1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 23

[ Page 12243 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

D. Jarvis: It's my privilege today to introduce you to a young gentleman from my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour who says he voted for me -- one of the 60-odd percent that did. This young man is also the illustrious son of our member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I'd like the House to welcome David Whittred.

W. Hartley: Today we have groups of students from two different schools in Bothell, Washington. From Westhill Elementary School, we have some 50 grade 6 students with 12 adults and their teacher, Bob Jones. From Canyon Creek Elementary School, we have 55 visitors from grade 6, with adults and their teacher, Mr. Mayberry. Would you please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: We have 15 young people from Surrey-White Rock here in the gallery today. They are the crew from the Rogers Cable youth program called "Mestiza," accompanied by their youth producer, Matt Todd. They're here to interview the Premier at 4 p.m. this afternoon on a live cable show. They're also accompanied by the Rogers community relations manager, Marlene Gurvich. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Looking up into the gallery, I recognize a face that I think will be recognized by anybody who has worked in municipal government. Mr. Ted Pearce has a long record of working for the UBCM. I hope we can make him and his party welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a friend of mine, Mr. Minhas, who is joining us in the gallery today. Mr. Minhas is a retired general who now works as an advocate for the Fraser growers' association. Would the House please help me in making him welcome.

[1410]

C. Clark: I just noticed up in the gallery my former constituency assistant, Cynthia Haroldsen. Sadly, she went on to do other things -- to move up the corporate ladder. I hope the House will make her welcome.

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

G. Campbell: On top of what we learned yesterday with regard to ICBC, we now know that ICBC is making it mandatory for at least two employees of mom-and-pop auto glass repair operators to attend the SuperHost program. ICBC is forcing people to shell out hundreds of dollars to teach them about customer relations. This course includes how to make conversation, how to use names and remember them, and effective and empathetic listening skills. My question to the minister responsible is this: why don't they leave small business alone, have the government take the ICBC course, start listening to small business and stop this reckless attack on them across the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I guess, here is the proof, Madam Speaker, that they are finally distancing themselves from Grace McCarthy and Social Credit. It was her program; SuperHost was her program. We on this side are a little bit smarter, because we recognize that the SuperHost program has been an unqualified success. It has been marketed within this province and outside this province. We have made money from it. It's a good program. Most businesses in this province say it's worth spending the time and the energy and the money on that program.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If most businesses think there's a value to SuperHost, the government doesn't have to force them to take the course. Just think of this, hon. Speaker. This government is forcing operators to have at least two people take this course. That's at least $200 in lost pay. Add that to the $800 in additional fees that have been added. Add that to $150 for two people to take the SuperHost course, and you're at $1,150. My question to the minister is: does he have a clue how much work it takes to generate $1,150 -- how many pieces of glass you have to replace to generate $1,150? And if he does, why won't he stop this imposition once . . . ? Right away?

Hon. D. Lovick: It's understandable that the member opposite would get tongue-tied. He's having difficulty keeping a straight face as he asks that question.

As I said before, the SuperHost program has been an unqualified success. It's also important to remember that the entire program about glass repair was developed in cooperation with the business community. They want the program; they want the benefit of accreditation. I met yesterday afternoon . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, finish up.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . with a delegation from the Automobile Retailers Association. They said: "Don't cave in to the negative pressure. This is a good program. Defend the program."

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The minister is clearly in need of this course himself. Small businesses across this province have said to this government: "Stop hitting us with tax after tax after tax and fee after fee after fee and overwhelming regulation. Please stop." They are begging the government to do that. Whatever happened to free enterprise? Whatever happened to allowing people to decide for themselves, to make their own choices? This minister has clearly never met a payroll in his life. He clearly has never met a payroll that he doesn't want to tax. My question to the minister is: will he not listen today and stop this attack and stop this imposition on small businesses across the province?

[ Page 12244 ]

[1415]

Hon. D. Lovick: It's difficult to call something an attack when the business community is part of the design of the program and signs on to the program. Let's establish that.

The member seems wilfully obtuse to the fact that the business community wants this program. They think it's a good idea. Chambers of commerce throughout this province have said: "We support SuperHost." They report success as a result of people attending those things. We are obviously committed to doing whatever we can to reduce red tape and needless regulation. Indeed, the budget makes that very clear. But to suggest that we leave business high and dry and not respond to their legitimate request for assistance is ludicrous.

M. de Jong: It was only a month ago that this government said it had a process in place that was going to prevent this kind of ridiculous, bureaucratic overkill -- the business lens, they called it. They were going to ask ten questions about whether or not government action was justified. Well, I've got one question for the minister responsible: how, in the name of God, is forcing small businesses to pay hundreds of dollars to learn the art of conversation consistent with cutting red tape in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, demonstrably, the member opposite could profit from such a course. I say that simply because what he might learn -- as the business community has learned -- is that civility and common courtesy are no bad thing. I suggest that he might want to remember that.

I think it's safe to say, and I always thought it was a truism in terms of business and everything I've ever read on the subject, that customer relations -- how you deal with people, how you treat them with civility, respect and courtesy -- are in fact as important to a business as the product you deliver. That's the answer to the question.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Respect means that you don't tell business on Tuesday that you're going to reduce red tape and then on Wednesday increase it and force them to take goofy courses on how to learn conversation. That's respect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: Government says it's got a business lens. Well, if this is the government's idea of a business lens, maybe it's time you went and found a new prescription. I can tell you this: in the two days that we've looked at this issue, we have seen how one group of small businesses has been saddled with an additional $1,100 in government fees. When is the assault on small business going to end? When is this minister and this government going to realize that the government hasn't managed to balance its books once, and now it's presuming to tell small business how to manage their businesses. It doesn't work. It's ridiculous, and it's time to get off the backs of small business.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member seems so captured by his own rhetoric that I think he forgot to tell us to whom he was addressing the question. It was a rhetorical question, and therefore I think it deserves an answer from me as well as from anybody else.

The Speaker: Briefly, minister -- perhaps briefly.

Hon. D. Lovick: Despite my own not so humble abilities in thespian and theatrical activities, I am going to resist the temptation and simply say that the question, frankly, deserves more silence that anything else, as a response.

[1420]

J. Weisgerber: My question also -- with some reluctance -- is to the Minister Responsible for ICBC. First the government jumped on the SkyTrain bandwagon. Now it's SuperHost, and I suppose that tomorrow Fantasy Gardens will be next.

ICBC's accreditation program for auto body repair shops is indeed incredibly heavy-handed. These independent businesses are obliged to meet conditions that go far beyond facilities, equipment and staff that are necessary for quality repairs. Shop owners have been given a 40-page handbook that outlines the requirements, but they are denied an advance copy of the contract they're required to sign. They're also obliged to sign a confidentiality clause. How's that for open, honest government?

Does this minister support this ham-handed regulation of small, independent businesses in the auto body trade?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question. He raises two points with which I am not familiar, and therefore I can't answer in any definitive way. I will get back to him on that.

I want, though, to emphasize one point only . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: The regulation he refers to -- the regulatory regimen, if you will -- that's been set up was indeed developed in consultation with the Automotive Retailers Association, specifically the collision division. I met with that group of people yesterday; they advised me they are supportive of the accreditation program. They represent, I gather, some 80 percent of all the volume of work done in this province in that industry.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Supplemental to the same minister. The 20 percent must all be in South Peace, because not a single body shop operator in the South Peace constituency has agreed to sign on to the accreditation program. They believe that customers should decide what services are important in their shops. Now these shop owners are being blackmailed with the threat

[ Page 12245 ]

of a $5-an-hour labour rate reduction if they don't toe the line, and those who do are being paid off with an additional $2.50 an hour.

Will the minister agree today to call his friend, Chairman Bob, and call off this dictatorial, socialist nonsense?

Hon. D. Lovick: I had thought my friend across the way from Peace River had forgot the old rhetorical flourishes, but I'm glad to see they're still alive and well.

No, I will not give him the assurance that we will withdraw this dictatorial, socialist plot or whatever it is -- because it isn't. It isn't. The reality is that the accreditation program was put in place at the behest, at the request, of people in the industry, because they said: "We are spending a huge amount of money investing in our businesses, and we're competing with some people who, frankly, aren't spending that money, either in their equipment or in training." We want them to be able to regulate the industry to ensure that people who go . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I'm having a very difficult time hearing the answer, and I know the minister is just finishing up his response.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's so sad, hon. Speaker. They simply don't want to hear the reason for the program.

But to continue, the auto repair people said: "We would like to protect the integrity of our industry. We also want to ensure that those of us who are investing the money in training and equipment will in fact be recognized for that investment in the industry."

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think it's a good program.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

ACCESS FOR SMALL CONTRACTORS TO HIGHWAYS WORK

R. Neufeld: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Small road contractors have been told by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- have in fact been sent a letter on April 8 from the ministry -- that if they want to work on the upgrade of the Trans-Canada Highway between Sicamous and Revelstoke, they must now apply under the Highway Constructors Ltd. agreement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The question hasn't been completed yet.

[1425]

R. Neufeld: I quote out of the letter: "HCL is currently building a call-out list for equipment to be used on [Cache Creek to Rocky Mountains] work, and to be considered for any day-labour hire on this work, you must register your equipment with HCL. Any equipment can be registered, but owners affiliated with B.C. Highway and Related Construction Council union will be given priority placement."

The Speaker: Your question is?

R. Neufeld: It doesn't seem to matter which union you belong to. This government wants to blacklist every small contractor . . .

The Speaker: Your question, member.

R. Neufeld: . . . every small person that survives on a shoestring, that works and depends on this work. It wants to blacklist them . . .

The Speaker: And your question, member?

R. Neufeld: . . . from working on highway work in British Columbia. When will this minister learn that we need small business in this province?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the member opposite for promoting HCL. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting local hire in local communities on the stretch of highway from Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting aboriginal hire on these kinds of projects. I also want to thank the member opposite for promoting British Columbia jobs for British Columbians. Let me tell you, hon. member, that British Columbians will be first, and they will always be first on HCL projects.

