[ Page 11187 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Range Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11187

Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11187

Tabling Documents –– 11187

Oral Questions

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 11187

Spraying of lignosulphonates. Mr. Cashore –– 11188

Flooding in interior. Mr. Chalmers –– 11188

Spraying of lignosulphonates. Mr. Cashore –– 11189

Americans fishing in Canadian waters. Mr. Bruce — 11189

Deputy minister's trip to crisis management seminar. Mr. Williams –– 11189

Rental and social housing supply. Mr. Barlee –– 11189

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture estimates. (Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 11190

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Perry

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Williams

Ms. Cull

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Crown Lands estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Parker)

On vote 15: minister's office –– 11206

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Williams

Mr. Zirnhelt

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11216

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Mr. Jones

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Science and Technology Fund Act (Bill 18). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11231

Mr. Jones

Mr. Perry

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11236

Mr. Jones

Third reading

Guide Animal Act (Bill 47). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11236

Third reading

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 51).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11237

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Senatorial Selection Act (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 11243

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Yasuhide Hayashi, the newly appointed consul-general of Japan in Vancouver. Would the House please welcome him to British Columbia and to this House.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to welcome four very special guests to the Legislature today: Lorna Waight, who is from Harrogate, Yorkshire, England; Frank Richards from Ganges on Saltspring Island; and Alfred and Evelyn Messer from Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Would you please welcome them here.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We're pleased this afternoon to recognize in our presence the parents of one of our Pages, Matthew Smiley. I'd ask the House to join me in giving a warm welcome to Brian and Roxy Smiley, their other son David and daughter Rebecca.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: On behalf of my colleagues from Richmond, Langley, Delta and Surrey, I would ask the House to please welcome Andrew Milne, the chairman of the board of governors of Kwantlen College; Doug Brawn, vice-chairman of the board of governors; Derek Francis, vice-president, educational and organizational support; and Gerry Kilcup, vice-president, applied arts and career preparation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: In the members' gallery today are the senior officers of the Kaiwo Maru, the newest Japanese sail training ship, which is visiting British Columbia until July 23. Representing the Kaiwo Maru are Capt. Y. Tanabe, commanding officer; Capt. Y. Nagumo, engineering officer; Capt. K. Ohtani, senior professor, navigation; and Capt. T. Yagi, senior professor, engineering. They are accompanied by Mr. Jay Rangel, chairman of the city of Victoria sister city advisory and liaison committee. The Kaiwo Maru is the sister ship of the Nippon Maru, which visited Vancouver during Expo 86 and was an outstanding feature at the fair. Mr. Speaker, would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Bill 74 clarifies the rights of holders of grazing and hay-cutting tenures issued under the Range Act. Imprecise wording in the current act has led to a confusion of intent which could result in legal actions. Bill 74 will prevent this unnecessary cost.

Specifically, the bill clarifies that Range Act tenures convey rights to forage only and confirms the public's ownership and control of Crown land. It specifies how to determine compensation for loss of grazing or hay-cutting rights, and it validates some tenures that were renewed with the consent of both the holder and the Ministry of Forests, but not in accordance with renewal deadlines specified in the act.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing Bill 77 as an exposure bill so that the range clients and the general public can review the proposals and provide comments before the amendments are considered by the Legislature.

This bill amends the processes for award, administration and enforcement of tenures issued under the Range Act. These amendments benefit both the tenure-holder and government by correcting longstanding deficiencies in the current act which were enumerated during the range program review.

Specifically, Bill 77 defines the types of planning and advertising that must precede the award of a tenure. It requires tenure-holders to comply with any approved integrated resource management plans as well as to prepare and abide by operational management plans for the tenure. It enables issuance of temporary grazing permits to utilize surplus forage; it provides legal ratification for the group tenures now issued to community pasture associations; it enables a tenure to remain with a base ranch property in the event of foreclosure or other transfer of control of a ranch; and it clarifies rights and obligations during the seizure and sale of livestock.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for the year ended March 31, 1989.

Oral Questions

TAPED CONVERSATIONS
OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA: To date the Premier has refused to say whether what his former Attorney-General did was right or wrong. Is he prepared to tell the House today what he thinks? Was the former Attorney-General right or wrong?

[ Page 11188 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the matter is sub judice. It is a matter that the Chair is considering and that the judicial system is considering. So the Chair would rule the question out of order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we're not dealing with the matter of contempt or privilege at this moment. Perhaps I might able to assist the Chair by suggesting that the question is whether or not the Premier finds the behaviour of the Attorney-General satisfactory, or right or wrong, because he is commenting on it outside the House constantly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not going to be in the business of dispensing legal opinions. The matter is sub judice and not for discussion, at least in this chamber.

