinet operations was brought into the secretariat function.

R. Thorpe: In looking at the detailed numbers that I have received . . . . What I'd like to confirm, first of all, is that the number of 53 FTEs for this fiscal year is a real number that we're dealing with. Is that an actual number we're dealing with, or is that an estimate that we're not going to be able to achieve at a later date?

Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, that is the real FTE allocation that we expect and will manage to have the communications secretariat live within.

R. Thorpe: Based on that, and looking at the details we get from the supplementary book here, total salaries and benefits anticipated for the coming year are $4,292,000. Would the minister like to explain why, on average, the cost per employee is $74,000, according to my calculations?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess there are two points here: one is that the per capita number includes a whole range of functions other than salary, like benefit levels and the like. The second point is that one would expect the average to be somewhat higher within an operation like this, which is a policy and communications operation and which tends, therefore, to have employees who are at higher pay levels within the public service. That wouldn't be the case if it were a delivery mechanism with a much higher component of, say, clerical staff and the like.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps this is a naïve question, but can the minister confirm that everyone who works in this area is paid according to published government guidelines for pay and salary classifications?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Looking at what's deemed in the supplementary information to be professional fees, I note that we have budgeted some $287,000 for professional fees. I wonder if the minister could please give us a highlight of what types of professional fees you pay to consultants and how much is allocated for those areas.

Hon. A. Petter: It would be for a range of different kinds of consulting contracts relating to policy development and communications.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister would agree that that was a reasonably vague answer. I'm just wondering if he could be a little bit more specific and break it down into types of professions or types of categories and give us a dollar figure, perhaps by the different types of categories in that area.

Hon. A. Petter: It's really difficult to give a specific answer without speculating, because this is a budgeted amount that has not been fully allocated yet. But I can give an example. Maybe that would suffice.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I said I'd be happy to provide an example: policy work has been going on in respect of youth policy, development of youth policy within government. I understand there have been consultants utilized to help to develop that policy framework. That would be the kind of example, but it's a fairly small amount in relation to the total budget, and it is as yet largely unspent, so it's sort of difficult to determine. It's there as an amount against which the secretariat can undertake contracts in specific areas of policy and communications development on an as-needed basis.

R. Thorpe: First of all, I'll disagree with the minister: $287,000 is not a small amount of money; it's a fairly significant amount of money. I guess I'm a little concerned that the contracts may not have been let, but as I understood the minister's prior answer, strategic planning had been moved into this area. To me, strategic tends to be a little bit further out, not what we're doing today or tomorrow. One would think that there would be a plan. The details of the contract let may not be known at this point in time, but there would be a plan.

As I understand it, within this group there are some different working groups. There's an employment policy working group, I understand; there's a land use and environment resource working group; there's an education and social policy working group; there's the office of the Premier's youth adviser -- those kinds of things. Perhaps, then, in their strategic plan, the minister could just indicate to us how much of that $287,000 has been allocated against each one of those strategic working groups.

Hon. A. Petter: If the member had listened a bit more attentively, he would have heard me say that the amount was small in relation to the total budget, not small in absolute terms. But the money isn't allocated by allocating envelopes in the way the member suggested; it's allocated in terms of policy development as the needs emerge. I can probably best provide the member with an answer by referencing last year as opposed to the coming year, where decisions on these matters have not been made. This is, after all, a budget to provide for these needs as they arise.

Last year there were a number of contracts let with respect to the Premier's youth forum and the development of that youth forum and also in the areas of jobs, youth, crime and safety and to provide advice with respect to treaty negotiation matters. These tend to be small contracts -- which is to say contracts in the range of $5,000 to $20,000 -- to provide specific policy advice on particular issues or, in the case of the Premier's youth forum, in respect of a particular forum which involved a particular set of interests and constituency. Last year's example provides the best guidance for the kind of ways in which these moneys are spent and will be spent in the coming year.

[7:00]

R. Thorpe: It's again, in my opinion, a vague attempt to describe how the sum of moneys may have been spent. Last

[ Page 4465 ]

year, according to the figures we have, it was around $568,000. You give three examples here, but it's obvious that you don't really want to answer the question.

Let me ask you this about the youth forum. Do I understand correctly or incorrectly that as the Premier moves on his youth strategy and development, expenses related to having those forums, etc., would be funnelled into one of these program costs?

Hon. A. Petter: No. It would be the expenses in relation to the planning of a forum or the planning related to a policy that would be accounted for in the contracts that are let through this particular vote.

R. Thorpe: Moving along to advertising, it's $1.8 million. I understand that this is non-statutory -- requirement advertising. Could the minister give us some indication of the types of programs that this $1.8 million would be spent on?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, to put this all into context for the member, part of the reductions across government in the last year on expenditures and in this year's budget have entailed major reductions in communications budgets. If you look at the STOB 40 blue book totals, you'll see that budgeted this year is about $16.5 million versus in excess of $21 million last year. So I think we need to put this into the general context that the resources available for communications, advertising and the like within government have been reduced substantially.

With particular reference to the funds that the member is questioning in respect of the policy and communication secretariat, again this is early in the fiscal year, and it's not possible to anticipate the kinds of contracts that would be let under this envelope.

But I can, again, provide examples from the previous year: family bonus public awareness campaign to make people more aware of the family bonus; Ministry of Agriculture, agency for the Buy B.C. campaign; Health, comprehensive communications support on strategic and creative initiatives; Environment, International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Montreal. So it's an eclectic group of communications issues that arise from time to time during the course of the year that the secretariat takes a role in providing communications support.

R. Thorpe: From a strategic and planning point of view, it's not that early in the fiscal year, but that seems to be what the minister wants to hang his hat on tonight. Can the minister advise me of how much out of the $1.8 million for advertising in the secretariat has been committed to as of this date?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the amount spent to date -- that is, committed for and expended -- is in the range of $490,000, in respect of B.C. Benefits and the youth initiative.

R. Thorpe: Was that committed and spent, or just spent?

Hon. A. Petter: Committed and spent.

R. Thorpe: Would this area include any opinion researching or opinion polling?

Hon. A. Petter: Not in this STOB.

R. Thorpe: Sorry?

Hon. A. Petter: Not in the money appropriated under the STOB that the member was questioning.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister then clarify which STOB it is spent under?

Hon. A. Petter: It would be under professional services, which would be STOB 20, I believe.

R. Thorpe: Just flipping back to that STOB 20 for a second, if we could, how much of the moneys have either been spent or committed to date on opinion research/polling?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the amounts committed and spent to date would relate to three annual or ongoing arrangements with different polling companies. The amount for those would be in the range of $50,000 or $60,000.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister give the details of how much has been spent on opinion research or polling with respect to no-fault and also the new legislation that was introduced today about the ability of the government to sue tobacco companies?

Hon. A. Petter: Cabinet policy and communications secretariat's polling has not involved polling in respect of no-fault. The services I referred to, the $50,000 to $60,00, relate to subscription services to opinion researchers who undertake polls on a variety of issues.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could just answer the last part of my question, with respect to any opinion research or polling done on the legislation that was introduced today: the ability of the government to go after tobacco companies for health costs.

Hon. A. Petter: There's no such polling of which we're aware in the budget of the policy and communications secretariat.

R. Thorpe: The . . . .

I. Waddell: Do you have a fishing licence?

R. Thorpe: Excuse me, did you want to ask a question?

I. Waddell: No.

R. Thorpe: Okay.

I. Waddell: I was just asking you if you have a licence for all that fishing, there.

R. Thorpe: You can only fish in British Columbia with a licence. You should know that, especially as a lawyer.

With respect to rents paid by this secretariat, could the minister advise us how many locations the secretariat has and the amount of rent for each place?

Hon. A. Petter: The secretariat is in one location. There is, as I understand it, some media-monitoring equipment and a small complement of staff associated with it that has continued in its previous location. But the principal secretariat functions are consolidated in a single location.

[ Page 4466 ]

R. Thorpe: So this number in here of $473,000 for rent would just be sort of a transfer between BCBC and the ministry. Would that be correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it would all be payments to BCBC.

R. Thorpe: The primary . . . . The bulk of the offices are located over on Government -- I guess it's Government -- and have recently been relocated there -- at least since our last estimates, anyhow. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us an all-in cost of what it cost to relocate, furnish and get that secretariat set up on Government Street.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, it was more of a consolidation than a move. There were very limited tenant improvements required, so the total relocation or consolidation cost was just over $105,000. The savings in rent from the move are estimated at being about $72,000 per year, so I think it's a fairly cost-effective move.

[7:15]

R. Thorpe: We hope we would make some savings from the move -- or why would we make the move? Secondly, we probably need the funds to help offset our increased salary costs in that area.

Could the minister confirm that within this cabinet policy and communications secretariat there are currently still two branches: policy and communications?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there are two divisions or branches: policy and communications.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please confirm the number of defined working groups within the policy

section of the secretariat? Also, how many FTEs are attached to each?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I understand there are three major working groups: an employment policy working group; a land use, environment and resources working group; and a social policy and education working group. Staff allocations are shifted according to need. But at the present time, the employment working group would have a staff of five; the land use, environment and resources working group has three; and the social policy and education working group also has three.

R. Thorpe: Some information that I have indicates to me that perhaps at one point in time there were a couple of other working groups. Maybe the minister could confirm that it's an oversight and that they are continuing. Or, in fact, have they been disbanded? The first one would be the program review and budget working group. The next one I have is the office of the Premier's adviser on youth. Have they been disbanded, or is it just an oversight?

Hon. A. Petter: The ones I gave earlier, I guess, are the formal policy working groups. There are some other groups that do some policy and other matters. There is a Premier's Youth Office. Maybe the member is referring to that. That certainly continues to exist. There's also a strategic management and legislation working group and a priority issues working group that are not focused on substantive, ongoing policy areas but, as the titles suggest, focus on strategic management and legislation or priority issues.

There was a program review and budget working group at one time, but that's been folded into the employment policy working group, given the economic and fiscal focus on jobs as a central focus of government economic and budget policy.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise me of how many FTEs work in the office of the Premier's youth adviser and the priority issues working group?