The Speaker: The bell having ended question period, I recognize the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

Petitions

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I'm tabling a petition on your behalf -- some 130 residents protesting the aerial spraying of Foray 48B.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply for Committee A. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 53.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999

The House in committee on Bill 53; W. Hartley in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[1430]

D. Symons: To

Section 2 in the Build BC Act is added 2(2) and the words: " . . . or that may be assigned to it by another enactment." I'm basically wondering whether this seems to be laying the groundwork for some changes that the government

[ Page 12246 ]

may have in mind for the near future. It seems to be putting something in there . . . . If you're working on another enactment -- which is what we're doing right now -- I don't know whether you have to put those words in

an act and say that it could be changed by another enactment. So why are you adding those words in this case?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it establishes that the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority can capitalize highways. It's merely a technical change to accommodate the fact that it can hold the historical highway assets on its books, as it has done for the new highways. That's all.

D. Symons: Just a further clarification: by the word "enactment," then, you are not meaning legislation. It's just some act that can have changes -- regulation changes and so forth. It can be changed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's correct.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

D. Symons: Just a couple of questions on

section 4 and also on

section 12 of the Build BC Act. It says in

section 12(2) that all property of the authority is deemed to be the property of Her Majesty in right of the province for all purposes, including exemption from taxation. That particular

part is being repealed. I'm wondering: when it moves over . . . . I assume that this in anticipation of our now moving the highway assets into the Transportation Financing Authority. Is the Transportation Financing Authority not also part of the Crown? If that's the case, then what purpose does this serve?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The act merely clarifies that the assets are the responsibility of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for capitalization purposes. We're moving in the direction that the auditor general has asked us to on this.

D. Symons: The last part of subsection 12(2) that's being repealed talks about exemption from taxation. This will not change the taxation characteristics now. It's just going to be taxation with the Highways minister rather than with the TFA. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

D. Symons: I have a few questions on

section 5, which deals with

section 16(1) of the Ferry Corporation Act. It basically increases the debt cap for the corporation by $375 million. It's close to a 40 percent -- 38 percent -- increase in the debt of that corporation.

[1435]

I just looked back over the history of the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It appears that during the tenure of this particular government they've added somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700 million of debt to the corporation, and that's not including the . . . . I'm taking $250 million off for the superferries, which were really instigated by the previous administration. On top of that, now they're adding another $375 million, or close to $1 billion in new debt.

I'm wondering, first, how we got to this state of affairs where we are today, where you're asking for this further increase in what has been a whole series of increases in that past years to get us up to this $1.35 billion of debt.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This increase is providing borrowings sufficient to complete the high-speed ferry program: start construction of two small vessels -- they still have to be approved by Treasury Board, of course -- and do maintenance improvements at routine levels. I can give you the specific amounts if you wish: fast ferry program, $103 million; other vessels -- the small ones that I'm talking about -- about $105 million; terminal upgrades, $47 million; minor capital, $61 million; and maintenance, etc., $57 million.

D. Symons: I assume that when the minister says, "Fast ferries, $103 million," that's $103 million above the cap that was in place for the ferries. And that had gone up a few times as well.

Before we pass this particular section, I wonder whether you can give us some indication of the -- I hate to use these words, but I'll use them -- debt management plan that you might have in place in order that you can end up eventually retiring this debt that we're building up.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's part of our overall debt management plan; it's part of the overall budget that was outlined.

D. Symons: I thank the hon. minister for that answer. It's not very reassuring, I must tell you. We've watched debt management plans of this government in the past that have not achieved their stated goals. We seem to be getting the Ferry Corporation into a rather precarious position. I am wondering, since this debt cap has been going up considerably over a period of years . . . . Can the minister tell me whether there's a ceiling beyond which you would feel that the debt for that corporation becomes unsustainable? I have a feeling we've reached that ceiling now, but . . . .

I'm just not convinced that you might not come back another year from now and want to go up about a few hundred million dollars more. Where's that ceiling where we say that the corporation is carrying so much debt that it's unsustainable to add any more debt to it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries has said that he's restructuring the operations of B.C. Ferries. In fact, we've announced the transfer of fuel tax to the ferries. I think that this is appropriate for exploration in the estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: It will be explored in estimates. But the Minister of Finance is asking to raise the cap by $375 million, and I think it warrants a bit of questioning here also -- particularly with regard to the debt management plan, which is a responsibility of the Finance minister. What we are trying to determine is: what is the debt management plan as it pertains to the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the plans that she has, as Minister of Finance, for overseeing that debt management plan?

What plans does she have to ensure that the Ferry Corp debt is eventually paid off or paid down or managed in some fashion? Can she tell us what that plan is with regard to this amount of money?

[ Page 12247 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It still stands. That's appropriate discussion for, and we'll have a fulsome discussion with, the minister responsible in terms of the change in the funding arrangements that have recently been announced in terms of the transfer of fuel tax, the assumption of certain responsibilities -- certain changes within the corporation. All of that could be fulsomely explored. It is part of the overall restructuring of financing that the Ferry Corp is undertaking.

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is, though, that the minister answered the question that was posed by the member for Richmond Centre as to what the debt management plan is for this money. The Minister of Finance is asking to raise the debt cap, not the minister responsible for the Ferry Corporation, or whoever it is. She's sitting here in this House; she's here to defend it. And if she can't defend it, then she should have the minister responsible for the Ferry Corp come in and defend it. The fact of the matter is that the government is making a request to increase the debt cap of the B.C.

Ferry Corporation by $375 million -- an extremely significant increase, a huge amount of money -- and I think it warrants the Minister of Finance telling us what the plan is to manage that debt over the long term. Otherwise, why would this House approve it?

[1440]

Hon. J. MacPhail: My answer stands -- both my answer about why this new funding debt cap is being asked for, which is done approximately every two years, and about the opportunity for discussion in estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: The fact of the matter is that it need not be asked for every two years. This government inherited B.C. Ferry Corporation with a debt of, I think, $16 million, and it's now $1.35 billion. That's the increase. I think it's important for members of this House to have an understanding that when the minister comes and asks for that kind of an increase, statutorily . . . . There's a reason why that debt cap is set by statute. The minister has to come to this House and defend the request.

It's not part of the estimates process necessarily, although we'll get into the details of what the debt's being used for; but the request for the debt is required to be done by statute. The minister has to come to this House and defend that request for a change in the statute, and this is when the minister does it -- in the committee stage process of the bill, not in the estimates process.

We'll talk about the structure of that debt, what it's for, what it's being used for and the capital plan for B.C. Ferry Corporation. But the fact of the matter is that in order to implement the budget, the minister has to bring in statutorily a raise in the cap of the debt. I think the minister is required to defend that request, because this is where the request is being made. She should tell us what her long-term plans are to deal with that massive increase in debt at the B.C. Ferry Corporation over the last little while and certainly the $375 million she's asking for today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is wrong, and there will be a perfect opportunity to have that discussion under estimates. Prior to 1989 it was the responsibility of the person responsible for the consolidated revenue fund to manage the debt of the Ferry Corporation. In 1989 the law was changed. I'm sure the member isn't aware of that. Not only were the debt and the debt management plan turned over to the responsibility of the Ferry Corporation . . . . We will have a chance to discuss that in estimates. If, indeed, the member wishes to know what the money historically was spent on, I can give him that information.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister doesn't understand. In fact, she's giving two different answers to two different questions. The member for Richmond Centre asked her what the debt management plan was for. She said: "Well, it's part of our whole debt management plan; it's part of everything we do." She's responsible for that. The fact of the matter is that by statute, she is required to come to this House -- or somebody is. However, if you want to put this in a separate act and have the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries come in and defend the request . . . . I don't care who it is.

You decide; that's up to the government to decide. But somebody has to stand up in the House and defend the request that you're making under statute for an increase in the debt to the tune of $375 million. You can't just slough that over to the estimates process. There is a statutory requirement. It's not done by regulation; it's not done on a whim; it's done by a statutory requirement.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the former minister responsible for B.C. Ferries tells me that I'm wrong. He'll understand if I don't accept his

interpretation of what goes on at the B.C. Ferry Corporation, given the disastrous record of his oversight of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . . 200 percent increase in a project that he was supposed to be responsible for.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: So if he wants to get up and defend it and his actions, I will be glad to hear it. Otherwise, maybe he should just keep his mouth shut and sit there and listen.

Interjections.

The Chair: The Minister of Energy and Mines on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: The chippiness of that member is probably the reason why he has some problems.

The Chair: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: But to shout that across the way . . . . I ask that the member withdraw that statement.

The Chair: Members, the Chair should not need to remind members about parliamentary language. Let's try and carry on this debate in a reasonable manner. Questions have been asked and answered. Perhaps we should move on in this debate.

[ Page 12248 ]

Hon. D. Miller: The member made a statement that, in my view, is unparliamentary, and I ask him to withdraw it.

The Chair: The member will withdraw the statement.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is the Chair asking me to withdraw the statement?

[1445]

The Chair: I'm asking the member to withdraw a statement which may have impugned a member of the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, if the member is offended, then I'll withdraw whatever it was that offended him. I can't imagine what it could have been, but I'll withdraw it.

My question was to the Minister of Finance, but if there's another minister of the Crown who wants to answer the question, I'll be glad to hear what their answer is. The fact of the matter, by statute, is that this government is required to come to the Legislature and request a change in the cap on the debt for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. The minister is telling us what they plan on using it for. That's for the estimates process, and we'll get into that.

The question that was asked, first of all, by the member for Richmond Centre, was: what is the government's plan to manage that debt? That is a very legitimate question. You're asking for $375 million from the Legislature. The Legislature, in turn, is asking the government: how do you plan on managing that? How are you going to pay it off? What's the plan? How are you going to manage your debt? For the last seven or eight years, that debt has skyrocketed. It has gone from $16 million to $1.35 billion. That's a huge, huge increase. For the minister to stand up and say she doesn't have to explain to us what their plan is to manage that debt is, I think, the height of arrogance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is wrong once again. The issue of the debt management plan is for estimates. This is the legislation that increases the cap for current and future expenditures. That's exactly what the legislation is for. I have outlined what the request is for. I have offered to outline what the previous $1.02 billion has been spent on. The debt management plan, the operating deficit, is a responsibility to be discussed under estimates.