MR. SIHOTA: As a matter of principle

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How would you know?

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have made very clear what my views are on all of the issues.

My question to the Premier is this: as a matter of principle, does he consider it acceptable for any Attorney-General to discuss strategies with defence counsel with respect to a matter before the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, I must rule the question out of order.

SPRAYING OF LIGNOSULPHONATES

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. On June 19, the Ministries of Environment and Highways jointly announced provincial approval for the spraying of lignosulphonates on B.C. roads. The minister said the material is non-toxic and cited Quebec's use of lignosulphonates as support for their approval in B.C., but Quebec officials have confirmed to me that this substance is effectively banned in Quebec by stringent application requirements. Why did the Minister of Environment not inform the public that lignosulphonates have been effectively banned for use in Quebec?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's interesting that the critic for the opposition on this matter now thinks that I'm a spokesman for the province of Quebec.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary to the same minister. Does British Columbia, like Quebec, require 100 percent certainty that there be no rain for 48 hours following application?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the member wants to tell me whether it's going to rain this weekend or not, but I'm not in the forecasting business. I'm also not in the business of asking Quebec what we should be doing here in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, the minister based his news release on the advice of Quebec. He cited that up front. The minister accepted Quebec's advice then. Why won't he accept it now? Quebec has very stringent requirements. Does B.C., like Quebec, require that every batch intended for use on the highways be randomly sampled and tested prior to application?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: My staff, who are equal to any staff of any environment ministry in Canada, advised me that lignosulphonates are non-toxic to fish and aquatic organisms and are free from dioxins and furans. The product was developed here in British Columbia and is accepted by people all over the world. I don't know why the member would be staking his reputation on this one issue on what they do in Quebec.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'll stake my reputation on protecting the health and safety of British Columbians any day.

[2:15]

The question is: does B.C., like Quebec, require that a sample be conducted at the location in the field as the material is being sprayed?

MR. SPEAKER: The question might be better placed on the order paper. The Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If that member over there wants to place his party's reputation, a party which will send out pamphlets saying fishing is banned in Howe Sound.... I don't think they have any reputation at all.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary. How can the minister justify the spreading of this pulp mill pollution on B.C. roads, where it leaches into streams, rivers and groundwater, when even the material safety data sheets provided by the manufacturer state that it is to be "kept out of sewers, storm drains, surface waters and soils"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As usual, the member's facts are not correct. I suggest he ask his research department to go back and research his information.

FLOODING IN INTERIOR

MR. CHALMERS: My question is also for the Minister of Environment. The flooding problems we had in the Okanagan this spring were well known and publicized from coast to coast. Mission Creek is one of the major contributors to the waterflow — about one-third — of Okanagan Lake. Much of the flooding that happened in the Okanagan was along Mission Creek. The people living in that area are most concerned about the work that needs to be done in dyking and river maintenance. Can the minister enlighten us today as to whether funding will be made available for such work, and when?

[ Page 11189 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: My regional staff will be preparing a report, which will be delivered to me tomorrow. I fully expect they will be able to start on the work immediately. And yes, there will be money available to solve that very serious problem.

SPRAYING OF LIGNOSULPHONATES

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister knows that I have called on her to announce a ban on the use of this substance pending further investigation.

I have some questions. A Bella Coola resident suffered what his doctor called a severe reaction to a toxic chemical after trying to remove such road spray from his truck. Eleven days before the minister's announcement giving lignosulphonates the green light in B.C., the Bella Coola man received a letter from your ministry — and I'm prepared to table a letter from the person who was raising this issue — expressing concern about this incident. How could the minister have given the green light to lignosulphonates after her department received such complaints, which indicated that this is dangerous to the health and safety of British Columbians?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as has been the case all afternoon, the member opposite is less than specific. If he would like to provide me with the specific information on the complaint, I'd be pleased to follow it up.

MR. CASHORE: I have a supplementary to the same minister. Will the minister undertake to table in this House the list of all B.C. highways that have been sprayed with lignosulphonates?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'll take that question on notice.

AMERICANS FISHING IN
CANADIAN WATERS

MR. BRUCE: To the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Yesterday he rose in the House concerned about the situation in the northern part of our waters. Can you tell me today if you have had any assurance from the Canadian government that they will protect the waters — the fisheries, in particular — south of the A-B line?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I have been in discussions this morning with my staff, who have also been in contact with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have been discussing the A-B line and the concerns we have from the point of view of fishermen from both countries, and we are politely asking.... Without, hopefully, having to use force, even though in the incidents that are happening, there may be fudging in both cases.... We are saying that we would like both countries to respect a line that was agreed to in 1903, even though it isn't written — the A-B line as we know it.