Hon. A. Petter: In the case of the Premier's Youth Office, it would be four; in the case of the priority issues working group, it would be five.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the priority issues working group, I wonder if the minister could explain in a few words what their focus and purpose is.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess the major distinction here is that the priority issues working group tends to focus on shorter-term policy issues that emerge, as opposed to longer-term policy development that is the preoccupation of the other working groups. So they try to anticipate issues which affect government's ability to achieve strategic objectives and then manage in a proactive manner around those. They work with ministries to develop their issues management capability. They manage and coordinate opinion research across government to ensure that cost savings are achieved in research.

And they ensure that the research supports the development and implementation of government's overall strategic objectives.

R. Thorpe: When you say "manage and coordinate opinion research across government," I would assume -- but you could correct me on my assumption if it's wrong -- that when you're managing it, the costs are probably allocated to a variety of ministries. I would like you to confirm that.

Secondly, you talked about this being done to ensure that cost savings are achieved for government. How do you measure to ensure that savings are achieved by government in this area?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think the principal mechanism would be avoiding duplication. There's a function here to ensure that different ministries are not duplicating their efforts in terms of opinion research, to ensure that the information is gathered in a way that is useful to government as a whole. And it saves costs by ensuring that information is shared appropriately amongst the agencies that can benefit from it.

R. Thorpe: I would think that in order to manage, and I understand that word, and to coordinate, and I understand that word -- because one of the objectives is to cost-save -- then it would be fair for me to conclude that this secretariat would have vast knowledge of all of the opinion research being done throughout government and throughout all of its ministries. Since their objectives are to manage and coordinate and be cost efficient, could the minister advise me of how much is spent by government on opinion research?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm afraid I don't have that information at hand. I will certainly try to get a fuller answer for the member, if he wishes me to do so.

R. Thorpe: Yes, I would very much like the minister to not only make his best efforts but to ensure that we have a comprehensive listing or report by ministry on how much is being spent by a ministry on public opinion research. We do

[ Page 4467 ]

make statements here about managing, coordinating and cost savings. So I would think it is prudent financial management to have that information at hand. Yes, I would like that commitment from the minister, and I'd like to receive it as soon as possible.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think that the member is perhaps inflating the role of the cabinet communications and planning secretariat in regard to cost savings. It is not a central financial control function that is performed by the secretariat. What the secretariat is trying to do is make sure there is an effective and efficient flow of information.

For example, by subscribing to certain public information research services, as I described earlier, and then by making sure that information is shared with interested agencies and ministries while monitoring opinion research that goes on throughout government to ensure it isn't duplicative, savings are made. But it's not quite the same thing as the suggestion that this secretariat is somehow responsible for fiscal control of all public opinion research activity in government. It isn't. It does perform a useful function, however, in coordinating.

And by coordinating, it ensures the most efficient and effective allocation of information concerning opinion research that it can achieve.

R. Thorpe: This is a CPCS document that we received. I'm just reading from it. I didn't write it; I'm just reading it. It states:

" . . . to manage and coordinate opinion research across government to ensure that cost savings are achieved and that the opinion research undertaken by government is coordinated with the appropriate CPCS working group, and to ensure that opinion research supports the development and implementation of a government strategic plan."

There are two things. I think it's fairly clear that if someone is going to manage something, they have to have a good handle on it. Secondly, I believe this is fairly similar to the document that the minister read me an answer from a few moments ago. Thirdly, I would just like the minister to commit to providing the information, because in his last answer he probably mistakenly forgot to comment on that, and I would like a commitment that we're going to get this information as soon as possible, please.

Hon. A. Petter: I thought I had already said in my prior statement that if the member wished it, I would endeavour to try to get the information he requested, and I will do that.

The point I was trying to make is that the budgets of various ministries and the allocation of funds through those budgets for opinion research is the responsibility of the ministries. It's not inconsistent at all to suggest that the secretariat plays a role in ensuring that there isn't duplication and ensuring that information from subscription services, for example, is shared in a way that ensures that the conduct of opinion research is managed effectively.

That's rather different from saying, as the member seems to inflate that statement, that there's somehow some detailed cost-control function performed centrally. That isn't the case. The cost control is done through ministry budgets in the normal way and is monitored in the normal way by Treasury Board. What's done here is a coordination effort to manage and coordinate opinion research to ensure that the research is conducted efficiently and with minimal duplication and, therefore, that savings are made.

[7:30]

R. Thorpe: The minister seems to think I'm focusing in on cost savings. Well, in fact I'm not focusing in on cost savings, but I think that that's where the minister's trying to take me. Quite frankly, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind -- and I'm sure there's no doubt in most British Columbians' minds what's going on here -- that this secretariat is controlling and is responsible for all public opinion and polling research in British Columbia, and that the costs are dispersed throughout government. That's where I'm focusing my attention. But they happen to be your words: "management, coordination and cost-saving." I'm just reading the words that have been provided to me.

I'd like to move on, if I could.

I. Waddell: You should become a columnist.

R. Thorpe: Take it easy, Presto.

Communications branch. Could the minister advise me of how many FTEs are attached to the communications branch?

Hon. A. Petter: I believe it's 22 FTEs.

R. Thorpe: Communications support. The office provides support to ministries through the following activities, and the first point I have here is to provide strategic communications direction to ministries. Could the minister perhaps explain, in terms that I may understand, what that really means? What is this communications branch providing for the various ministries in government?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a range of advice that's provided on such basic things as coordinating the timing of announcements so they don't conflict in terms of timing and arrangements; providing advice on the most effective ways in which ministries can communicate, again ensuring that there isn't duplication of effort; ensuring that the messages communicated are ones that are consistent with government policy; and those kinds of activities that ensure that ministries carry out their functions in a way that is consistent with an overall direction of government and communicate in a way that is consistent with that overall direction, as well.

R. Thorpe: Can various ministries in government actually go out and put communication actions into the field, or must they have final approval from this secretariat before any communication or advertising can be put out into the field for British Columbians?

Hon. A. Petter: The secretariat provides sign-off on all government communications functions throughout government by ministries and government agencies, again to ensure that communications is conducted in a way that reflects overall government objectives and the other goals I already referred to -- those of not having duplication and of ensuring that messages are consistent with government policy and the like.

R. Thorpe: When the minister says sign-off, I just want to make sure I understand it. That is final approval. Without the approval of this secretariat, communications and advertising cannot take place. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the way it works is that communications plans would be subject to sign-off or approval, but some of the creative work that would then take place under those plans and carrying out those plans would

[ Page 4468 ]

be left to the ministries. In the case of major government announcements, there would obviously have to be approval by cabinet. That would be coordinated by the secretariat, and the sign-offs would have to provide for approval of those major announcements.

R. Thorpe: Again, I would just like a bit of clarification. I think the minister alluded there to . . . . At least, I thought I heard that there was sort of some sign-off early in the process, and then they would perhaps go away and do their work. I guess my question really is: before there's any on-air communication -- electronic, radio -- or print ads, they must receive final creative approval and sign-off before they're placed. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: In cases, for example, where a ministry is undertaking an information campaign, the sign-off would be with respect to the communications plan to make sure that the placement of advertisements, if that's what is entailed, or commercials on radio and the like, do not conflict with other campaigns or in other ways conflict with government objectives. Beyond that, it would be left to the agencies to then carry out the plan and to make the ultimate decisions.

In other cases, in respect of matters that are perhaps of more central importance to government's overall policy objectives and are more centrally significant, then there would be attention paid to sign-off in respect of the actual editorial content and other matters, which for the most part would come through the secretariat to cabinet for approval.

R. Thorpe: I'm concluding from those statements -- and I would ask the minister to correct me if I'm incorrect -- that this is the final approval ground for the plans. It's in the final approval before it actually takes place. Quite frankly, it now appears to me that if there are a number of messages out there, they probably have flight boards up, etc., so that programs aren't running into each other, to make sure that there's not overlap, and to hopefully, from their point of view, maximize the penetration of their various campaigns to the public. Would that be correct?

Hon. A. Petter: By and large, I'd say yes, that would be correct. The idea is to coordinate government communications as effectively as possible.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please advise me of what role the secretariat plays in the selection of the variety of advertising agencies that the government and its ministries and Crown corps use?

Hon. A. Petter: There's a competitive RFP process for any major advertising contracts that is, for the most part, conducted by the ministries that are undertaking the advertising. The role of the secretariat would be to ensure that that process takes place according to the requirements and to assist the ministries in undertaking the process appropriately.

R. Thorpe: My thanks to the minister. The minister mentioned the word "major" in his answer. I would just like the definition. At what dollar figure do we start being major, and at what dollar figure are we non-major?

Hon. A. Petter: The general threshold here -- which isn't to say there might not be competitive processes below that threshold -- is the same as elsewhere in government. Purchasing Commission policy threshold is, I believe, $50,000.

R. Thorpe: Out of the total number of employees -- I think you mentioned there were 22 in this branch -- how many are located outside Victoria? In other words, how many people are dispersed, say, in Kamloops or wherever? Or are they outside this total?

Hon. A. Petter: Six of the FTE positions are regionally allocated.

R. Thorpe: Just for clarification, are they included in the 22? They are? Thanks.

With respect to the controls, there are a few words here on controls -- how this secretariat actually does control the sign-offs to ensure that initiatives are coordinated and appropriate. Actually, it even says: " . . . the purposes of approving communication expenditures by ministry." That's interesting. These contracts are for values of $100,000 or greater, according to this document here.

One of the things that interests me, though, is that it appears, from my reading of this document -- so perhaps you could clarify it for me -- that the communications secretariat has the authority to transfer funds out of one STOB, which would perhaps be for statutory requirements, into an advertising area, if it so desires. Is that correct or incorrect?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I think the $100,000 figure the member referenced refers to a different threshold -- one for Treasury Board approval, not for competitive bidding.