D. Symons: Just carrying on on the same theme, then, I wonder if I could ask the minister whether, when the Ferry Corporation comes and says, "Madam Minister, we have a wee bit of a problem here; it seems that our expenses are getting higher and higher, and we have no way of paying them off; we need some more money," she then might at some time say: "Well, before we consider that, let us look at how you're operating the corporation, and let's see how you intend to handle that debt as a corporation." I would assume that sort of conversation would go on before you would simply say: "Oh yeah. We'll go and ask for more."

I wonder if the minister might give us a flavour of those conversations that went on: as to what you asked the Ferry Corporation -- the fact that they're now getting a huge debt of over $1 billion in total -- as to what their aims are in paying it off. That's basically the question we're asking now. We're asking: how does the Ferry Corporation intend to handle its debt? And if it does not, then obviously the government is planning to pour more money in it. What you referred to earlier -- the money, the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax that is going there -- will not pay the interest on this debt.

It won't pay the interest on the debt that was originally there, and it won't pay the interest on the debt that you're adding to it.

So we have some real problems. You've got a corporation that's having more interest go out in interest payments than money you're going to be giving it from a new stream that you're going to pour into the Ferry Corporation. You must have explained it to them and discussed the financial situation the Ferry Corporation is in, and discussed the situation of how this debt, which you've now asked to raise the capital of, is going to be paid off. Did those discussions not take place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's exactly what the budget-making process is about. The hon. member knows that. All of that information will be fully discussed in estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's why this bill is called the Budget Measures Implementation Act -- because the government is going to implement those discussions. That's the very same reason the Minister of Finance sat there and said -- I hope, anyway -- to the Ferry Corporation: "What is going on here? You need another $375 million? How do you plan on managing it?" I would think that if the Minister of Finance would ask those questions, it's certainly legitimate for members of the opposition to get up and ask the minister: "Why $375 million? How are you going to manage that?"

[1450]

If the minister can give us -- I don't care if it's a paragraph or two sentences; whatever it is she feels is necessary -- an explanation that works, that explains how it is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to manage this debt over the long term, great. We can move on. We might disagree on it, and we can have that fight later. But the fact of the matter is that for the minister to stand up in this House and refuse to offer any explanation whatsoever of how the B.C. Ferry Corporation intends to manage this extra $375 million in debt that she's asking for is the height of either hypocrisy or incompetence.

She can choose which it is. The fact of the matter is that she needs to explain to this House why B.C. Ferry Corp needs that money and how they're going to manage it. She has told us why. Now tell us how they're going to manage it.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, perhaps we can move on, with

section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would expect that the Minister of Finance is not going to give an answer to how that debt is going to be covered. I think it's just showing us exactly why there is that problem at the B.C. Ferry Corporation: she wasn't watching the Ferry Corporation, and the minister responsible wasn't watching the Ferry Corporation. Neither of them has a clue what's going on or how they're going to manage that debt over the long term. That's why they're sitting where they are. That's why they're going to be in as much trouble as they are, because they've consistently mismanaged the Crown corporations.

They've consistently mismanaged the finances of this province. That's why they haven't hit one deficit target in eight years. That's why, when every other province in the

[ Page 12249 ]

country is managing to balance their budgets, this government can't even come close and is going in the opposite direction. It's because they don't answer the questions. They don't even ask themselves the questions, and they end up in these kinds of situations. The public will have something to say about it, at the end of the day.

Section 5 approved on division.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

I. Chong: Just some clarification from the minister. The Economic Forecast Council is cited here to consist of not less than 12 persons. Can the minister advise whether those 12 persons can be independent external persons, or must they all be members of executive council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They all are external people. There are no government people there.

I. Chong: My understanding of it was that the Economic Forecast Council did have members on it who were cabinet ministers. From what I'm understanding, they're all external persons. If that is the case, can the minister advise on what kind of criteria are sent out in order to solicit those who may be appointed to this council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think the member is confusing the Economic Forecast Council with the Economic Council of Ministers, which is an entirely separate thing. That's a committee of cabinet. These are external experts. The ones that participated last year were people from the University of Victoria, the Conference Board of Canada, Informetrica, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, etc.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

D. Symons: I just have a quick question on

section 12, paragraph (a), where you're striking out the word "limit." I gather that there had been some discussion with the GVTA over the word "limit" being a little bit confusing, the way it was inserted in that. Was this the purpose for removing it -- it was the GVTA's request?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is at the request of the GVTA, for clarifying their mandate.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

D. Symons: I guess the main problem I have with

section 13 is that it comes after

section 34 of the act, which happens to come after sections 32 and 33, which have to do with major projects. We have SkyTrain going on right now, so it just seemed to fit in there. Financing of the SkyTrain is a real problem. This power to exempt . . . . I'm curious why it's retroactive to March 1, 1999. Is that simply because the ownership of B.C. Transit now basically belongs to the GVTA -- the retroactivity of it? There's also the question about repealing on March 31, 2000. Could you explain the significance of that?

[1455]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is to give the GVTA the exemptions that previously existed. This is transferring the exemptions that existed for the Crown to the GVTA. It's retroactive because that was the date that they came into effect.

D. Symons: You might just explain why, then, that

section is repealed as of March 31, 2000 -- which is

section 5, right after 4, which we just discussed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the power to make it retroactive to March 31, 1999. They lose that power. This is just to deal with the retroactivity until the orders are properly passed. So by the year 2000, it has to all be in place.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

S. Hawkins: I have some questions on this section. I'm wondering why the limit is being topped from $450 million to $500 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The expansion is to cover projects that have already been approved, such as Avcorp, Dynapro, Huckleberry Mines, Newbridge Networks, MTU Maintenance, Rebco Wood Products and then to allow for, perhaps, some further activity this year.

S. Hawkins: It seems to me that the government is getting into a habit of increasing this slush fund. In 1997 we saw the government increase the funding from $400 million to $450 million, and this year we're seeing it go from $450 million to $500 million. It seems that the government is getting into the business of increasing this fund. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of accountability questions that arise in this. These funds are used by the Minister of Small Business and the Minister of Employment and Investment in their ministries to provide small business incentive loans or industrial incentive loans and funds. But according to the act, in

section 4, they are exempted from

section 45 of the Financial Administration Act. So it seems to me that the ministers have the discretion to use these funds, and they don't really have to go through any process in cabinet to disburse these funds. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me just clarify what the industrial incentive fund is for. Investments are made on a commercial basis. They're all approved by order-in-council and made public. They're done in partnership with the private sector. They're done to take particularly targeted action in various communities for getting the economy going and creating and retaining jobs. The loans and investments made from the industrial incentive fund fill a financing need that has been identified by the private sector. It allows for increased private-public partnerships. This is actually working in partnership with the private sector.

S. Hawkins: Well, there's millions sitting in E&I that isn't being used. In the auditor general's "Report on Financial

[ Page 12250 ]

Accountability for the 1997-98 Fiscal Year,"

part 1 on the public accounts details the natural resource community fund. It says that that fund, since '92-93, with the transfer of $15 million from the British Columbia Endowment Fund, has earned $54 million, and it has since transferred $49 million back to the general fund and only paid out about $1.7 million. So there are funds sitting there.

[1500]

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Well, it's transferred back. There are funds that aren't being used for the purposes that the minister's talking about now. And we're increasing this fund by another $50 million. We increased it by an additional $50 million two years ago. That's $100 million in about two years. Can the minister tell us what factors, then, are contributing to this fund being increased and other funds in E&I -- in the ministry -- not being used? There are millions being transferred back to general revenue, and yet there are funds being asked for in this act that are being used for industrial incentives and small business incentives. Why aren't those funds being used first?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They're completely separate. The member has pointed out that they've been transferred back in. If the member is somehow questioning the value of the industrial incentive fund in terms of private-public partnerships, I would be particularly interested in hearing her put that on record.

S. Hawkins: My question is: why are we increasing these funds? Obviously there are problems. Maybe they're government-related problems. More businesses are asking for loans; more businesses are asking for help. Maybe the government needs to look at what they're doing to contribute to this problem. Maybe businesses and industry are asking for help because this minister and her government are strangling business. They need the help. We know the economy is bad, and we know the economy has been in recession.

Maybe the minister should just be honest and admit that that's why this fund keeps getting topped up every year. You know, that's $100 million in two years. Frankly, in estimates we will question where this money is going.

This was enacted in 1984. I'll actually look at the history of the act. I'm pulling up the numbers now to see where it started and where this government has brought it -- to $500 million to date. It seems to me that if we were in good times, we would be decreasing that number, and businesses wouldn't be looking for that kind of support. Because the government has placed industry and small business in such dire straits, this government is now looking at topping up these funds.

It's incredible that the minister just sits back and says: "We need to increase this by another $50 million this year." I'm just asking her: can she tell me what factors went into providing $50 million for a top-up of this fund? What factors did her government use to say that we need another $50 million today to top up this fund to $500 million, when we topped it up $50 million two years ago? It's now at $500 million -- half a billion dollars.

Hon. J. MacPhail: My gosh. We're not off to a very good start when the opposition thinks they can just repeat the same question after getting an answer.

I am particularly interested to know this member's point of view on the industrial incentive fund. She seems to be questioning the value of commercial loans working in partnership with the private sector, perhaps to stimulate local economies. If the member is somehow suggesting that she, as a local representative, would not like to partake in any of this, fair enough -- put that on. Except if the private sector wishes to enter into commercial loans that are evaluated, that are paid back, that virtually every government, including Alberta and Ontario, participates in . . . . It's economic stimulation.

I have listed the projects that have been approved and said that there will be more coming. But if this member is suggesting that there is no value attached to the industrial incentive fund for community economic development, then I think she should stand up and put that on record right now.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think what the member is saying is that if this economy were in a little better shape, perhaps there wouldn't be so many people banging on the government's door for assistance all the time. They could make it in the private sector market and secure the funds that way.

The minister listed a number of the projects that some of this $50 million has already been attributed to. She said there's also room for further projects. Can she tell us how much is left in that $50 million that's not accounted for?