We're very concerned about infractions if they occur, but we will jurisdictionally protect our sovereignty. It's important that British Columbia, from the point of view of our resource, protect what is rightfully ours under our sovereign control. We are asking all fishermen, both from the U.S. and British Columbia, to respect those boundaries.

DEPUTY MINISTER'S TRIP TO
CRISIS MANAGEMENT SEMINAR

MR. WILLIAMS: To the hon. Premier. I see from voucher batch No. 8565428 that employee No. 17993 — Eli Sopow — attended a seminar on corporate crisis management given by the Canadian Institute in Toronto on February 23 and 24, 1989. It was approved by the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid), who at that time was acting Minister of Finance. Could you advise the House whether Mr. Sopow passed the course, or whether you've requested your money back?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to take the question on notice.

RENTAL AND SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY

MR. BARLEE: To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Yesterday the minister told this House: "The only way to deal with the problem of rental supply is to get more accommodation on the market. That's what we're doing, and we're doing a very good job of it — a job we're all proud of." That will come as great news to the 11 families in Penticton who have had to separate their families and put their children into foster homes.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have a question, please?

MR. BARLEE: There is simply no housing there. What plans has the minister put in place to deal with this distressing situation, which has been forcing these families apart?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I am very pleased to answer the question. We have recognized that there is some discrimination against families in British Columbia. We have prepared legislation to deal with it. As a matter of fact, this evening we will be going into committee stage to deal with that particular legislation. I should point out to you that your members have objected to the legislation and have asked that we put it out as an exposure bill for a year. We said it should be dealt with now because there was an urgency to deal with the families facing discrimination. We want to deal with it now to provide families the same opportunity the rest of the people in society have. Your members have resisted; they say it's not an urgent matter. We will continue with it, and we will prepare the legislation to make it possible for these people to have accommodation the same as you and me.

[ Page 11190 ]

MR. BARLEE: Supplementary to the same minister. Evidently I did not make it clear. There are 11 families in Penticton whose children are in foster homes because there is not adequate housing. You stated last year the housing would be there. You "are working on it." They cannot afford another year of waiting. The minister knew this was a problem last year. Evidently it is not working. Your department was aware of the problems in this area last year, and you mentioned it last year. Why did the minister not put measures in place so that it would not occur again? And it is occurring.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, the government is working very hard to provide additional accommodation in the Penticton area, and we recognize that there is a shortage. But the problems that families face is what I just talked about a moment ago: families do not have equal opportunity to access the accommodation that is there, and as a result of that they are having a difficult time finding a place to house their children. That's why we have a bill this evening that will provide them with the same opportunity that the rest of society has, and that's the bill your members are opposing.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR, RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 47: minister's office, $330,518 (continued)

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a question that I started on before lunch. I note that the minister had a delegation from the Williams Lake area in the Cariboo Regional District some time in May. Can you give us a date as to when you will be responding to those requests? You said you were working on it. I gathered that, but I'm sure the people are anxious to decide to go to referendum or to do something like that. When can we expect a reply from your ministry?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I imagine the member is referring to South Lakeside in Williams Lake. Is that correct? The member should be aware that there isn't a complete agreement or understanding as to what the regional district or the municipality wishes to do at this moment. There are still some questions they are debating themselves — particularly the municipality. Part of the debate is waiting for a monetary response from us as to what assistance we may be able to provide. We're in the process of preparing that for them. They'll have our position very shortly, and then they will have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to go ahead.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I realize that "very shortly" is vague. Do you anticipate it in the month of August, or in a month, two months or a week? I wonder if you could be a little more precise on that.

HON. L. HANSON: I could say that part of it depends on how long these estimates take — no, that's not true, Mr. Speaker.

I would imagine that we will give our position to Williams Lake within the next two to three weeks.

MR. PERRY: I am sure the minister is aware that Vancouver city council recently appointed a special task force which prepared a report entitled "Clouds of Change" on the implications of global atmospheric change for the city of Vancouver and, by implication, for similar large urban areas. I'd like to ask the minister whether he has received a copy of that report and has had a chance to look at it.

HON. L. HANSON: I know of the report. I haven't seen a copy as yet.

MR. PERRY: I guess I can understand that. Having been one of those who presented a submission to the commission, I haven't directly received one either. I will notify the city that neither the minister nor I have received our copies; hopefully it will also be sent to other members of the Legislature.