I think the other matter has to do with reallocation of funds from STOBs 40 and 42, both of which are advertising STOBs -- one of which, I take it, is focused on statutory advertising to a greater extent than the other. To the extent that there is discretion between the two and the opportunity to spend out of one or the other, yes, approval is provided through CPCS communications concerning the allocation of advertising initiatives by the ministries between those two STOBs.

[7:45]

R. Thorpe: So, as I understand it, STOB 42, which is statutory notices, includes costs associated with special notices and publications required by statute and regulations,

whereas STOB 40 includes costs associated with non-statutory advertising. So for all intents and purposes -- not that anyone would contemplate doing it, I'm sure -- you could put numbers in a budget and prepare a budget year, and have quite a few costs lined up in STOB 42, and then, with the authority under 2/94 CPCS, you could move those funds over into general government advertising.

For instance, under the Children and Families ministry, I think there's $400,000 in advertising and $1.6 million in statutory advertising. So, theoretically, this communications secretariat could move that money out and use it for other programs. Could the minister please answer that?

Hon. A. Petter: There is opportunity to move funds amongst STOBs within government; that's true. But the idea of putting a budget together is to try as best as possible to allocate the funds to the STOB in which it will ultimately be expended. The fact is that between STOBs 40 and 42, however, there is a potential overlap. You could have a ministry, for example, deciding to allocate reports to STOB 40, which is publications, even though they might also be allocated to STOB 42 as annual reports or non-discretionary publications.

[ Page 4469 ]

Obviously that can have implications on the flexibility of the ministry and its ability to meet its needs. Therefore there is an appropriate role to be played by the communications secretariat in the allocation made, particularly between those two

STOBs.

R. Thorpe: In the communications support group, there's a comment here that "CPCS communications specializes and can provide expert advice on subjects such as . . . hiring and professional development." Does that just pertain to the secretariat, or does that cover all ministries in government? In fact, is this secretariat responsible for hiring all communications and advertising personnel throughout government?

Hon. A. Petter: CPCS does provide support to ministries in respect of, for example, the kind of communications needs they have, the kind of staff resources they require, the qualifications for candidates to fill those kinds of resources, and support in the recruitment processes that they go through. Of that kind, there is support provided. The actual recruitment is, of course, the responsibility of the ministries that are concerned.

R. Thorpe: I'm going to turn it over to my colleague from Delta South. I do look forward to the answers to the commitments that the minister has given tonight, and I do appreciate that.

F. Gingell: I hope that this question hasn't been previously asked and answered. But in trying to recognize the division of the role between cupcakes -- there's another word for CPCS -- and Treasury Board, you look down the organization chart of Treasury Board and there are people who are responsible for the development of social policy, employment policy, tax policy, economic development policy, etc. Then you look at CPCS, and they have people who are responsible for employment policy, land use, education. Where does the dividing line come? How do you separate which is which?

Hon. A. Petter: Treasury Board staff's major responsibility is to monitor policy from the point of view of the budget -- making sure the policy is consistent with the budget and also in terms of its fiscal implications. So if a new policy comes forward, Treasury Board staff might well comment upon the fiscal implications of that policy. Once the policy is in place they'll tend to monitor it and make sure it's being implemented in accordance with the budgeted allocations. The functions of the cabinet policy and communications secretariat in respect to policy is quite different.

It's to focus on the policy in terms of meeting the objectives that it sets out to meet beyond simply the fiscal component of those objectives -- but ensuring that the larger policy objectives are consistent with overall government policy and that the policy is well designed to achieve those particular objectives.

F. Gingell: I hope I understand that. If I may, I will just put it in my own words to ensure that I've got it right. The role of Treasury Board is to have a watching brief on ongoing government programs. The role of the policy division of CPCS is to think about new initiatives that will deal with emerging issues. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: It's not quite that cut-and-dried. I wish life were that clear and cut-and-dried at times. Certainly it's true, I think, that much of Treasury Board staff's function is to monitor ongoing policy . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, programs that are pursuant to policy; policy that's being implemented in the form of programs. But it's also true that Treasury Board staff will comment on policy proposals and provide advice concerning the fiscal implications of those policy proposals -- what they'll do to ministry budgets, the pressures they'll put on government, their cost-effectiveness.

Conversely, I think it's true that CPCS staff tend to focus on the formative component of policy -- new policy -- but I'm sure are also involved at times in evaluating and refining existing policy as well. It's more the focus; it's the focus of the oversight. The oversight role of CPCS is in terms of the policy objectives being met in the general sense of them being good public policy, meeting the government's overall policies and priorities, etc.

I must say that the two institutions do have to coordinate their efforts and work together. So if there are fiscal implications to policy and policy has other policy dimensions to it, what one would hope is that when that policy reaches cabinet, there will be both input from Treasury Board staff on the fiscal side and from CPCS staff on the policy side -- and, hopefully, some coordination between the two to make sure that the one had taken account of the input of the other.

F. Gingell: As you're aware, the council of deputy ministers and the auditor general are doing a lot of work on the accountability exercise. One gets into thinking about how this is going to be installed and integrated into government programs. One of the real challenges that I think government is going to face in this issue is clearly defining the criteria that it's going to measure . . . .

The government has made a decision that they believe is important relative to the health of young people -- to improve birthweights, say, and a program is developed on improving birthweights which may involve training and financial support and other things. Does CPCS now recognize that someone -- and I would presume them -- has to develop the criteria by which the success or failure of these programs will subsequently be measured? Has that become an integral part of their planning process?

Hon. A. Petter: I think in the example given that CPCS's role wouldn't be so much to generate the criteria as to ensure the ministry has generated the appropriate criteria. Of course, again, presumably there would be input from CPCS in terms of the policy objectives and from Treasury Board staff in terms of the fiscal objectives that might be contained within the stated goals and measurements, therefore, of the program.

But I think generally one would expect that the role here would be to coordinate and make sure that as a program comes forward and is evaluated, both prior to and subsequent to its implementation, the role of an agency like CPCS or Treasury Board staff would be to test the program against certain fiscal and program measures. And part of doing that would be to get the agency to produce those measures and ensure that those measures are ones that cabinet would agree with as part of the design of the program.

F. Gingell: A current issue that's on the front pages and that's certainly being reflected somewhere in the costs of this government in 1997-98 is the salmon war, the issue with our friends to the south. What role would CPCS play in an issue such as that?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure if the member was just reaching for an example. If he was, perhaps that wasn't the

[ Page 4470 ]

best one, because in that case there is a fisheries secretariat that is dedicated to providing policy support in respect of fisheries matters. But CPCS would still no doubt play a supportive role on the policy side or on the communications side where resources are required. I would think an initiative that is that central to government activity would inevitably have some involvement. But its involvement would be secondary -- on the policy side, at least -- to the fisheries secretariat.

F. Gingell: Perhaps I didn't make a particularly good choice. Could the minister give us a couple of examples of issues that he dealt with in 1996-97 from a policy issues point of view, and ones that he sees as looming or that he is already involved in in 1997-98?

[8:00]

Hon. A. Petter: I guess a couple that come to mind would be the youth employment strategies of last year. CPCS would certainly have been involved in those. I can give another example that has a slightly different spin to it, but . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm just talking about "spin" in some weird generic sense that I use, not in the sense that the member is referring to.

Be that as it may, the CPCS played a major role in the child poverty initiative. The reason I say it's a little different is that there are also intergovernmental dimensions to the child poverty initiative, because it draws on our own B.C. Benefits program. It also led to involvement with the federal government. So in that case there would also have been involvement from intergovernmental affairs staff, as well. Those are two examples that I can think of from last year and this year that may help give the member some sense of the kind of major policy development in which CPCS has played an important and central role.

C. Hansen: I've got a document that's titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," and it's dated February 5, 1997. My understanding is that this document is a product of CPCS. I wonder if the minister could confirm that.

Hon. A. Petter: Without seeing the document, it is difficult for me to say.

C. Hansen: I guess that begs the question of how many documents titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy" come out of CPCS these days. As I mentioned, this one has. Perhaps one of the staff might be able to deliver the front cover to the minister to refresh his memory.

In the meantime, while that's going over to the minister, I will carry on. The information I have is that this document is in fact a product of CPCS. I just want to ask the minister the context in which this document was prepared.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there is a jobs working group involving ADMs of various ministries that is coordinated by CPCS. It appears likely that this document came out of, or might have come out of, that initiative. Often, CPCS, in developing strategy documents or the like, will not be producing the documents themselves so much as coordinating and working with agencies in the production of policy initiatives. I'm informed that this particular one may have been a . . . . The cover sheet may have come out of the working group I described.

C. Hansen: I gather that if CPCS was playing this coordinating role with this working group, certainly the actual production of the document . . . . If it wasn't CPCS, perhaps the minister could inform me where this document might have been produced. Because, as I understand it, a working group of ADMs doesn't have a secretariat per se, other than CPCS. So my understanding would be that a document like this would in fact be prepared by CPCS.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to ask the deputy minister to check and see precisely where this document was produced -- whether it was within CPCS or whether it was within one of the ministries. But just speaking from personal experience, I know that very often documents will be produced initially by ministries, brought forward, critiqued, brought back. In other cases, documents may be undertaken by CPCS or by another agency. But if the member wants to know in respect of the particular genesis of this document, I'm happy to ask the deputy minister to follow up.

C. Hansen: My question is: if this document did not come out of CPCS, what would be the other possibilities as to where this would come from?

Just let me back up a little bit. We're talking about a process here: the estimates of the spending for the government of the province of British Columbia. Our job in opposition is to make sure that those spending estimates are adjudicated. It's our job to make sure that there's accountability for initiatives by the government. The taxpayers' money is going to be spent through the process that we're talking about tonight. I have this document, which is the closest thing that I've been able to find in a year. It's called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I'm trying to find out who to hold accountable for it.

My understanding is that the body that developed, produced this document was CPCS. It's my opportunity, when it comes to accountability in this chamber with regards to the spending this government's going to do on job strategy . . . . The time is now; it's here in this estimates, with this minister and with these officials, talking about CPCS.