[1505]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's almost the entire $50 million.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sorry; I want to make sure I got this correctly. Is the minister saying that almost the entire $50 million is left, or has it already been attributed? Can the minister tell me how much of that . . . ? Is $49.5 million, $43 million or $35 million left? I'd like to know the figure.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Between $49 million and $50 million. The fund has not reached its cap yet. There are commitments that I listed out there that will push up right against the cap. There's almost the full $50 million left for economic development.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to be clear, because the minister listed a number of significant projects that are out there. Is she saying that those projects have pushed it up to the $450 million cap and perhaps just slightly over and that excluding the projects that she listed, there remains another $49.5 million?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is room; they will see from the estimates that there is room in the $450 million. The projects that I've listed will push the commercial loans to $450 million, and there is activity under consideration for . . . . There is actually activity under consideration from the private sector beyond $50 million, but we're capping it at another $50 million.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us whether any of that further $50 million is to be attributed . . . ? Are there discussions taking place on whether or not any of that $50 million is to be attributed or given to Skeena Cellulose?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I can get that answer, but Skeena Cellulose remains as it was announced two years ago.

[ Page 12251 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: In fact, my understanding is that Skeena is looking for an additional $40 million. Can the minister tell me whether or not that $40 million is being discussed as potentially coming out of this fund?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, not that I . . . . No.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister hesitated. I just want to get a clear answer. Are there, or are there not . . . ? Well, the minister hesitated. I just want to get a clear answer from her, because I'm hearing different things around here.

There's $50 million being asked for to increase the cap on this fund, and my question is: are there discussions going on now? Have there been discussions going on to try and get that $40 million from this fund? Are those discussions taking place -- yes or no? That's all I'm asking. Are they taking place? Have they taken place? Is there a plan, or potential plan, that that $40 million could come out of this $50 million cap?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I gave the answer: no.

Section 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

D. Symons: Just a brief question here. I gather from the auditor general that the reason

section 18 is here is, again, the transfer of the assets and capitalization of the highways to the BCTFA. I gather that's the purpose that's here. But then I notice toward the end that this will allow . . . . The substitution will be:

"If the title to all or part of a highway is vested solely in the Crown in right of the Province or in the BC Transportation Financing Authority, the Minister of Transportation and Highways may apply to register the title to all or part of the highway in the Crown in the right of the Province or in the BC Transportation Finance Authority, as the case may be."

I thought the idea of capitalization was to put it all together in the Transportation Financing Authority, but it seems to be leaving the option here for the minister to either put it in the transportation authority or leave it in the Ministry of Highways. I'm just wondering why, if we're trying to capitalize our highway assets, we're still leaving this thing such that some of it could be with the ministry rather than with the TFA.

[1510]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a consequential amendment just to make sure that the Land Title Act applies in the same fashion it did before -- as it would have with the Ministry of Highways, now to the BCTFA.

D. Symons: Just one further clarification. Will not all the title of the highways now rest with the Transportation Financing Authority? This seems to imply that some of it may not.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member is right. The vast majority of highways will go with the BCTFA. There are some highways that apparently exist on leased land now. They're very small, but we're not disturbing those at this point, because they're on leased land.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

T. Nebbeling: Minister, you're aware that the Municipal Act has seen a considerable uplift or rejigging to give the communities that are regulated by it more power and say in how matters proceed in their community.

Section 36 of Bill 31 gives the communities the right that . . . . When a council borrows for a capital project and a counter-petition is presented to council representing 5 percent of the community's voters, that council can be forced to have a referendum if the borrowing should actually happen for that particular project. Why would that same principle not apply to a hospital district when they contemplate borrowing that will have an impact on property tax in these communities?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the member's question. Nothing has changed here in the process of approving debt. It's just transferring the current debt to the MFA -- at the request of the municipalities.

T. Nebbeling: So is the minister saying that this

section will not apply to future borrowing by hospital districts? What would be done, then, would be in a different manner than that in which a local council borrows money for a capital project within a community.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's nothing in this act that deals with approval of debt. All the same rules apply. This just lists where the debt is held.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

T. Nebbeling: The same question really relates to this

section as well, except that here, clearly, is an authority created for a regional body to borrow for capital projects within that region. It clearly will have the power now to go back to the communities, through direct property tax assessment, to recuperate or find the funding for these projects. This is stronger than

section 21 in the sense that here we are not talking about regional hospitals; we're talking about all kinds of infrastructure that may be needed for a transportation system, as in the GVRD's case.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're providing this at the request of the GVRD and the GVTA. Those two entities, the GVTA and the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district -- oh, sorry; the third one is the greater Vancouver water district -- have the ability to borrow now themselves. This merely enables the GVRD to borrow on their behalf -- for short-term borrowing only.

T. Nebbeling: And that's the problem. Municipalities do not have the power, if they're questioned by a small percentage of the population of a community, to go ahead with the project until a referendum takes place even if it is for short-term borrowing.

[1515]

What I see happening here is that on the municipal level, there are certain controls, checks and balances for the citizens of the town to say, "Yes, we do endorse this project" or "We don't,"

whereas the GVRD, in this section, can just do whatever they want. No citizens' group has the same right that they would have when they deal with a municipal council. So

[ Page 12252 ]

there is a difference. If the minister recognizes the difference, then does that mean that the GVRD or a regional authority is more powerful and has more authority than a local authority over issues that deal with property tax?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no changes in the rules of approval for short-term debt. Right now the municipalities don't have to have assent for short-term borrowing. Nothing changes here except that if the GVTA or the water district, which now have the right to borrow short-term . . . . The same rules apply for borrowing: they can ask the GVRD to do it on their behalf. That's all; that's the only change here.

T. Nebbeling: If that's the only change, why would there not be a clause that even if the borrowing is done on behalf of a local authority, the citizens have the right to petition that particular issue with a counter-petition? Basically you give the municipality or the GVRD the power to add to property tax assessments on an annual basis for short-term borrowing.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Yes, you do, because the GVRD has the right now to have property taxation powers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no change in the approval process. What existed before exists now. The only difference is that they can ask the GVRD to do it on their behalf. There's no change. If assent was required before, it will be required now. If there was no assent required before, borrowing on a short-term basis will take place in the same fashion. There's no need to specify it; the same rules apply as did previously.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going a little bit further. It's just that the change really is to Bill 31, which gives citizens the power to petition and counter-petition a decision by a council. That power is not being transferred onto borrowing decisions by the GVRD, although we're talking about the same taxpayers. It is the same people in the same community who will have to accept borrowing by the GVRD for which they are then partially responsible through property taxation. That's why there is a difference today compared to a year ago.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has no impact on Bill 31; Bill 31 applies.

T. Nebbeling: So the minister is saying that Bill 31 applies, that citizens have the right to counter-petition the GVRD?

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, then Bill 31 does not apply.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is nothing in this legislation that changes the approval process that existed before. Whatever occurs under the approval process for municipalities or these authorities in terms of citizen input still applies. Nothing has changed here because of that.

Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

D. Symons: Again, it's just a clarification on this part, because there do seem to be some problems in financing regarding the SkyTrain situation in Vancouver. This part relates to it: "Prescribed debt obligations owed by Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. to the government as a result of borrowings . . . from the government before March 31, 1999, are released." Does that mean the government is going to pick up all the debt that the Rapid Transit office has incurred up to March 31 of this year? Is that the understanding? It says here that this is self-explanatory, but I would like some explanation on whether that's the actual meaning of what's occurring.

[1520]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no problems with financing SkyTrain. The member took a little bit of a cheap shot there. That's simply not true. There may be problems with what the municipalities wish to contribute to their Livable Region strategy, but there is no problem. This just transfers to the province what was, previous to March 31, the capital debt of the project.

D. Symons: It was the capital debt before that date and will continue after that date as well? Or is it just the capital debt up to that particular date? Or will the government be holding the debt for the whole project, past and present?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This only deals with the debt that was accumulated to March 31 and puts it on our books now. It'll then be prepaid capital advances.

D. Symons: Those last few words caught my attention: "It'll then be prepaid capital advances." What you're saying, then, is that although the government is taking this debt onto their books, you're going to hold it as debt now for the GVTA. Is that correct, then? No?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This has nothing to do with the GVTA. This is treating this debt, this capital expenditure, the same way as a school -- as per the auditor general's request.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 53, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 55.

PROBATE FEE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 55; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

[ Page 12253 ]

G. Plant: One of the terms defined here is "resealing," and that's something that happens under the Probate Recognition Act. Is the fee which has been charged pursuant to the order-in-council that came into force on April 1, 1997, currently levied on resealings, as well as grants?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[1525]

G. Plant: I can tell that the minister's staff have a much more enlightened view of the way this process should work than the rules currently permit. But what the heck -- we live within the rules.

One of the terms defined here is the value of the estate. As I understand the current practice, the affidavit that is filed -- which has a statement of assets, liabilities and distribution exhibited to it -- may disclose the value of assets both inside and outside British Columbia, but the fee is levied only in respect of the value of assets located in British Columbia. My understanding is that that is the current practice. Is that what is intended to apply on a going-forward basis? In other words, there is no intention here on the part of government to levy this tax or fee against assets, real or personal, of a deceased which are situated outside British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's correct.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Plant:

Section 2 begins with the words: "In addition to any fees payable under the Rules of Court to commence a proceeding to obtain the issue of a grant or a resealing and to any fees payable under the Rules of Court to file documents within that proceeding . . . . " Those would be two different types of fees -- that is, the fee payable to commence a proceeding to obtain the issue of a grant or a resealing and a fee payable to file documents within that proceeding. Can the minister indicate what those fees currently are under the rules of court?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The fee doesn't apply for any estate under $10,000, and the fee is a flat fee of $208.

G. Plant: The $208 fee is a fee that applies in respect of commencing the proceeding and includes filing documents. There's no separate fee, in other words, for filing documents. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are smaller document fees -- yes.

G. Plant: So those fees would be similar to the fees that currently obtain under the rules of court for filing affidavits and motions and things of that ilk. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: So the fee which the government here chooses to call the probate fee, which is the ad valorem fee to be charged on estates, is the fee that is over and above those filing fees of $208 and the incidental or smaller filing fees for affidavits and the like. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: It seems to me that we have here an interesting question of characterization. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the problem with the fee that was levied in Ontario by regulation was that it was a tax and not a fee, properly so called. It seems to me that the government is being, at best, disingenuous by introducing a bill to correct the constitutional problem without being honest about what the fee really ought to be called. I think it is, at best, misleading to the public to call this a fee when it really amounts to a tax on the value of the estates of deceased persons.

[1530]

I know that the government would like an opportunity to make this piece of legislation more honest in terms of not just what it does but what it says and what it calls itself. That is why I have given the government that opportunity by putting amendments to the bill in my name on the order paper.