The report reviews some of the scientific background on what is known about global climatic change and the sources of pollutants which contribute to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer and to the apparent greenhouse effect. It undertakes a review of municipal, provincial and federal jurisdiction — or potential jurisdiction — to deal with that problem, and then it proposes a large number of potential solutions, or steps towards solutions, to this problem which may be undertaken by municipalities; in this case specifically, the city of Vancouver.

[2:30]

I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether officials in his department have reviewed any of this information or have begun to examine changes which may be necessary to the Municipal Act and/or the Vancouver Charter to empower municipalities to undertake, if they so choose, the recommendations made in that report. If it's helpful to the minister, some of the suggestions concern novel parking regulations, regulations concerning car-pooling, and regulations concerning the efficiency of vehicles and energy efficiency in buildings in a municipality. Perhaps that helps to clarify what I'm getting at.

HON. L. HANSON: I guess the member can appreciate that it's very difficult to respond as to what our future opinion or action might be on a study that we haven't seen yet; nor have we had an opportunity to see the recommendations. I can tell the member that we are looking forward to receiving our copy of that report. Also, from the remarks the member made, there is the likelihood that there will be other ministries involved — most particularly, En-

[ Page 11191 ]

vironment, off the top of my head. We look forward to receiving that study and to the recommendations in it. But it's very difficult to take a position, positive or negative, until you know what they are.

MR. PERRY: I was hoping at least that the minister had received the preliminary discussion paper entitled "Clouds of Change" which was published by that task force in March, and might have begun to examine these issues. Perhaps I can simply serve notice to the ministry that one of the interesting issues that arose for me on a cursory inspection of the final report, which was provided to me sort of indirectly through the office of the Leader of the Opposition, is that there may be changes required to the Municipal Act or the Vancouver Charter or both if cities are to respond in a constructive way, and within the interests of their constituencies, to some of the issues raised.

As an example, the actions of the city of Berkeley, California, were obviously quite influential in this report. The Vancouver task force called as one of its key witnesses Councillor Nancy Skinner, whom we had the privilege of hosting in the Legislature back in late April, at the time of her testimony to the Vancouver city task force. I was looking yesterday at a report of Councillor Skinner to the Berkeley, California, municipal council, which outlined a set of proposed municipal actions for approval during the week of Earth Day this spring. Some of those actions — for example, the closing of certain lanes of major thoroughfares to vehicular traffic and opening them exclusively to bicycle traffic— may require powers beyond those possessed by municipalities. I don't pretend to be an expert in this field. I'm simply raising the question to draw it to the ministry's attention.

Perhaps I could leave with the minister the suggestion that his ministry undertake to review this report. I will make it my business to notify the city that they should provide the ministry with, preferably, more than one copy and request that this be looked at in the next year.

I have one further question, which is somewhat related. Most of us are aware that the issue of preservation of urban natural landscape, including trees on private land, has been a very contentious issue in Vancouver. It has led to some incidents in which ethnic and racial groups have been pitted against each other and to an exacerbation of some rather ugly feelings in the community, to put it bluntly.

The city council in Vancouver has been very concerned about this. The first member for Vancouver-Port Grey (Ms. Marzari) and I, who represent the west side of Vancouver, have been exposed to a lot of public concern over this issue. There was tremendous concern last year when the amendments to the Vancouver Charter proposed by the city did not reach second reading in the Legislature. Over the past year, I assume, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has worked closely with the city of Vancouver in preparing an approach to deal with that problem.

I was therefore puzzled when the approach taken by the government ended up experiencing the same fate as Caesar — of being stabbed in the back. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to explain why there is a discrepancy between the government's current approach to allowing the city of Vancouver to deal with that problem and the approach that was apparently pursued between the city of Vancouver and the ministry over the course of the last year,

HON. L. HANSON: What the member is getting at is the private member's bill changing some of the conditions of the Vancouver Charter. I would say to the member that we did not collaborate, as the member is suggesting, in the drafting of these. The proposals that Vancouver council brought forward were given to us for opinion and assessment.

The process is the Standing Orders Committee, and it has traditionally been that for changes of this nature to the Vancouver Charter. It emphasizes that Vancouver does not operate under the Municipal Act, but under its own charter, and therefore is unique in British Columbia. Changes to the charter are handled in a unique way through the Standing Orders Committee. Again, I would advise the member that we didn't take part in the process of generating Vancouver Charter changes. We gave them our opinion of the changes they were requesting— as was fair and reasonable — but they were generated by them. This is now in the Standing Orders Committee process, and I believe it will be before the House shortly. I'm not sure if the member is on the Standing Orders Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. I was just going to intercede and remind hon. members there is legislation before this House dealing with the Vancouver Charter. In view of this, we are not permitted to discuss these matters in committee. Could we continue without discussing the matter of the legislation relating to the Vancouver Charter.