So my question to the minister is: if this document was not produced by CPCS, who in government, throughout this whole estimates process, do I hold accountable for this document?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is confusing a couple of things. CPCS operates as a central agency to facilitate in the development of policy positions for the consideration of cabinet. In that case, it may handle any number of different documents, comment on them, develop some itself, etc.

Once the documents reach cabinet and become the subject of discussion -- and, ultimately, decisions -- the accountability for the policies that are then carried out fall according to the respective responsibilities of the ministers. In the case of employment, there is a Ministry of Employment and Investment that is specifically targeted at employment, and the minister is in a position to then comment on the success, or to respond to the ill-considered criticisms of that success by members opposite. But CPCS is there much like you could say, I suppose, Treasury Board staff is there.

Treasury Board staff handle and review and critique and produce a range of documents on a range of issues, but the accountability for those issues rests with the respective minister and ministry in whose substantive policy area they reside. Once cabinet decisions are made, that minister and ministry have charge of that policy.

C. Hansen: This document is very much a policy document in terms of the directions that the government intends to

[ Page 4471 ]

go in. One week ago today in this chamber I raised the issue of this document with the Minister of Employment and Investment. The minister's quite right, because certainly I would assume that if anybody in this government knew something about a jobs strategy, it would be the Minister of Employment and Investment. And one of the things that was so blatantly obvious a week ago today to every one of us in this chamber was that the Minister of Employment and Investment had never seen this document; he had never read this document. He was sitting with his deputy minister and his assistant deputy ministers, and none of them could enlighten us about where this document may have come from.

I have since been led to believe that this document is not a product of the Ministry of Employment of Investment but a product of CPCS. So I'm here to hold this minister, as the minister responsible for CPCS, accountable for what's in this document. If I'm wrong on that, I would like the minister to explain why I'm wrong. And if it's not him that's responsible for this document, who should I hold responsible?

Hon. A. Petter: As I said to the member earlier, I'll be happy to follow up and confirm or clarify the genesis of this document to the best of my ability. If it's confirmed that this is a document produced by CPCS, or by CPCS in conjunction with others, then I'll be happy to share that with the member.

But I think the member is still confusing two matters. There are any number of documents and advice and drafts and position papers by various agencies in government on a range of matters. But the question of holding government accountable . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: The opposition looks much more ferocious to me now than it did just a moment ago.

The question of a particular document . . . . If it interests the member, fine. But it seems to me that the way our system works, and is intended to work, is that once government adopts policies, then those policies reside in the ministries who have charge of those policy areas, and the minister can then respond for that. But the notion that ministers are held responsible for drafts and discussion papers and ideas that form part of the product, or are leading to that product, strikes me as sort of missing the point.

C. Hansen: One of the things I never thought I would have the opportunity to do is maybe to question the previous Minister of Employment and Investment.

If you go back to the budget that was brought down on April 30, 1995, in that document there is a commitment that there would be a comprehensive jobs strategy with clearly identified goals. Then, in the budget that this minister brought down in June of last year, there was specifically, again, a promise for a jobs strategy. I was quite delighted when I found this. I think I made reference last Monday that this had come to us through FOI; I subsequently was informed that no, it wasn't through FOI, but we were able to obtain the document.

This is the first document that I've ever seen that sort of fulfils that promise of a comprehensive jobs strategy, or at least even comes close to it. My challenge that I have undertaken is to find out if we have a document that sets out a jobs strategy for the government, which I would see as a policy initiative and the fulfilment of a commitment that was made a year ago -- that certainly this is something that we can look at and hold the government accountable for. Other than this document, there has been nothing else that has come out of this government in the way of a jobs strategy that is in any way comprehensive, that is anything other than simply piecemeal.

I guess I've now gone through my second minister: first of all, the Minister of Employment and Investment, who obviously had never read it, didn't know anything about it; and now the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for CPCS, also seems to be unaware of this document, as are his senior officials from CPCS. In the document, though, there are some very specific references to CPCS. It says: "Staff of CPCS are currently working with the ministries to provide more concrete information for future decisions . . . . " I'm wondering if the minister could tell us how that interministerial cooperation is working.

Hon. A. Petter: There is, as I've already suggested, an ADMs' committee, a deputies' committee, working on the furtherance of a comprehensive jobs strategy. I'm a little hurt that the member says that there's no other document that outlines the government's commitment or the nature of our jobs strategy, because in the budget speech this year I outlined five major elements of such a strategy, including the sustainable fiscal foundation, better skills and training for young people, investments in infrastructure, partnerships with the private sector, and initiatives targeted to key sectors of the economy.

I freely admit that this is a work in progress and that there is more that can be done and is being done, including work on a jobs and timber accord and the like. I invite the member to reread the budget speech and familiarize himself with another document that sets out in a very public and comprehensive way the direction this government is taking in respect of such a jobs strategy. Work is continuing on building on that strategy in the future.

I am trying to get further information for the member on the precise genesis of this document. We'll try to confirm that with him as soon as I am able to do so. I just don't want to glibly say, "Yes, it comes from here or comes from there," without being certain that that is in fact the case.

[8:15]

C. Hansen: Maybe a way I could refocus this . . . . In the budget speech that the minister delivered in this chamber last year, he promised a comprehensive jobs strategy -- in his own budget. Now when he talks about two pages out of this year's budget with the five points, which were five paragraphs, basically, in the budget . . . . Is that what he calls a comprehensive jobs strategy? Or am I missing something here? Is there another document?

If this document that I have does not fulfil the government's commitment to a comprehensive jobs strategy, is he talking about only five paragraphs in his budget speech fulfilling that commitment?

Hon. A. Petter: A jobs strategy is not paper. A jobs strategy is action -- action this government is taking and has taken in any number of different ways, from the Premier's involvement in the Canadian Airlines rescue to the initiatives that the Premier and this government have undertaken to protect our west coast fishery resource, through to the initiatives underway to protect jobs in respect to the jobs and timber accord.

What the budget did, though, was outline the five major elements of the job creation strategy that the government has

[ Page 4472 ]

pursued. It provided an overview of those elements and then within the sectoral initiatives it outlined further specific sectoral initiatives -- six of them, in fact. If the member seems to think that the strategy is a piece of paper, it isn't. The strategy is the plan of action that this government is undertaking as reflected in the budget, as reflected in further work.

Certainly, a draft document called "B.C. Jobs Strategy: Themes and Next Steps" that was generated, I assume, at some official's level for discussion by other officials, for ultimate consideration at some point by cabinet, is not a jobs strategy of this government. It may well be a document that will help to inform and lead to further work towards filling out a jobs strategy. But I think the member mistakes what a jobs strategy is, in terms of this government's commitment to a jobs strategy. It is a real strategy to create real jobs, not pieces of paper -- even important, informative pieces of paper that may assist the government in accomplishing that objective.

C. Hansen: But certainly this is something that's very important to government, and that's called accountability. It's fine to have grandiose ideas as to what constitutes a jobs strategy. Quite frankly, if the minister goes back and reads through Hansard , he will find that the Minister of Employment and Investment has a different definition of what constitutes a jobs strategy.

There are some overlapping areas -- I remember that infrastructure, for example, was a common theme -- but it's certainly not good enough for a government to have the Premier with one idea of a jobs strategy in his head, the Minister of Employment and Investment with another jobs strategy in his head and the Minister of Finance with yet a third jobs strategy.

If we don't have something that comes together that we and the people of this province can hold the government accountable for, then I don't think government is doing the job that's required. When we wind up with commitments for a jobs strategy, certainly the public doesn't expect something that's piecemeal and is going to create 100 jobs here and call that a jobs strategy. I think the minister mentioned training programs as a jobs strategy. Training programs are good, but they don't create jobs for young British Columbians when they finish the programs.

I will just come back to one of the specific themes in this document. If I can read the quote here: " . . . there are several common ideas that emerge from the sector strategies. They are" -- the first one -- "government and private sector working in partnership . . . . " The second one reads: " . . . creating a stable investment climate." I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the fact that in the last year, we've gone in the wrong direction when it comes to creating a stable investment climate. So if anything, we're falling back on meeting the conditions of a jobs strategy as set out in this document.

Hon. A. Petter: First, let me say that I have confidence that what British Columbians hold governments accountable for is performance, and the performance of this government and of this province in creating jobs over the last five or six years has been outstanding. About 50 percent of all the jobs created in Canada have been created in this province, with only 12 percent of the population. That doesn't mean to say that we don't need to do more or be more strategic in our approach; and as we've indicated, we are.

In terms of the more specific question concerning a stable investment climate, I fully agree with the member that we need to do everything we can, without compromising other key social objectives, to foster a stable investment climate. Much of what we have undertaken in this year's budget is designed to do that. In fact, the first element in the elements I outlined in the budget was a sustainable fiscal foundation. I'll read it to the member:

"To create the jobs and economic climate that will bring opportunities for new businesses and for communities, we must start with a sustainable fiscal foundation. Providing this level of certainty is necessary for businesses to make their investment plans and to be confident about the future. The plan for fiscal sustainability I've already outlined is a critical part of our strategy for higher growth and job creation."

Similarly, there's the decision to make cuts in the previous year's budget in the taxation for small business. The income tax cuts are all part of providing a stable economic climate and a climate for investment. The Minister of Employment and Investment has spoken often in this House of the efforts he's making to foster investment.

I spent this morning up in Whistler, unfortunately not outside enjoying the scenery but inside speaking to the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, encouraging them in the view that British Columbia is an excellent place in which to invest and showing them some of the progress we've made in terms of fostering and encouraging such investment. You'll get no disagreement from me in respect of the need to encourage investment. And yes, we had some slowing in the rate of growth in our economy last year, although happily, we saw continued growth.

I mean, this is a rare province in that we've had 15 years of straight economic growth. It was disappointing that growth slowed last year, although it picked up considerably in the last quarter and is continuing to improve coming into this year. That's all excellent news, and I can assure you that this government is very mindful of the need to encourage investment and will continue to do so. I guess there's further evidence I could provide the member, but he's going to get me all excited, and I'm going to start speechifying. I don't want to do that.