The amendments would replace the word "fee" wherever it appears in the act with the words "death tax." Once the amendment is passed -- as I'm sure the government will see the wisdom of it and join with me in supporting these amendments -- then there would be the consequential amendment required to ensure that the title of the bill is also honest -- by changing the words "probate fee" in the title of the bill and replacing those words with the words "death tax." Obviously the change to the title is a consequential amendment, but we are here dealing with

section 2 of the act.

As a result, hon. Chair, I move the amendment standing in my name in respect of that section.

[SECTIONS 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, are amended by replacing the word "fee" wherever it appears and replacing it with the words "death tax." THE TITLE is amended by deleting the words "probate fee" and replacing it with the words "death tax."]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, it does seem a bit odd that . . . . In fact, I would question whether these amendments are in order. In fact, I would suggest that they're out of order. The bill has been passed at second reading -- the Probate Fee Act.

But let me just say something. Of course, I absolutely defer to the hon. member's illustrious legal background. The court case that gave rise to this did not demand that the government name its action in any way. What it said was that the action that the government is taking on collecting money from the public must be debated and passed through legislation. That's what it said. So the hon. member is playing political games by suggesting that the courts ordered that this be called a tax. The court outlined what procedure had to be put in place in order to ensure that this met the test required by the court itself, and that's what this legislation is doing.

The Chair: Members, the Chair will rule on the amendment. The House gave second reading approval to the principle of this bill to amend the Probate Fee Act. To change "fee" to "tax" would be contrary to the principle of the bill.

G. Plant: Is it the minister's view that this is a fee and not a tax?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is defined, as required by the court that it be, through legislation. Whether it be called a tax or a

[ Page 12254 ]

fee is irrelevant. It's defined in legislation, and that's what's appropriate. As is done in the jurisdictions of nirvana of the opposition . . . . Today they're sending people down to Ontario to observe the election so that they can have the nirvana of Ontario. We're merely . . . . In fact, we're not doing as much as Ontario is doing.

G. Plant: I'm not surprised, hon. Chair -- and neither are you, I'm sure -- that the minister is very sensitive about this issue. I'm sure the minister's position is that she could call this revenue-generating device anything she likes. She could call it the probate gift act or the probate carpet act or the probate royalty act. I think that is the minister's position -- that the name is irrelevant and that she can call it anything she likes.

The question is: have they followed the right procedure? My understanding is that the reason that the court said they had to follow a different procedure was because the revenue-generating method was in the nature of -- for constitutional purposes -- a tax. My question to the minister is: why not call a tax a tax?

[1535]

Let me just make sure that I do have the minister's position -- that is, it doesn't really matter at all what it's called. She can call it anything she likes. The Legislature could call this anything they like. The question is not what it's called -- but rather, simply the requirement that it be brought to the House. That requirement has nothing to do with anything in particular that's relevant at all. It simply is a requirement, and the minister has followed the requirement of the court that it come before this Legislature for debate. The name is irrelevant.

I certainly don't mean to be unfair to the government's perspective on this. If I mischaracterize the government's position, now is as good a time as any to make sure that we straighten that out, so that we don't, on a going-forward basis, have a public debate that's not properly informed by a correct understanding of the government's position on this.

Hon. A. Petter: The member is simply being provocative on this issue. The member knows full well that the requirements that were set down by the court required certain changes to be made in legislation. Those changes have been reflected in legislation. The fact that the constitutional jurisprudence uses certain nomenclature was not a requirement that the court said had to be incorporated into legislative nomenclature. The member is trying to do that for political, provocative reasons that, frankly, are not really relevant to the question of changing and correcting this legislation.

G. Plant: Well, I'm interested that the members opposite are scared to death to stand up and use the word "tax." Now, let me be clear about something, because I am not standing up for a moment . . . . This will assist the Minister of Finance, because she did completely misconstrue my statements a few minutes ago. I'm not standing up and saying that the Supreme Court of Canada told this or any other Legislature that you had to call it a tax; I didn't say that. The minister would like to imagine that I said that. But not surprisingly . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, the minister will in fact see what the record says. What the minister will see is that I am suggesting . . . . It's me that is making the suggestion that if the government were to be a little bit honest about this, they would call it a tax. Apparently they're afraid even to stand up and use the word.

Now, it may be that this is a mere matter of nomenclature, as the Minister of Advanced Education points out. We'll let the public decide that; that will be a matter for the public to decide in due course. When the minister says that I am being merely provocative . . . . Well, I don't know. I actually thought that occasionally debate was something one could have in this chamber. The issue is in fact a matter that is worthy of some debate, because there are many people out there who are . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yes. You know, the Minister of Finance is so terribly anxious to speak on this that she won't even get to her feet and use the word "tax," but she will sit in her chair and utter all kinds of interesting statements about what's going on in Ontario.

My question is this: why won't the minister stand up today and give a perfectly good public policy reason about why in fact it's not being called a tax by this government? You know what, hon. Chair? You'll be interested to learn this. The act that the government of Ontario introduced isn't called a probate fee act either. So maybe the minister could explain from her perspective: is it simply a matter of nomenclature, to use the Minister of Advanced Education's language?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, I look forward to seeing this Liberal opposition's budget, where they actually justify their actions by saying they wouldn't charge this, they wouldn't collect this amount of money, they wouldn't do what every other government has done to maintain the status quo. I look very much forward, after they return from seeing their Reform and Tory friends in Ontario, to seeing how they're going to manage the budget from a status quo point of view. Do you know what? They won't be able to. They'll be cutting, and they'll not be telling the truth about the cutting that they're doing.

We have complied with the court's decision. Yes, it is a matter of nomenclature.

The Chair: I just want to remind the members that I have made a ruling in regard to the amendment. I want to deal with

section 2 of the bill.

[1540]

G. Plant: I am acutely concerned with

section 2 of the bill, hon. Chair. But before moving on, I think it's important to put one fact on the record. The minister herself wants to be sure that we are honest about what the Supreme Court of Canada said. Let's be completely honest. The Supreme Court of Canada did not in fact require the government of British Columbia to impose this tax, levy, fee -- whatever it is. And not every government in Canada has in fact done what this government is doing. There are other governments that have done that, and Ontario is clearly one of them.

My understanding is that there are other governments that have responded to the Supreme Court of Canada decision by implementing a standard fee. It is, I think, useful for the purposes of the record in this debate to make it absolutely clear that the government had a number of options available to it, one of which would be to levy just a flat fee of perhaps $208 that it is going to charge

[ Page 12255 ]

before we get to the percentage tax that is imposed here. That is certainly one approach that the government could have taken. It is not, however, the approach which this government did take, and I'm not surprised.

My understanding is that the fees collected under the rate increase imposed as of April 1, 1997, under what is to become this probate fee, were something like $21 million in the first year and something like $28 million in the year just finished. For the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of

section 2 and whether or not we on this side of the House would be prepared to give it our support, I wonder if the minister could confirm that those numbers are accurate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, we collected $24.5 million. We're using the same estimate in this budget this year.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Plant: Just for the sake of clarity, hon. Chair, you ruled the amendment to

section 2 out of order. I take it that . . . . It is the same ruling for the amendment that would be proposed to sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 -- is that correct?

The Chair: That would be correct, member.

G. Plant: Right.

section 3, I want to make sure that I understand the limits of the regulation-making power that is conferred here. Maybe the way to do it is this. For the last ten years, according to the government, there is at least a risk if not a certainty that the government has been collecting these fees illegally, and therefore this bill is being made retroactive to April 1, 1988.

There is a status quo. That is, there were regulations in place throughout that period. Under those regulations, at different times and at different levels fees were collected. The bill before us gives the government the power to legislate and regulate retroactively. That creates, perhaps, the risk that the government might seek to legislate or regulate retroactively to change what was the status quo between 1988 and 1999 by, for example, imposing a higher or a lower charge in respect of all of the estates that were probated during that period.

My assumption is that that is not the government's intention. My assumption is that the government does not intend to do anything other than retroactively validate that which was done between 1988 and 1999, or between 1988 and when this act comes into force, and that the government has no intention of imposing new fees or different fees for that 11-year period, higher or lower than the fees that were actually charged. Is that a correct statement?

[1545]

Hon. J. MacPhail: To a very complex sentence -- yes.

G. Plant: All right. Well, that's fine, then.

Section 3 approved.

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the Legislature today is a group of grades 10, 11 and 12 students from Austin O'Brien School in Edmonton, Alberta. Accompanying them this afternoon are their teachers and teachers' aides. I trust they are enjoying their time in beautiful British Columbia, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

section 4.

G. Plant: Let me try another really complex question. Why is

section 4 here?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's to ensure that . . . . It's a precaution against perhaps an opposite view being taken by the courts that this legislation could . . . . It's actually very cautionary. If someone argued that this contravened the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act . . . . We're doing that as a precaution against the courts upholding that view.

G. Plant: I take it that the government doesn't consider that there would be any legitimacy to that argument.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's correct.

G. Plant: So there's absolutely no need for this section, is there?

Interjections.

G. Plant: Let me just establish this, for clarity. The Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act, in its terms, did not expressly include or extend to probate fees at any point. Is that correct, or is there some confusion about that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: That is correct. This is taking a cautious approach.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Plant: What happens to people who have made overpayments? Do they get the money back?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The current policy applies. They can file an affidavit and get a refund.

G. Plant: And, of course, they'd have to pay a filing fee for the affidavit.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the current policy, and my understanding is that they don't now, so they won't . . . . It's whatever the current policy is.

G. Plant: The government's position is that

section 5 would not in any way affect the existing practice with respect to refunds of overpayments, and if there is a situation where someone is entitled to such a refund, this bill would not stand as an obstacle to that entitlement.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

[ Page 12256 ]

G. Plant: Is it the intention of the government that

section 5(2) would be a complete bar to the class action lawsuit that is currently underway and was recently certified in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in respect of recovering fees under the former regulation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I'm not sure what

section the member quoted, but it's the beginning of

section 5 that does that.

[1550]

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is the member asking whether it's

section 5(2) that does that -- that prevents the court case from proceeding successfully?

G. Plant: That was the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

G. Plant: One thing that can happen in the course of the administration of an estate is that the executor or the personal representative can discover that there was insufficient disclosure of the assets of the estate, which would conceivably result in an increased value in the estate. My understanding is that the intention of

section 5 and the act as a whole, I suppose -- it may also be

section 2 -- is that in those situations, the personal representative would have to file new information with the court and presumably pay the fee applicable in respect of the additional amounts so disclosed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and they'd pay the rate that was in force at the time they first filed.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

G. Plant: The minister will forgive me for making her life more complex for a moment by asking a question that applies to more than one section. I take it that the way sections 6, 7 and 8 work together with

section 9 is to essentially ramp up the fee through the 12- or 11-year period from 1988 to date to give effect to the intention, which is to preserve the fee as it was charged and increased in stages over that period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It puts in place, through legislation, what actually occurred -- yes.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 55, Probate Fee Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Attorney General -- in a few seconds.

[1555]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 18: ministry operations, $803,358,000.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's rare that I read my speeches. This one I'm going to read because I want to put on the record many things that we have done and many things that we think we're going to do over the next year or so.

I'm waiting for some of my staff. Now, before I begin my remarks, I'd like to introduce my deputy minister and Deputy Attorney General, Maureen Maloney, who is sitting to the left of me.

We all know that our world is changing rapidly, and the needs and expectations of British Columbians are changing as well. Two years ago we began a journey to reform British Columbia's justice system. I'm proud to say that we're well on our way to building a justice system in British Columbia that better reflects the priorities of British Columbians -- a justice system in which everyone in this province can have confidence.

In March, I spent a day with our key justice partners -- the chiefs of police and members of the legal profession -- to discuss progress on our justice reforms and how we can make the justice system better. The judiciary also participated in this justice system consultation.

We continue to work with our justice partners towards a vision of the province where people feel safe and secure at home and in their communities, where civil disputes are effectively and sensitively resolved, where access to justice processes is timely and affordable, where communities actively participate in the justice system, where businesses and individuals can prosper in a fair and effective regulatory environment and where diverse cultures are valued and respected.

I want to tell you about some of our accomplishments and our plans for the year ahead. We are taking tough action to reduce serious crime and protect communities. The encouraging news is that for the sixth year in a row, B.C.'s crime rate has decreased. Preliminary 1998 crime data suggests that the crime rate in British Columbia dropped another 5 percent between 1997 and 1998. Am I satisfied with these results? No. Although crime rates have levelled off, the type and nature of crimes have changed.

We have all heard about cowardly attacks on British Columbians in their homes -- the so-called home invasions. These despicable attacks are often against the most vulnerable in our society. We have also heard about people being robbed in their garages. Schoolyard fights now involve curbing and

[ Page 12257 ]

the use of knives and other weapons. Tragically, we are aware of the students shooting other students in this country and in the country next to us.

[1600]

There is no question that home invasions are of real concern to people in the lower mainland and other urban centres. I have strongly urged the Prime Minister and the federal Justice minister to strengthen the Criminal Code to specifically address home invasions in the Criminal Code and to amend the Young Offenders Act to make it easier to move cases of home invasion to adult court. Here in British Columbia we have dedicated one of our most senior Crown counsels to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of home invaders. At the same time, government can't provide all of the solutions.

To raise public awareness and help get everyone involved in bringing an end to home invasions and garage robberies, we have increased the rewards offered to $100,000 to help apprehend and convict these criminals.

We've taken other actions to protect communities from serious crime. The work of the unsolved homicide unit has now led to a total of 20 charges being laid in previously unsolved murders. An independent, provincewide, police-based agency has been established to fight organized crime under the leadership of Beverley Ann Busson. A 12-member joint police task force to combat auto thefts has been created. B.C.'s provincial prostitution unit has assisted police in 50 arrests and charges against johns who sexually exploit children. We are also aware of nearly 100 other charges by police as a result of increased awareness in British Columbia of this terrible issue.

We continued our highly successful weapons amnesty program. More than 2,000 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition were turned in. Auxiliary and reserve constables will continue to be involved in community policing and crime prevention activities in addition to handling some restricted general policing duties under the direct supervision of a police officer. British Columbia continues to call for a national strategy to address the major crime and social problems associated with illicit drug use. A working subcommittee was established.

On behalf of the subcommittee, my ministry conducted a national survey of injection drug treatment approaches to identify appropriate and effective treatment approaches.

I would like to mention that last year we also appointed Don Morrison as B.C.'s first and brand-new independent police complaint commissioner, who deals with complaints regarding municipal police. I have said that Ottawa should actually do likewise and make sure that they do amendments to their legislation to ensure that the RCMP in British Columbia are subjected to our complaints process, which is different and new.

At the same time, I'm continuing to lobby Ottawa to make changes to other federal laws that will further protect the people of our province and all Canadians -- for example, raising the maximum penalty for stalking from five to ten years; establishing a national registry of high risk, violent and sex offenders, especially pedophiles, to give justice system staff and the public more accurate and timely information; raising the age of consent from 14 to 16; allowing DNA samples to be taken from individuals charged rather than convicted; and allowing mandatory HIV testing of people accused of sexual assault.

I was pleased to see Ottawa introduce a number of the changes to the Young Offenders Act that I have been calling for, such as facilitating the transfer of more serious cases involving violent young offenders to adult court. I am pleased that the federal government amended the Criminal Code to make it easier to charge and convict adults who sexually exploit children and youth. These changes are now in effect, as of May 1.

And I have received unanimous support from Canada's Minister of Justice for my proposal to expand protection from hate crimes to include more people, to make possession of hate propaganda a Criminal Code offence and to look for ways to prevent the use of the Internet as a medium for hate crimes and child pornography.

[1605]

Stopping violence against women and children continues to be another important priority of our government. Let me mention some specific actions we took last year in this area in addition to the previous actions in the previous years. We have enhanced our protection order registry to ensure that police have immediate and accurate information that can help protect women from violence. People with protection orders can now call toll free, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to confirm that their order has been registered.

We expanded our innovative cell phone initiative for women at risk of violence to nine B.C. communities. Under this initiative, cell phones preprogrammed to dial 911 are made available to women at high risk of relationship violence.

We are also continuing to take steps to ensure that the voices of victims are heard and that their needs are served throughout the criminal justice system. In addition to our provincewide, toll-free victim assistance line, British Columbia has now more than 150 victim service programs across the province, the most extensive network of programs to serve the needs of victims in any province in this country. We are continuing to implement British Columbia's Victims of Crime Act. This innovative act, the most comprehensive victim-rights legislation in the country, gives victims specific rights to information and involvement throughout the justice process.

Dealing with low-risk offenders, when it comes to less serious offences without violence, British Columbians have made it clear that while they believe offenders must be held accountable for their crimes, they prefer an approach which repairs the harm caused to individuals and communities, a restorative justice approach. We gathered information and advice, based on our conferences throughout this province, that people of British Columbia agree that it's the appropriate approach to take.

We are implementing this approach in a wide variety of programs, strategies and processes through the criminal justice system. Last year we encouraged communities to set up local community accountability programs. To date, 35 communities have received startup grants. We are considering proposals from 11 more communities. We see community accountability programs and other restorative justice measures, such as alternative measures programs, as beneficial in two ways. They help B.C.'s justice system to deal more effectively with low-risk offenders, and at the same time, they allow the traditional court system to focus its resources on high-risk offenders.

Last fall I had the opportunity to speak to a group of elementary school students in the interior. They had a message they wanted to give me. That message is that it's important that we respect the differences in each other. These students told me that their views are the result of some of the crime prevention and early intervention programs delivered by the Ministry of Attorney General.

[ Page 12258 ]

I'm proud to say that British Columbia continues to lead the country in innovative child and youth programs that provide positive alternatives to crime and opportunities to develop conflict resolution and life skills. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to set up a toll-free youth violence and crime prevention line. We have now established youth action teams in more than 70 communities to help get young people involved in activities such as peer mentoring and community leadership. We are funding the highly successful Nights Alive program in 49 different communities across this province.

This community-based program promotes positive social and recreational activities for young people as an alternative to crime.

Children in elementary schools are getting help in developing crime prevention skills through the All Together Now program. Our youth drama groups, such as 841-KOZ, TCO2 and TROO reach nearly 300,000 young people and community members last year.

The British Columbia youth police network has linked 150 specifically trained officers with youth, schools and parents to develop youth violence prevention strategies in more than 135 communities. In 1998 we added a new tool for police officers, an orientation and reference guide, that provide links and resources for officers working with youth throughout the province.

With respect to civil and family disputes, sadly, most parents only come in contact with our court system when their relationships break down. The traditional court system is not necessarily the appropriate forum for resolving these disputes, especially when children are involved. That is why we have implemented changes to the civil and family side of the justice system. These changes encourage the use of more effective, timely and affordable alternatives to traditional court processes to resolve disputes.

[1610]

On December 1, new family court rules came into effect which provide opportunities throughout the court process for people to get information on less confrontational ways to help them resolve family disputes. We have also introduced a notice-to-mediate process that allows those involved in motor vehicle collision cases to compel the other parties to attempt a mediated settlement. Let me add that our dispute resolution office has established a roster of mediators who meet standard criteria for education and experience. The office is now developing a plain language guide to assist people with mediation.

There is another matter that is of particular concern to me and our government: ensuring that we support children and families in this province. When relationships fail and children are involved, one parent often ends up shouldering an unfair share of the responsibility of raising the kids. In addition, the other parent often fails to live up to his or her financial responsibility to the children. The government has a responsibility that the maintenance commitment to children and families is met, and met on a timely basis. That's why supporting children and families is another priority for our ministry.

This past year, the family maintenance enforcement program collected over $100 million. We also implemented new enforcement measures for child support, such as garnisheeing defaulters pensions and company assets or charging an annual default fee in addition to measures introduced by the federal government.

Initiatives such as mediation in civil cases and community accountability programs for low-risk offenders help to take the pressure off our overburdened court system by providing opportunities to resolve disputes and address conflict outside of the court process. As such, they are part of our ministry's ongoing strategy to reduce backlogs and delays in provincial courts and make our court system more efficient and accessible.

Chief Judge Robert Metzger completed a review of the provincial court system last year to identify strategies for addressing backlogs and delays. The ministry is acting on his recommendations. Last year we appointed five new judges to the provincial court to help tackle the backlog of cases, starting in the communities where they are most needed. The year before that we had appointed four other new judges. The judiciary and the ministry's criminal justice branch are now in the process of implementing the new 14-day rule to make sure that fewer criminal cases move from one court to another.