My deputy and I are now in the process of implementing an ongoing forum with business and others to talk about impediments to investment and how we can eliminate those. The Minister of Employment and Investment has an initiative to remove overly burdensome regulation. There have been announcements in the last few weeks to streamline the Forest Practices Code to remove some of the unnecessary red tape without compromising environmental standards.

Absolutely -- we've got to encourage investment, and we're committed to doing so. We're also committed, of course, to protecting social programs and infrastructure, which also attract investment and make this province a great place in which to live and in which to invest.

C. Hansen: It's not my intention to revisit the whole budget debate tonight, but I did want to respond quickly to three points that the minister just made. First of all, he talks about strong job growth in this province, and while we had 40,000 new jobs last year, we have seen a decline of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia in the last six months alone. If anything should set off the alarm bells, it's some of the job numbers coming out of Stats Canada in terms of the decline in the absolute number of British Columbians who are employed today.

Secondly, he talks about GDP and how there are great signs. British Columbia, when it comes to per capita GDP, ranks tenth of all the Canadian jurisdictions. We have a terrible record when it comes to GDP growth. As you go around this province, people hear the minister talking about the fact that we're supposed to have this booming economy, but they don't feel it. It doesn't reflect in their pocketbook, their

take-

[ Page 4473 ]

home pay or their ability to put food on the table, and that's because the per capita GDP in this province is in fact declining significantly while this government has been in power.

Thirdly, the minister talks about the need for investment. In terms of the new capital spending on plant and equipment in this province, it's below the Canadian average. Last year, in 1996, if British Columbia were to even have met the Canadian average when it came to investment in plant and equipment, there would have had to have been an additional $1.9 billion spent on plant and equipment in this province. I don't think the examples the minister uses are very good ones, because certainly the last few months, if anything, should dictate a very strong turn of direction when it comes to the policies this government has been implementing.

I want to come back to CPCS, because that is the item we're discussing. In this document, it refers to the fact that the staff of CPCS policy, communications and issues management have met. And one of the staff recommendations that came out was that "further creative and focus group work be carried out around the . . . key ideas for the strategy intended to convey a sense of confidence in the future." My understanding is that this focus group work is underway, and I am wondering if the minister could confirm that, in fact, it is CPCS that is contracting this focus group work?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there have been some public consultations around both policy and communications in respect of jobs initiatives -- not undertaken by CPCS, as I understand it, but undertaken by the Ministry of Employment and Investment with input and coordination from CPCS.

C. Hansen: Could I confirm that the cost of that work is in fact coming out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment budget, then, not the Ministry of Finance budget? Is that true?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the funding for the actual consultation and the like is funding that will come from the Ministry of Employment and Investment budget. Obviously the coordination work done by CPCS is the responsibility of CPCS and hence comes out of CPCS's budget. But the actual consultation and policy work is the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

C. Hansen: If I can just zero in on one or two other aspects of this document . . . . Again, this is coming from staff recommendations. As I read this -- page 5, if you do not have the whole document in front of you -- it's talking about staff at CPCS policy, communications and issues management.

They say: " . . . it is recommended that the government continue to note its successes, but avoid high-profile and large job creation targets." It says: " . . . first, the emphasis of the strategy . . . has less to do with quantity . . . and more with quality; second and more importantly, the government may not be able to do this credibly . . . " -- that is, claim high-profile and large job creation targets -- "given its lack of success in announcing targets that subsequently have failed to be met" -- for example, the budget debt management plan. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that reference.

Hon. A. Petter: I think I can just comment generally that it's obviously important to try to set targets that can be met or exceeded. I think you'll find that's reflected in the efforts I've made and in the budget I introduced -- to base those targets on prudent assumptions and to make sure that we work hard to achieve or, hopefully, exceed those targets that are so set.

C. Hansen: I gather that during the course of this debate over the last few minutes, the minister now has a copy of this document from ministry sources. Could the minister now comment on where this document originated?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the document was a staff discussion paper prepared by CPCS in the course of consultation with various ministries.

C. Hansen: When he talks about interministerial working groups, could the minister advise us how the preparation of this document would involve the Ministry of Employment and Investment?

Hon. A. Petter: They'd be on the working group.

C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us at what level the Ministry of Employment and Investment is involved?

[8:30]

Hon. A. Petter: I take it this operates at various levels. There are staff working groups; there's also an ADM working group and then there's work that goes on at the deputy ministers' level.

C. Hansen: With this interministerial working group on this jobs strategy, could the minister advise us if this group at the ADM level has in fact met to address the issues contained in this document to date?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it -- and the member can appreciate that this is not subject matter that I'm directly familiar with -- there have been ongoing meetings of the working groups at various levels on the development of the government's jobs strategy. Where exactly this document is and when it would have been discussed is difficult to say, but it presumably would have been one of the documents that would have provided a basis for discussion within the context of those working groups -- judging by the date, some time ago, but in the evolution and development of the government's overall approach to jobs.

C. Hansen: I've got a bunch of other issues regarding the jobs strategy, but I will save them for another venue and turn this over to another colleague. Before I leave, could the minister perhaps . . . ? In terms of these initiatives when it comes to a jobs strategy, are all of them funded out of specific ministries, or do they have to go to Treasury Board for special allocations for things like the communication plans?

L. Reid: Might have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the precincts today is a lovely gentleman by the name of Mr. Bruce Topp. He has done some wondrous things in the school district of Richmond, and I know he will continue to lead by example as a classroom teacher. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand the question, most of the funds with respect to the jobs strategy would be contained within ministry budgets. That doesn't mean that they don't require Treasury Board approval; there may be funds that are frozen or whose approval is subject to Treasury Board

[ Page 4474 ]

approval. There are obviously various contract thresholds and the like that require Treasury Board approval, so Treasury Board may be involved. But the funding would be allocated within the various ministries' budgets.

K. Krueger: Looking at the priority issue of the working group mandate, specifically their responsibility for coordinating opinion research across government and ensuring that the opinion research supports the development and implementation of government's strategic plan, obviously the gambling expansion that was announced by the Employment and Investment minister this spring is a major component of the government's strategic plan.

The people with the minister would be familiar with the type of opinion research that has been done in British Columbia over the last two years on the issue of gambling expansion, so my first question for the minister is: how many public opinion surveys on the issue of gambling or gaming in B.C. have been conducted over the last two years?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not able to discover the answer to that question. I'd be happy to get back to the member and try to do so, but I guess I really want to discourage the member. It's true that whenever you have a central agency like Treasury Board or CPCS, they have general oversight functions over aspects -- in this case, of communications or public opinion research -- but I think that to expect that provides a detailed knowledge of those activities is incorrect.

We can get the information, but I'm sure the member has brought up or will aggressively bring up this matter within the ministries that are responsible for it and to the ministers who are accountable for it -- and probably, if he has not already done so, will continue to do so in the future. We'll try to get the answer as best we can, but I suspect that the information is more readily obtainable from the minister who is directly accountable for the substantive policy concern the member is addressing.

K. Krueger: Accepting that the minister can't answer the specific question but will when he has access to the information, and relying on the gentlemen who are with him as his advisers tonight, I wonder if he would confirm whether, to their knowledge, there have been any public opinion surveys on the issue of gambling expansion -- particularly destination resort casinos and slot machines in British Columbia -- other than the Environics poll taken the first week of January this year and published May 12. Do these advisers know of any other public opinion surveys on those issues?

Hon. A. Petter: To the best of my knowledge and that of the officials, there certainly has been some polling on gaming. In fact -- and I'm not sure, as I was just consulting while the member was speaking, so he may have referenced this -- I believe the minister released a poll a while back. If the member wants to know what polling has been undertaken within government with respect to gaming, we can try to track down that information and provide it to him, if he hasn't already ascertained it or isn't in a position to do so from the minister. We just don't have the information at hand. But certainly I believe there has been polling done on gaming.

K. Krueger: In the fall of 1994 and the early spring of 1995, this same government put out media releases that said the public in British Columbia were opposed to gambling expansion and didn't think that sort of activity was necessary or desirable in our province -- and in fact went so far as to say, essentially, that it was the provinces that hadn't been able to generate the kind of robust economy which British Columbia enjoyed that indulged in such activities. So it's a pretty remarkable departure from those publications -- and they were voluntary press releases -- to suddenly swing into a massive gambling expansion of the scale we've seen announced this spring.

In the absence of any firm knowledge of any public opinion polls indicating a change in the public attitude on these issues, I wonder if the minister could just give us CPCS advice as to why such a dramatic change would have taken place. Surely this is the body that coordinates government decisions and ensures that the government is well aware of public opinion on important issues such as this.

Hon. A. Petter: We'll be here all night if we take every issue that the members opposite, with their responsibilities, want to discuss simply because CPCS is a central agency. I guess what I'd say is that, in my recollection, in 1994 there was announced a modest gaming expansion. This past year there's been announced a modest gaming expansion. In both cases there was rejection of a fuller gaming expansion.

But rather than getting into that debate, I encourage the member to have that debate, if he hasn't already, with the minister who is directly accountable and can provide a much fuller account of the rationale for the decisions that were made and not made, the polling that was done or not done, and the implications for social policy -- a much more productive forum than trying to attach such a debate to the debates of the operations of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and, in particular, CPCS.

K. Krueger: While we're quite willing to be here all night if necessary, I don't think we have any intention of canvassing every issue. But this is a major issue and a major departure from government's stated direction and stated assessment of public opinion. Therefore we certainly expected that CPCS would have some input for us as to how such a dramatic change could have occurred.

The Environics poll I referred to, which was taken the first week of January and published May 12 -- a curiously long lag between -- was a peculiar poll in that it initially asked the respondents how they felt about the gambling expansion issue and then asked them a whole series of leading questions, clearly leading in one direction and not asking questions such as, "Would you be even more unkindly disposed toward gambling expansion if you knew that the spouses of male pathological gamblers attempt suicide at triple the rate of the normal female population?" and so on.