In addition, we are encouraging the use of new technologies, such as video conferencing, to increase access to our courts, reduce remand escorts and help reduce the cost of civil litigation.

Far too often I receive letters from British Columbians, especially seniors, telling me how they have been duped out of their savings by unscrupulous business people. I'm proud of the steps we have taken over the past year to protect the interests of consumers and ensure that scam artists who make their living by preying on vulnerable citizens are brought to justice. We strengthened the Trade Practice Act to better protect consumers and to send a clear message that deceptive, misleading and unconscionable business practices will not be tolerated.

British Columbia also worked with our federal, provincial and territorial partners in reaching a cooperative enforcement agreement to enhance information-sharing and mutual assistance during cross-jurisdictional investigations. The agreement came into effect April 1 this year. British Columbia helped create Canshare, a national computer system for sharing consumer information. Canshare represents a significant achievement in information-sharing and consumer protection across the country. Our province has taken the lead in working with other Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions to shut down fraudulent businesses on both sides of the border, particularly those using telemarketing.

[1615]

At the same time, we recognize that a business needs a fair regulatory environment in which to prosper. An example of this is the liquor policy review launched in November 1998 to modernize liquor regulations and policies. After extensive consultation with stakeholder groups, the review is now complete. Further consultations are in progress with local governments, police and community groups about implementing the recommendations of the review.

Turning to my other area of responsibility, multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, I had the honour of being invited to join human rights dignitaries from around the world, including South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, at the International Human Rights Conference on human values in Edmonton in November last year. At that conference, which marked the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I told delegates about the leadership role that British Columbia is playing in Canada in the area of human rights legislation.

[ Page 12259 ]

Last year, as well, British Columbia's hate crime team continued to work with local police and communities to respond to hate activity. Last year the team responded to more than 1,500 complaints and requests for assistance and information. In May of 1998, I signed an agreement with the federal Citizenship and Immigration minister, Lucienne Robillard, to give British Columbia greater responsibility for immigrants coming to our province.

Under this agreement, B.C. now has full responsibility for designing and delivering settlement and integration services for newcomers and has a larger role in determining immigration policy. It means that we can finally develop a made-in-British-Columbia approach to immigration to maximize the many benefits immigrants bring to this province.

As I said earlier, I'm proud of the progress we have made in reforming B.C.'s justice system over the last two years. At the same time, I recognize that there is still much more work to be done. As we move forward into the 1999-2000 year, my ministry will continue to build on our progress.

Let me tell you about some of the issues and initiatives we'll be focusing on in this fiscal year. Too many British Columbians feel afraid for their own safety and the safety of their children. During '99-2000 my ministry will continue not only to make innovative crime prevention programs and public safety initiatives a priority but also work to increase British Columbians' sense of security. That includes taking additional steps to ensure our schools are free of violence. Clearly, children and young people should not have to fear bullying, intimidation or threats when in school.

Following the tragic events in Littleton, Colorado, and in Taber, Alberta, the topic of keeping our schools safe has been on the minds of many people in this province and across North America. Our ministry will continue to enhance the tools and resources we have made available to help educators, schools and community groups develop strategies to keep our schools and communities safe. For example, one of our plans is to build upon our successful Safe Schools, Safe Communities initiative -- a joint venture between our ministry and the Ministry of Education.

We will also be expanding our efforts to educate British Columbians on how they can be safe and feel safe in their communities. For example, I can tell you that later this month we will be mailing out to households across the province a crime prevention publication called "Be Safe." This is a public sector-private sector partnership. As part of our efforts to improve the safety of women and other victims of violence, we'll be making an announcement on clarifying the process for changing one's name for people who feel that changing their identity is the only solution to staying alive.

I've directed the provincial prostitution unit to explore ways of addressing another very disturbing threat to the safety of women and children -- international trafficking in women and children. A special joint forces police operation is currently providing training to police officers on how to respond to this despicable crime. I've also announced my intentions to provide $75,000 for the DISC program developed by the Vancouver police department to better battle prostitution and the sexual exploitation of youth and children.

[1620]

As well, we will be putting in place a range of regional and provincial strategies to foster acceptance for diversity in our society and to improve the safety of more vulnerable British Columbians. These strategies include producing anti-racist videos, consulting with organizations representing people with disabilities, acting on some of the input we received through our consultations with representatives of B.C.'s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities, and consulting with aboriginal communities throughout the province on the impact of hate activities.

We'll be taking further action to address the serious and growing problem of drug abuse in our province and across Canada. As part of our ongoing drug abuse strategy, British Columbia is working with the federal, municipal and health authorities to develop a pilot drug court in Vancouver's downtown east side. Drug courts involve mandatory treatment under judicial supervision. They have proven to be an effective alternative to jail for certain less serious kinds of drug offences. The ministry is also looking at establishing a community court in the province that will focus on less serious non-violent offenders.

At the same time, we will continue to work with other jurisdictions on the development and implementation of a national drug strategy.

Increasing the efficiency of our court system to reduce court backlogs and help ensure that all British Columbians have better access to the justice process will be another important focus this year. Planning is currently underway for the September implementation of the new criminal case management rules designed to improve the efficiency of the court process. This will be the first significant change in the criminal court rules in 40 years.

We will also continue to expand the use of video cameras and monitors in the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court of B.C. to allow lawyers, witnesses, offenders and parties involved in civil disputes to participate in proceedings from locations hundreds of miles away. At the same time, we will continue to work with communities to develop the most efficient, cost-effective options for regional court services, including our decision on the Fraser Valley regional justice centre.

While I'm on the subject of our courts, I'd like to inform the members of this House that this year, 1999, is the twenty-fifth anniversary of our court services and criminal justice branches. The hardworking members of the court services and criminal justice branches -- in fact, all employees of my ministry -- provide the services that go with the day-to-day operations of our courts and other services. These are the men and women that make these services real.

I don't have to tell you what an increasingly challenging job that has been over the last few years as the pressures on our court system and other branches have continued to grow. I want to express my appreciation to the court services and the criminal justice staff and other employees of the ministry for their work and dedication in ensuring the smooth running of not only our courts but all our branches and for their contribution to our efforts to reform the court processes and other processes in our ministry.

Another concern I want to address this fiscal year is the issue of inappropriate sales of medicinal and culinary products containing alcohol, such as rice alcohol and other cooking wines. This, of course, is an issue that ties into the whole larger and complex social problem of alcohol abuse. There is no easy answer. There needs to be a balance to ensure that such products are not abused but are also available to those who are using them for legitimate daily purposes. My ministry's liquor control and licensing branch has consulted with the key stakeholders, and my staff are in the process of developing recommendations.

[ Page 12260 ]

One of our goals this year is to develop and put in place criteria for measuring the successes of justice programs and initiatives. It is essential that British Columbians have confidence that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. In other words, I am talking of making B.C.'s justice system more accountable to the people of the province. The task of building a justice system for this province in which all British Columbians can have confidence is an extremely challenging one. It means talking with and listening to British Columbians around the province about their needs and concerns. It means making tough choices about where to spend limited provincial resources.

[1625]

At the same time, it means recognizing that as a provincial government, we can't do it all, nor should we. In fact, an important part of our job is to work with the communities to develop programs and initiatives that address local needs and conditions. In the Ministry of Attorney General, we are listening to British Columbians. In the year ahead, I want British Columbians to tell me their ideas and thoughts on how we can make the justice system better. It's important to me that we hear from members of the public.

In partnership with communities, we're moving toward building an effective, affordable, accessible justice system that will meet the needs and expectations of British Columbians in the twenty-first century.

Hon. Chair, that concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: Another year passes, and I'm pleased to find myself with the opportunity to respond to the Attorney General's opening remarks and to have the opportunity to participate in the estimates process.

The Attorney General has outlined some -- well, probably all -- of the major initiatives that have been underway in his ministry over the last couple of years, with the addition of a bit of a sense of where he is going and where he wants to take his ministry over the next year. The ministry for which the Attorney General is responsible encompasses a broad range of the activities of government, not only the core . . . .

I mean, leaving aside for a moment the obvious fact that in addition to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the minister is responsible for multiculturalism, immigration and human rights -- which are themselves significant responsibilities -- the fact is that the Ministry of Attorney General itself is a broad and diverse ministry with a wide range of responsibilities. I suppose that if we were to scrutinize here every single program of every division of every branch within that ministry, we could be here for a long time. Pleasant as that thought may be, it might not advance the real purposes of this process.

When I look at the broad range of issues and responsibilities that are encompassed by the Ministry of Attorney General and try to think of what it is that is perhaps at the heart of all of it, it is both the institutions of justice in our society and in this province, and the question of public safety. That is what our police do; it is what our court system does. It concerns itself with public safety.

The Attorney General has talked about some of the initiatives that his ministry has pursued over the past number of years in the area of public safety, and the Attorney General has talked about what he sees doing over the next year under the heading of public safety. In the course of his remarks, the Attorney General drew an important distinction which I want to re-emphasize. On the one hand, the statistics tell us that crime, in many ways, is on the decline. In fact, as the Attorney General said, rates of crime have been steadily declining for some years.

At the same time that that is happening, the public's sense of its safety -- public perception around crime and public safety -- is not changing much for the better. In fact, it may, if anything, be growing slightly worse.

[1630]

To be perfectly honest in the most non-partisan way possible, that has to present a challenge for anyone charged with the responsibility of making public policy in the area of crime and public safety and of administering that public policy. People who are legislators, like us, tend to want to find ways in which we can measure the success or the failure of the initiatives and the activities of government -- the activities of police departments across British Columbia, the activities in courtrooms and prisons and transition programs and all of the things that are part of the government's infrastructure around public safety and the justice system.

One of the most obvious measurables imaginable would be to look at rates of crime -- to be concerned with whether crime is on the rise or on the decline. Because if crime is on the decline, then the need for most of the infrastructure must surely, eventually, decline. We have courts to deal with people who are charged with criminal offences. We have prisons and other programs to deal with people who are convicted of criminal offences. We have police, of course, to detect and investigate crime. We also have police in other programs and services to prevent crime.

If those prevention programs are working, if something is happening in society with the result that crime is on the decline, then people who make public policy -- governments, people like the Attorney General -- should have a sense of accomplishment, that they've achieved something. Yet sadly, notwithstanding the fact that according to objective measurements, rates of crime are on the decline, there is really no positive movement on what we call the perception front -- that is, the sense of safety that people have. It may be that in part that's due to the way in which crime has changed.

The Attorney General talked about home invasions, garage robberies -- kinds of criminal activity, certainly in urban British Columbia, which create an enormous amount of fear. Clearly governments have to respond to those threats.

I just want to spend a moment or two looking at a couple of sort of isolated, anecdotal instances of this continuing problem. A group of people who help the B.C. Liberal Party in terms of our outreach into the Chinese community conducted a very informal survey -- probably not a very scientifically legitimate survey, but a survey nonetheless -- over the course of the lunar new year earlier this year.

The questions that were asked were open-ended questions about what public policy issues were of greatest concern to the people who responded to this survey, the majority of whom were members of the Chinese Canadian community. When we do those surveys or learn about those surveys in terms of the broader community of British Columbia, I think we tend to find that the economy is top of mind for most British Columbians, and health care or education will follow shortly behind.

In this survey, the winner, if you will -- the issue that was top of mind, of greatest concern, for this particular community -- was crime. An extraordinarily high number -- I think it was on the order of 91 percent -- of people who responded to

[ Page 12261 ]

this particular survey said that crime was a more important concern to them than even the economy or health care or education. That said something to me. That says that people in that particular community don't feel as safe as I think they're entitled to feel.

[1635]

Another point, I suppose you could say, along this road that I want to note is an

article that appeared in the Saturday edition of the National Post on January 9, 1999. It was a page-long article. The title was "Why People are Fleeing Vancouver." I'm not going to read the article. There were issues including the high price of housing and the cost of living and the economy that were clearly part of this picture. But on the top of the page of the article, the first sentence said: "For the first time in memory, more people are moving out of British Columbia than are moving in.

Vancouver in particular is suffering, thanks to high taxes, expensive housing and an increasingly ugly crime problem." While I'm sure that no one in government -- and certainly no one in opposition -- likes to see a headline like that, it sends a message across Canada which no one in Vancouver or British Columbia wants to see. It reminds us that the challenges that the minister tries to address in the course of his duties are not going away. In fact, they remain.

The article, in some points, points out the fact that issues of perception are as important in this context as the real hard numbers about rates of crime and so on.

The last point along the road I want to just highlight for a moment is a headline in a more recent issue of the Vancouver Sun : "Police Cite Revolving Door for Thieves." This is a story about the case of one man who had become a suspect in a vehicle break-in and who had been convicted 94 times. The headline suggested that his case highlights the problem known as "the 4 percenters," a group of chronic crooks blamed for most crime.

There are other examples, and I'm sure I don't get as many letters as the Attorney General does from people who are concerned about these issues. I know I get lots of those letters. I know that for whatever reason, they are not yet comforted by the statistics that show us that rates of crime are declining. It seems to me that that creates a twofold challenge. First of all, there is still more that needs to be done. There is more in the way of substantive policy-making, program design -- whatever it takes. There is more progress we need to make in terms of reducing the actual incidents of crime in our society.

But secondly, there is a more enigmatic challenge. That is a challenge around changing the culture of public perception about crime and criminal activity and whether or not we are as safe as we should be in our homes and our communities. The minister would probably agree with me when I suggest that he and all people in government face that challenge as well. Call it a challenge of education, a challenge of communication -- those are, I think, fundamentally important challenges for government.

A year ago we had just received the report of Chief Judge Metzger which informed British Columbians that their Provincial Court system was in crisis. Backlogs in that court had reached unacceptably high levels. The result of backlogs in the court system, in the case of criminal cases, is that judges eventually get the power under the Charter to stay a charge against an accused person because the system has taken too long to bring that person before the court for trial. I suppose we as politicians can all say that one charge stayed on the basis of unreasonable delay is one charge too many in a justice system that is working to maintain public respect.

Be that as it may, a year ago things were, according to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, in a state of crisis. The Attorney General has referred to some of the action taken over the course of the last year to address that. During the course of this debate, I hope to explore some aspects of that and to get a bit more detail from the Attorney General on how his ministry and other actors within the justice system are responding to that challenge.

[1640]

If you move the clock forward to as recently as this past weekend, the Attorney General and other elected officials in British Columbia joined their voices to complain -- to protest -- to the Solicitor General of Canada about the current state of the federal contribution to police funding in British Columbia and the implications that that is having for the delivery of police services here.

My recollection is that the minister said that according to his calculations, the implication of the RCMP's failure to honour its funding commitments in British Columbia is that police strength in B.C. today may be down as much as 400 from what it should be. We can perhaps explore that issue during the course of the discussion that we're going to have. Clearly that creates a potential problem.

If there aren't enough police on the streets of British Columbia, then at the very least the police themselves have to engage in a process of setting priorities, which may mean that some parts of criminal activity out there in society are not getting the attention that they deserve in terms of investigation and detection. That's clearly not in the interest of public safety.

The Attorney General referred to the problem of home invasions. Maybe by way of concluding my response to his remarks, I'll make one or two comments on that question. Frankly, speaking for myself, I can only barely imagine the horror that people who have been victims of home invasion have had to experience. It is clearly a serious problem and, if left unchecked, a serious threat to public order and public respect for our institutions of justice.

What then is the way in which we, particularly those in government, ought to respond to that? I think that there is often for all of us in this profession -- politics -- a temptation to look for that which is, if not a quick fix, a message or a solution which has the appeal of being easy to communicate and easy to understand. That, to give it credit, is an intention to send a message from government about its attitude towards a problem.

In this case, the Attorney General responded to one aspect of the recent rash of home invasions by calling upon the federal government to change the Criminal Code to make home invasions a specific offence. Now, the fact is that under the Criminal Code of Canada, breaking and entering is already an offence, which in some circumstances can yield a life sentence, which is about as serious as you could possibly get in our criminal justice system.

So it could be said -- and I think can rightly be said -- that the law already has the tools necessary to deal with the problem of home invasion and that, really, the way in which governments, police forces and social organizations are going to make progress on the home invasion front is probably by doing things that are more difficult, more complex and less immediately productive than changing the Criminal Code.

[1645]

[ Page 12262 ]

Now, that's not to say that changing the Criminal Code might not actually ultimately be in the public interest in this case. But it's a point by way of making the comment that, really, there are no quick-fix solutions to any of these problems. The problems the Attorney General has talked about -- the problems that he has to concern himself with in his ministry -- are complex problems. They have a huge range of origins in our society and ultimately require responses at a whole different level -- a whole different number of levels. Federal governments, provincial governments, municipal governments, social community organizations and individuals all have a role to play here.

The Attorney General's ability to effect change in the area of justice is constrained by the constitution as much as it is by limited fiscal resources, and I acknowledge that that's a challenging path to walk. But nonetheless, we're going to have a look at some of these issues over the course of the next little while, and I look forward to that debate.

Let me say this by way of concluding my opening comments. Each year, as I have had the privilege of occupying the position that I occupy as justice critic, I have had the opportunity to call upon the minister's staff to assist in preparing me for the estimates process, and each year I have been assisted by the minister's staff.

This year I thought that we made more progress in terms of finding ways in which to ensure that I had my questions answered, and I want to express my appreciation to all of the minister's staff from the deputy on down, I guess, for their help to me in ensuring that my questions were answered. It may well be, if we're lucky, that the result of that will be that we won't have to spend quite as long standing here dealing with some of the details. But there's no time like the present to get to the details.

Under the Attorney General Act, the minister is required to file an annual report every year. I'm holding the last such annual report -- at least, it's the last one that I have. It is the annual report for the year 1995-96. Now, as it happens, the minister was the minister in that financial year. But that financial year actually precedes my election into politics, and the news in this annual report, however interesting, is rapidly becoming out of date. I don't have an annual report for the year 1996-97, I don't have an annual report for the year 1997-98, and I don't have an annual report for the year 1998-99.

Is the Attorney General in a position to tell us when at least some of those reports will be delivered? Hopefully, it will be before the millennium.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the '97-98 report is almost ready. Within the next few weeks it should be available to the hon. member. The '98-99 report will take some time, because the fiscal year has just finished. So we are a bit late with the other one, but it's coming.

G. Plant: As a matter of clarification, though, I don't have a '96-97 report. Is that also about to get published?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sorry. I understand that '96-97 and '97-98 are both being worked on at the same time.

G. Plant: Well, that's reassuring, I suppose. I'm tempted to say that maybe it would be helpful if we just kept the estimates going long enough so that we actually provided some incentive to have those reports published. The fact is, though, that in terms of some of the detail which is contained in these reports, much of the information is, I suspect, in the public domain and has been for some time. But it's useful, particularly if we're talking as the Attorney General was about ideas of accountability and openness, that these things be done.

[1650]

Let me move to a different part of the same general theme, I guess. My experience is that one of the ways in which the ministry helps prepare the minister for this estimates process is to prepare what amounts to a briefing book. It's almost certain that a copy of the briefing book -- or two or three of them -- is sitting over there.

Let me say this. I hazard a guess that at least 90 percent of what is in that book, while I won't say it's entirely uncontroversial, is information which, in the interests of accountability and openness, probably ought to be in the public record. I know that year by year, opposition politicians send FOI requests for the briefing book. The minister will probably forgive me if I suggest that his ministry's ability to deliver copies of the briefing book is about on a par with the ability to deliver annual reports -- maybe slightly better.

I want to make the suggestion to the Attorney General, and I make it seriously, that if we in this chamber are actually committed to opening up the way government does business, to raising accountability to a more meaningful level and, along the way perhaps, ensuring that there is enough information out there so that people understand issues and then can focus public debate on the things that really do need to be debated -- rather than what sometimes happens, which is debate around questions where the root of the question or the problem is just a lack of understanding -- we could take a pretty big step forward along the road to accountability and openness if the document which comprises the briefing book were disclosed to the opposition.

I don't mean disclosed on undertakings but, rather, made public. What would be wrong with a little blast of fresh air into the Ministry of Attorney General? I'd be interested in the minister's response.

Oh, and maybe, i