Rather, it asked them things like: "If you knew that the deficit could be cut, debt reduced and your taxes would come down if the government enjoyed expanded gambling revenues, then would you be in favour?"

Some people refer to this as push-polling and other less flattering terms. I wonder if CPCS has any strategy around the use of that type of polling in this or any area of government.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me again just go on record as saying that despite the member's best attempt to try to make assertions I disagree with, I simply need to reiterate that from the government's point of view there was no dramatic change in policy. What was undertaken this year and in 1994 were modest expansions in gaming activity, consistent with the concerns that have been expressed about more major expansions in gaming policy. However, I understand that the member doesn't share that view. No doubt he has had it out or will continue to have it out with the minister.

[ Page 4475 ]

In respect of polling, I'm not personally familiar with the poll the member is referring to. But I am very well familiar with the fact that polling or public information research involves what's called "argument testing," in which you push the respondents to consider their conclusions in light of competing interests to test how firmly those conclusions are held -- to see what choices they would make in order to ascertain the validity and depth of feeling and opinion. That's a very common technique.

It's done in order to try to probe more fully what opinions really are and what choices people would make when faced, as one must be in public policy, with considering competing demands for finite resources.

K. Krueger: In the mandate document for CPCS, under "Communications Support" on page 4 near the bottom, the bottom paragraph, a quote is: "CPCS communications also specialize and can provide expert advice on subjects such as advertising." I receive quite a bit of negative input about advertising that's pushing gaming in British Columbia. I wonder if CPCS has issued any specific instructions on advertising gaming in British Columbia in the last couple of years.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the advertising that the member is likely referring to is advertising of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. CPCS would have no direct oversight or involvement in its production or messaging, etc.

[8:45]

K. Krueger: I assumed from the way the document is worded that CPCS would at least have indirect oversight into the manner of advertising. I also note that one of CPCS's communications officers is located in Kamloops, where B.C. Lottery Corporation's head office is located. I wonder if these people have any specialization in those roles or whether they all do the same role -- all six of them throughout the province.

So two questions, really: did CPCS have any indirect say in the kind of advertising done? Is there any specialization of these individuals?

Hon. A. Petter: No. I'm informed CPCS has had no involvement, direct or indirect, in the B.C. Lottery Corporation advertising. The role played by regional coordinators in CPCS is the same, save in respect to the territory that they cover across the province. There's no relationship between the regional coordinator in Kamloops and the fact that the B.C. Lottery Corporation also happens to be located in Kamloops.

K. Krueger: For these regional government communications offices, could we know what their individual budgets are and whether they have support staff? How many people would be concerned at each location? What's their approximate budget?

Hon. A. Petter: I find this hard to believe: apparently they have no support staff. They function as best they can without the support staff. Their office expenses and the like are covered within the CPCS budget.

F. Gingell: Just while we're on this particular subject, I go to this document that deals with the cabinet policy and communications secretariat in their role of "planning, coordination and implementation of communications programs and policies, advertising and information services for ministries, special offices and certain bodies . . . . " We know what ministries are. Could the minister please advise us what "special offices" and what "certain bodies" are?

Hon. A. Petter: I assume this refers to things like commissions, agencies and boards that function within the consolidated revenue fund -- the fisheries secretariat would be an example -- and other like offices and agencies that might undertake activities that CPCS could be of assistance in coordinating.

F. Gingell: Do I take the minister's statement as an assurance that all the work that's done by CPCS in the field of communications is within the consolidated revenue fund only?

Hon. A. Petter: No. There is certainly direct responsibility for agencies within the consolidated revenue fund, but CPCS will also provide assistance on a liaison basis with agencies like Forest Renewal, for example. Where there is a forestry issue, there may be a need to work with Forest Renewal to ensure that activities are coordinated between government and Forest Renewal. So it's not the case that their activities are confined in that way, but their primary responsibilities would be in respect of agencies within the central government.

F. Gingell: I can appreciate that where you get big public policy issues like FRBC, there is a need to ensure coordination. I was hoping you were going to mention B.C. Lottery Corporation, because that's been the discussion we've been going through. Where there is a big public policy issue such as the Lottery Corporation, it kind of surprises me that CPCS didn't see itself with an important role to play in ensuring that all the communications programs were coordinated -- that they fit in with one another and someone wasn't saying one thing and someone else saying something different.

I take it the minister is giving his assurance that in the past year and in this year's estimates there is no use of human resources within CPCS in relation to the issue of expanded gambling.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me clarify -- and I appreciate the member's question, because it helps me to do so. In terms of policy advice, CPCS would have been involved in providing policy advice and channelling of policy through to cabinet for a decision regarding gaming and communications regarding changes in government policy regarding gaming. What I was saying was that the information I have is that CPCS was not involved in any way with the B.C. Lottery Corporation in respect of its advertising program -- not to say that it couldn't have been.

It just wasn't, and I imagine that was because that program is very much directed at the sale of existing lotteries and was not seen as falling within the ambit of activity that government was generating as policy and communications regarding the changes in those policies.

F. Gingell: Without wanting to suggest to the minister or to the deputy minister for CPCS any way of moving further expenditures off-budget, does CPCS ever bill anybody outside the CRF for their services?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a great idea. I'm sorry; I shouldn't be facetious. To my knowledge, based on staff's advice, CPCS has not billed agencies outside of CRF for the services it provides them.

B. Penner: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This question also relates to the cabinet policy and communications secretariat. A little earlier this evening my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton was asking some questions about CPCS's role in communicating and advertising strategies with

[ Page 4476 ]

regard to youth programs in British Columbia. Last week the B.C. Liberal Party came into possession of a document that showed that between June 1996 and April 1997 roughly $1.5 million was spent by this government advertising youth initiatives. Approximately $750,000 of that went to ad placement; more than $300,000 went to the preparation of those ads -- production costs; and more than $130,000 went to focus group research.

My question to the minister is whether any of that money would be coming from CPCS's budget under STOB 40, or whether those expenditures were strictly from the budget of the office of the Premier.

Hon. A. Petter: I can provide the member with fuller information if he wants, but the information I have at hand suggests that CPCS did participate in the agency contract for the spring youth initiative in the amount of $510,000.

B. Penner: I'm just seeking a point of clarification. The minister said the spring communications initiative. Which spring would that have been: spring 1996 or spring 1997?

Hon. A. Petter: Spring of '97.

B. Penner: Of the $1.8 million that's budgeted for STOB 40, I wonder if the minister is able to tell us how much of that is going to be dedicated to promotion of youth programs. I note that although the document we obtained last week indicated $1.5 million had been spent from June 1996 to April 1997, we continue to see ads appearing in newspapers in British Columbia extolling the virtues of the Premier's youth initiative. So my question to the minister is: how much is that ongoing campaign costing, and how much is the Minister of Finance contributing through his budget to that ongoing media campaign?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I think it would probably be easier if I were able to obtain for the member some information in writing to give him a more detailed picture. But just on what I've been able to ascertain from staff, it appears that of the production and creative costs related to the agency -- the ones I referred to already -- about $510,000 was the cost that was borne by the CPCS budget. The remainder was cost-shared between -- or amongst, more correctly -- four ministries who deliver Guarantee for Youth programs.

B. Penner: I'm just about finished with this line of questioning. I'll just ask if the minister can enunciate for us which four ministries he's referring to and what amounts they contributed to the media campaign.

Hon. A. Petter: I can give the member the four ministries; I can't tell him how much they contributed, but I can try to get that information. The ministries are the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

B. Penner: My final question to the minister is: was all of this activity and the expenditure of these funds directed at a media campaign essentially quarterbacked through CPCS? Did CPCS play the lead role in terms of strategizing and coordinating this advertising?

[9:00]

Hon. A. Petter: CPCS plays a coordinating role in terms of ensuring that these various ministries work in a coordinated way to communicate concerning the government's youth initiatives -- if that answers the question.

R. Thorpe: So with the support of the document we have, tonight we've been able to confirm that the cabinet policy and communications secretariat coordinates, controls and manages all of the advertising for government. We also note in the total estimates book that close to $25 million is available. My question is: how do CPCS and Treasury Board interface on managing and making sure that all the funds are accounted for by all these various ministries, for which this secretariat is quarterbacking the expenditures of all this money?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I can't resist saying that the startling revelations that the member seems to have discovered were all contained in the briefing notes that we provided to him. But if he thinks it's startling that there's a coordinating function for communications in government, when there's an agency called the cabinet policy and communications secretariat, I guess that's startling.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

In terms of the division of responsibilities between CPCS and Treasury Board staff, it would parallel the same kind of division I spoke about earlier with respect to the questions of the member for Delta South -- namely, that Treasury Board staff's role would be to monitor advertising in terms of ensuring that it and communications fall within the appropriate allocations for budgets and to monitor the expenditures to ensure that they are in accordance with approvals given by Treasury Board for such expenditure.

The CPCS function, on the other hand, would be to coordinate that advertising and make sure that it communicates a set of messages or information in a coherent way that's consistent with overall government policy, that doesn't involve duplication and that most effectively communicates the information or messages that are contained within it. The two agencies obviously have to work together at times to perform their complementary but discrete functions.

R. Thorpe: This is my last statement on this, just so the minister is fully informed on this subject. No, we were not provided with this briefing document on Friday. It's something we've obtained ourselves. I appreciate that you think it came from your staff in the briefing on Friday, but it did not.

F. Gingell: One last question on CPCS. I see that the final words, both in the estimates and in the briefing document that you gave us on Friday, indicate this important role for the public liaison function of government. I'm recognizing that all of us sometimes need some help with these matters, and they're not always as easy as they may seem -- if they don't come naturally to us.

I wonder whether CPCS has within its budget any training funds available for helping people fulfil these roles -- they're somewhat different; they're not that straightforward, all these interpersonal skill and conflict resolution issues -- and whether CPCS has a clearly identified plan to ensure that it can look after these responsibilities.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there is not a specifically designated component of the budget that's targeted

[ Page 4477 ]

towards, say, conflict resolution or interpersonal skills. But it's an area that is of interest to the secretariat. The secretariat, as I understand, is looking at this area and doing some work around development of programs and may have funded some workshops in this regard. But it's not something they have allocated as a specific component of their budget at this time.

F. Gingell: With that, if we may, we will move along to Treasury Board.

Coming back to the issue of the accountability initiative, obviously Treasury Board is going to play a major role in helping and guiding the various ministers and program directors in this area. Someone from Treasury Board was assigned to the function about a year ago; they were then moved into the comptroller general's office. They've now been moved from there into the Ministry of Forests, I think, in the accounting . . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, the Ministry of Highways.

I wonder if any individual has been assigned to pick up these responsibilities.

Hon. A. Petter: Not as yet, unless events have overtaken my recent travels, but there certainly is an understanding that we need to restore some of our capacity to move forward on the accountability initiative. I have raised the matter both with staff and with the deputy minister, and with the Premier, who also has an interest in this initiative.

F. Gingell: And not only in the position that Har Singh was fulfilling day to day on the ground . . . . There was also a deputy minister who was assigned some overall lead responsibility, in the person of Brenda Eaton. Strange, isn't it? All the people who had lunch together with Mr. Gunton, other than Mr. Gunton, are gone. At any rate, Brenda Eaton is no longer here, and I'm wondering whether any other deputy minister has been assigned that lead role.

Hon. A. Petter: Indeed there has. It happily gives me the opportunity to introduce to the House Don Wright, who is the deputy minister in charge of Treasury Board and who has now assumed responsibility for the accountability initiative within the Ministry of Finance.

F. Gingell: Just a word of advice: watch those last suppers. [Laughter.] They tend to do you in.

An important ingredient in the accountability exercise is that there have to be consequences, both negative and positive consequences. One can appreciate that that may cause some management problems, because that's not the way governments -- and I don't mean this government necessarily but governments, period -- have operated in the past. Is that side of the accountability issue something that has been dealt with by government and that they've given thought to, to consider the issue?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I just want to be clear that this government certainly does take seriously the need to hold its officials and managers accountable. There are numerous ways in which that can be done, of course. The accountability initiative will enhance the measurements against which that accountability can take place, but I'm guessing that perhaps the member is suggesting added forms of incentives or disincentives than those that have been previously used.

I guess I can say that it is certainly an issue that I have thought some about, and I know that the officials have, as well. We have looked at institutional structures and adopted some where agencies are allowed to retain some of the savings they make, for example, as an incentive. But if the member is talking about further incentives -- salary incentives, for example, or disincentives -- I have certainly considered those. I'll be frank with the member that I haven't in my own mind become sufficiently advanced in my thinking to have a strong opinion as to what might work and what might not work.

If the member has gone further in his thinking, I'd very much welcome the benefit of his consideration of that issue. I think there should be ways in which we can provide additional incentives or disincentives to managers and ways to create natural market-based incentives for people to exceed targets, with some consequences if they don't. I'm certainly open to the idea; I like the idea. In many ways, it's more attractive than traditional command-and-control regulation or management styles, and I think it's worth considering.

F. Gingell: It's truly a very difficult, complex subject that has all kinds of ramifications you can spend the rest of your evening thinking about.

Treasury Board has clearly had a role for years in the evaluation of the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of programs. This initiative, I would suggest to the minister, is an exercise in moving this evaluation of relevance, efficiency and effectiveness into the ministry itself. The ministry is setting up its own measures, and the ministry is arranging for the measurement to produce results that can be certified or to get a Good Housekeeping seal of approval from some independent third party.

That raises many issues, and if I may, I would like to ask some questions about what's happening and where we are going. First of all, is the program evaluation group within Treasury Board taking an active role in advising, educating and training people who are responsible for program delivery within ministries?

[9:15]

Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is yes. The program evaluation group is concerned with accountability, and part of that accountability is assisting ministries in establishing some of their evaluation criteria.

F. Gingell: The minister will remember that when we were discussing the budget of the office of the comptroller general, we were talking about funds that that office has available to use for outside consultants. You will remember that the answer was that those funds are used more to bring in skills that are not present within the ministry, recognizing that this accountability initiative starts to call for a completely different set of skills from many of the things many of us have, whether we be accountants or engineers. It requires professional expertise that is an unusual type and is hard to find.

I understand that there is an organization that is involved in developing the professional skill sets that are involved in these types of appraisal exercises. I'm wondering whether the ministry is looking to the future and having any input in the kinds of programs delivered at our colleges or universities -- maybe the school of public administration at your own university -- that will ensure there is a supply of people with these somewhat different professional skill sets available.

Hon. A. Petter: I certainly want to acknowledge that I think there are skills associated with this kind of initiative that

[ Page 4478 ]

challenge the Ministry of Finance to add to its professionalism in this regard. I know that's an issue that is under active consideration by the deputy minister. There is a limited contracting budget within STOB 20 budget within the Ministry of Finance. But as I understand it, under PSERC, the employee development office does have the capacity to bring in experts in areas such as this to assist in the development of skills within government. I agree that as we move forward on this initiative, there will have to be more systematic effort made at training and inculcating the values that go along with this kind of approach to accountability.

I think the member's suggestion is well taken. There may be schools of public administration and the like within this province that could assist and provide some expertise and build their own capacity in regard to this kind of accountability program throughout government.

F. Gingell: I don't wish to spend a great deal of time on this issue, but sitting in the position that I do, one can appreciate that I get concerned that nothing is happening on the accountability initiative. I think we have a real opportunity that will pay dividends if it's properly done and people use it as a proper management tool. I would just end this particular

section in relation to the accountability initiative, recognizing that we don't need to go into all the issues, because we're all familiar with them. But the commitment from government is real -- that you will get somebody in Har Singh's place soon. If we don't, it's going to lose its impetus, if that hasn't already started to happen.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the member's concern and observation is well founded. To be candid, in the last six to eight months the focus of government and of the Ministry of Finance, in terms of our fiscal agenda, has been directed at making substantial cuts and making adjustments in ministry budgets and the like to ensure that we could produce the kind of fiscal management plan, financial management plan and budget that we have produced. There have been changes of staff as well: two new deputy ministers. All of which, I think, has taken away some of the focus and energy from this initiative.

If the member is seeking some reassurance that the initiative remains one to which government and this ministry are committed, I can provide him with that assurance. I think that goes beyond this ministry, through the public service to the deputy minister in charge of the public service, to the Premier. And yes, we are mindful of the need to have some added resources within this ministry to give some leadership and direction to that initiative, so that we can start to move forward yet again.

F. Gingell: In the organization of Treasury Board there is a new position for the year 1997-98: assistant deputy minister of special projects. Can the minister advise us just exactly what is defined in Treasury Board as a special project? Give us some examples.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we were very fortunate to attract a very capable individual to this ministry to assume this position. His original focus was on the management plans that formed part and parcel of the program review and part and parcel of the very substantial cuts both in ministry budgets and in FTE complements associated with them over the past year. That having largely been done, the focus of this individual is now shifting to the management of the capital side of expenditures.

The member for Delta South is, of course, familiar . . . . We undertook a very extensive capital review last year, with some strategic direction as to how to reduce our overall capital investment, but to do so in a way that maximized the return to the taxpayer through greater efficiencies. We also sought greater involvement from private sector participants through joint ventures and the like -- public-private partnerships, I guess, is the term these days.

Mr. Sakalauskas is now focused in that regard and will also be having special responsibility for major government initiatives that have fiscal implications as they emerge from time to time -- an example being the negotiations regarding the jobs and timber accord.

F. Gingell: Within this same organizational chart is the capital expenditure review group under the acting director, Manuel Achadinha. The way the boxes are done, that doesn't look as though it's a box that reports to the ADM of special projects; it looks as though it reports directly to the deputy minister. Has the capital expenditure review group been absorbed into Mr. Sakalauskas's group, or . . . ?

Hon. A. Petter: It's not so much a case of absorption; it's a case of him having oversight responsibility now in terms of the management at the ADM level of that group, which is a very important group in terms of trying to maintain an approach to capital expenditure that maximizes the return to government as a whole and to the public as a whole from our very extensive investments in infrastructure. It also has implications for maintaining our targets in terms of the financial management plan and the debt -- the GDP side.

So it's not so much that one has been absorbed into the other; it's that the assistant deputy minister will have oversight and provide direction in respect to capital projects, and will also then take on additional special responsibilities that relate to governmentwide initiatives of the kind I've just outlined.

F. Gingell: So this group in special projects looks at capital expenditures, whether there are alternatives and ways in which resources can be freed up from other programs, and has produced some form of matrix by which they can all be placed and evaluated and given points and added up and divided and multiplied, and see who comes out the winner and which projects get the top priority. That's sort of the idea, is it?

Hon. A. Petter: That's sort of the idea. Maybe I can explain the genesis of this a little bit. Mr. Trumpy, who is in fact assistant deputy minister for provincial treasury, took on -- on an ad hoc basis, at my request last year -- responsibility for the capital review, with the assistance of staff, who are now involved in the capital expenditure review group. The group and Mr.

Trumpy did an outstanding job in terms of dealing with stakeholders and coming up with a capital plan that saw a reduction in year-over-year capital spending and some pretty concrete proposals as to how that reduction would be managed in a way that maximized the value of the investments. They also sought alternative sources of investment for public-private partnerships. Happily for him, Mr. Trumpy has now returned to his primary preoccupation of being in charge of provincial treasury. And the oversight responsibility that he had has now shifted to Mr.

Sakalauskas, whose title of special projects may well change in light of that responsibility.

The role here is to make sure that those general criteria -- and as they evolve, new criteria -- are applied by the

minis-

[ Page 4479 ]

tries. It is not a component of Treasury Board staff to make decisions about, say, which schools are built. It's to make sure that the decision-making criteria that are applied -- in this case by the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training -- are consistent with the objectives of maximizing value, seeking economies of scale and looking at alternatives to construction, such as extended hours. All those are part and parcel of the evaluation criteria applied by the ministries and of the interaction between -- in this case -- the ministry and the local school board.

They're responsible, therefore, for the continuing development and implementation of that policy by the various agencies. They act as a central Treasury Board oversight function with respect to those agencies, obviously monitoring them to make sure, as well, that they stay within their budget envelopes and respond to issues that might arise throughout the course of the fiscal year. So it's a long yes, but a slightly more nuanced yes, I guess, to the member's question.

[9:30]

F. Gingell: There was an important role in the early days of the Crown corporations secretariat. It was to ensure that there was coordination between the planning of Crown corporations and various ministries. That comes into the CRF, too -- planning between ministries so that there are going to be roads where you're going to build schools, in the same way that there are going to be road services to where you build ferry terminals. You plan additional things to ensure that the infrastructure works. Does this special projects group have responsibility in those kinds of issues, to ensure that there's proper cross-ministry coordination?

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, but again I want to qualify the yes. Yes, in the sense that the apportionment of the overall capital envelope of government amongst ministries is something that this group obviously has a major role, in both monitoring and providing advice to Treasury Board and, through Treasury Board, to cabinet. They have also provided assistance in evaluating the capital spending of Crown corporations and the like.

However, the qualification is this. In terms of good financial management and of apportioning the budgets to meet the social policy goals, yes, certainly this group would have a major say. In terms of coordinating capital spending from an economic development point of view -- in order to maximize jobs, in order to try to ensure equity and a fit from the point of view of the best strategic advantage of investments in terms of the investment climate of the province -- that side of the equation would be more the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

So in terms of tying this in with a job strategy and an overall vision for infrastructure development that will provide transportation services to remote communities and those kinds of things, economic development would be the oversight agency there, linking with the particular ministries which are concerned.

It's sort of a matter of coordination taking place in both forms: economic development from the macroeconomic side and Treasury Board in this unit in terms of fiscal management and maximizing the return to taxpayers and ensuring that ministries and agencies live within their appropriate budgets.

F. Gingell: I don't know whether to give a little commercial at this point. I think I will. I'm sure that the ADM of special projects wasn't listening to my private member's statement last Friday, but I spoke on the issue of hospices, and I'd like to suggest that there are ways of reducing the capital requirements in hospitals. There are ways of reducing the operating costs in the Ministry of Health and in hospitals, at the same time creating a much better environment for people to die in: to die at home or to die in freestanding hospices that are set up and organized for that. Those could be major savings.

Maybe it's a project you could pass on to special projects, because I think it's something that will have good results all the way around.

I take it that issues to do with the reduction in staffing that have taken place over this past year in trying to sort out some of the issues, because I must admit that in reading the various press releases and some of the documents, it's just a little hard to understand exactly what has happened . . . . I was looking forward to the minister explaining that to me and wiping away the fog that surrounds that. But perhaps it is in Treasury Board that we should be dealing with that.

Hon. Chair, I don't think we're going to be finished with Treasury Board this evening. There are other people that wish to ask some questions, and I wouldn't mind a sit for a few minutes. Perhaps the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has some tax policy issues to discuss.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to get into this estimates debate tonight. I have a number of issues, and I'm hoping this is the appropriate place to raise them with respect to . . . . I think it does come into much of that was being asked in terms of priority of spending and making sure that government is committing its dollars wisely, but more specifically it's with respect to the management strategy that is determined through Treasury Board allocations to particular line ministries.

I wonder if the ministry has had an opportunity to examine in a broader, more philosophical way, to what extent program demand that may drive long-term debt -- and I'm thinking more specifically on long-term capital projects . . . . To what extent has government determined what level of debt is acceptable as a long-term policy strategy, and how might the management of that debt be part of an overall fiscal plan that can be put forward with respect to capital funding for projects?

Just so the minister knows where I'm heading on this, at some point -- and it may not be at this particular stage of these estimates -- I would like to talk about the revenue side and about the matters of tax reform that are currently being discussed across the country with respect to some blending of tax systems that might facilitate long-term debt management.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to answer the question in as much of a nutshell as I can. Since I became Minister of Finance . . . . In respect of preparing for this year's budget with the growth in GDP being less than had been previously forecast, and that having an impact on our debt-to-GDP ratios, I felt it appropriate to reconvene the private sector advisory group that had assisted my predecessor in terms of debt management strategies. The advice they provided essentially became the basis for the debt management component of the financial management plan in this year's budget.

Interestingly, it's not that much different than the advice they provided previously, but at that time government sought to exceed that advice, and maybe that was a mistake.

At the same time there were discussions that went on with other groups, including the Business Council of B.C.,

[ Page 4480 ]

who suggested that perhaps a higher level of debt-to-GDP was appropriate. I think the Business Council suggested perhaps a level as high as 25 percent of debt-to-GDP, as opposed to the 20 per cent cap that the business and labour panel that was convened had recommended. Be that as it may, the advice that we have followed is to try to establish a cap of 20 percent of debt-to-GDP and to reduce the current debt-to-GDP ratio to 20 percent over the course of three years. That's what the financial management plan targets.

Looking beyond that, over the course of the next 15 years, to then seek to incrementally reduce that percentage from 20 to 15 percent of debt-to-GDP . . . . I think that is the most appropriate measure to measure the amount of debt in relation to the size of the overall economic pie as represented by GDP. And that is set out in "Budget '97 Reports" on page 30, as I'm sure the member is aware.

G. Wilson: The reason that I'm pursuing this line of questioning is because it appears that there is fairly intensive debate across the country at the moment, with respect to that very question: what is the appropriate level of debt-to-GDP?

Secondly, given the fact that we are reaching the point at which we are going to have to start to put some significant investment back into our communities with respect to capital projects that will require long-term debt financing and whether or not in fact governments are on the right track by looking toward a graduated reduction . . . . Now, I think the member for Delta South takes the position that it should be zero. He scolded me somewhat the other night when the matter was posed by the Minister of Employment and Investment, and I said that from our perspective, 26 percent was the appropriate percentage.

At some point the member for Delta South and I are going to have a bit of a discussion as to what he meant in that rather scolding little note that he sent me.

But the point is that we are going to, I think . . . . As people who are involved in a general debate around public policy and financing of capital projects, it would seem to me that we are moving along the line of joint venture partnership and moving toward privatization in a manner that becomes counter productive at some point and that will create a greater degree of expenditure requirement in the final analysis, if in fact those joint venture projects don't work or if, through the privatization of certain government delivery of services, we find that those services fail.

I'm curious to know where in the planning process the projections are done with respect to what the long-term costs are going to be with respect to this graduated reduction of debt, in the event that we have an escalating or increased demand. For example, if we're to deal, as Treasury Board has dealt, on a matter such as a public transport service such as B.C. Ferries -- and this will be something we can discuss in the B.C. Ferries estimates . . . . But because Treasury Board has been approached and has taken the attitude -- or government has, and Treasury Board now administers -- that B.C.

Ferries should have a reduced subsidy annually, the direct result of that is to transfer debt to Crown corporations and to increase costs to people who have to travel on B.C. Ferries. And if, in addition to that, they're having to pick up the burden of capital construction -- i.e., the building of new ferries -- we are looking at long-term debt management of the Crown corporation for the provision of public transportation. It may well be that at some point this administration, or a future administration, will have to pick up the debt incurred, because ultimately the public has to have that service.

I'd like to hear from the minister what the rationale has been with respect to this movement toward graduated reduction, rather than looking at the maintenance of a level of debt-to-GDP that would provide us the opportunity to adequately and properly fund those services deemed necessary by the community.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the hon. member makes some excellent points, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who receives scolding notes from the member for Delta South. It's reassuring to know that members on that side of the House do, as well.

I think the issue of the optimal level of debt-to-GDP is a debate that has no right answer. It is something that I guess one has to make one's judgments about. In a growing province like British Columbia, with a history in which public infrastructure investment has been a key component of the growth in our economy -- and with members of all political stripes asking for more roads and other infrastructure -- I agree that to go the route of the member for Delta South and say that zero is the appropriate level would not be well received when it translated into a drying-up of public investment in key infrastructure.

But as to what the appropriate level is, I don't think there's any science to it, and that's why we went out as a government and sought advice from various groups -- labour and business and others -- as to what level there ought to be.

Now, I do want to comment on one thing the member said. He talked about the pressures of growth in the economy. But, of course, the pressures of growth in the economy from increased population and the like means that the economy is growing and therefore you have 20 percent of a larger economy, and that 20 percent in real dollar terms can accommodate more investment. So debt, in nominal terms, that's held to a fixed percentage in a growing economy will grow. The actual level of debt will grow, but it will be sustainable because the economy will be growing, presumably, by as great, or greater, a share.

The other point the member makes, which I must say resonates with me, is this question of public versus private debt. Are we really better off as a society if a bridge that might be built by the public sector is built by the private sector? I think one can argue both sides of that issue in terms of apportioning the debt burden, in terms of sharing risk, etc. But I guess what I would say is that I think it is not a bad thing that we set targets.

Clearly the markets are very sensitive to targets, and while we may have an internal view in this province as to what is an appropriate level of debt, that view may not be shared by those outside this province. I don't believe in being slavish to the one view or to the other. I know that the bond agencies that downgraded us did so, in part, because they saw a 20 percent debt-to-GDP as being more than they would have liked -- to have kept our previous debt rating. On the other hand, we have the Business Council of B.C. saying, "Let's go to 25 percent" -- or potentially. And the member opposite says the same.

So it's a balancing act.

[9:45]

I'd say that setting some targets that are manageable -- and I think these are -- and driving ourselves to be very careful about the priorities we set and, by implication, leaving to the private sector initiatives that can perhaps produce a revenue stream that can go on a pay-as-you-go basis -- whether it's through tolling or through other forms of cost recovery -- is a useful exercise. It's a matter, then, of navigating these tricky waters between what expectations are of us in this regard externally, what they are internally and what we

[ Page 4481 ]

need in order to maintain a he