MR. PERRY: You'll note that my question was very carefully phrased. I did not mention legislation in my question. Since the minister has brought that up, I wonder if I could ask him — because I can't see that there will be an opportunity subsequently in this chamber, if I understand our procedure correctly — whether he would be willing to tell us the ministry's opinion as provided to the city of Vancouver regarding their initiative.

HON. L. HANSON: I am getting some comments from my deputy.

I think the bill in itself will be discussed when we go through the proper process. It certainly is a controversial problem. I am not sure whether the member is referring to anything specific, but he did mention control of trees and landscaping in his conversation.

Our position is that we observed that it is not in the Municipal Act. We are not studying it for inclu-

[ Page 11192 ]

sion in the Municipal Act at this point. It is a very controversial problem. The rights of society as opposed to the rights of individuals on their own property is the question. There must be a balance to that— I firmly believe there should be a balance to that, in any case — and that is the question.

I don't take a position as Minister of Municipal Affairs in this House on a bill that is coming forward. When the bill comes forward, I suppose it might be appropriate for me to speak on it as a member. But other than that, I am not prepared to.

MR. PERRY: With the Chair's indulgence, I think the minister has confirmed just now that in later procedure it won't be possible for me to ask questions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What I am trying to get at is that since this is an issue of great general public concern that goes beyond merely the city of Vancouver, I would like to utilize the opportunity the Legislature affords to find out where those experts in our civil service who are charged with attempting at the provincial level to address these issues stand and what advice they have to offer the people of B.C. That's why I am posing these questions now.

No one would disagree with the minister, and I am relieved to hear him say that the question of tree conservation calls for balance between rights of private property and the needs of the community. That is exactly the argument the city of Vancouver has made, and individual homeowners — whether they are neighbours of an endangered tree or owners of the land on which an endangered tree stands — will agree. There must be some balance. Few of us pretend to have the wisdom of Solomon to know exactly where it is. Certainly my impression is that the city of Vancouver does not purport to know exactly. The answer will emerge eventually in time, if the city ultimately achieves the authority to attempt to deal with that problem.

There were other issues raised in the initiative of the city of Vancouver that have yet to be dealt with, such as the desirability of sharing or mitigating the effects of rapid change in neighbourhoods due to urban redevelopment by the use of a development levy, which could be applied to the construction of day cares necessitated by that rapid change. Or it could be applied to the funding of social or community housing to maintain a mix of social classes and socio-economic status in Vancouver neighbourhoods These principles, in my view and clearly in the view of some other members of this House, clearly apply to all British Columbians in urban areas and not just to the city of Vancouver.

I would like to know if the ministry sympathizes with the problems of the city of Vancouver and feels they are on the right track. Or, in the advice given to the city when it brought forward its proposals, did the ministry say: "No, you're on the wrong track"? And if so, why?

HON. L. HANSON: I believe we covered the issue — if not specifically — in a philosophical manner this morning in the discussions your colleagues raised. But I will tell the member that we as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs sympathize with any difficulty a municipality has. We don't always agree with the solution they propose, but the solution that is proposed in the particular issue and municipality he is talking about is a very contentious one.

[2:45]

While I know there is a very dedicated approach to it by the one community, that isn't necessarily held by all communities. Suffice it to say that it is not the intention of Municipal Affairs at this point in time to introduce changes to the Municipal Act in a like manner. That is not to say we might not in the future, but we don't intend to now. The discussion on the charter changes will come up in the private member's bill.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise and participate in the debate, and I would like to welcome the deputy minister and others from the ministry to the House. I have a number of issues I would like to briefly touch on; none of them are too extensive.

The first one regards a letter I wrote to the minister and his response. The issue was the homeowner grant program for disabled persons. We've had an enormous number of people in our constituency who are not on GAIN but who because of their disabilities have severe financial problems. As you know, the unemployment rate for disabled persons is something like 70 percent. Clearly there's a large and growing body of people who are in economic trouble. However, because they're not on GAIN and because some of these disabilities are not mobility disabilities, these people fall through the cracks of the program. I outlined this in my letter, and the response I received was that you would forward this for the next review of the homeowner grant. I wonder if the minister can tell me just when that review might take place and how soon we might be able to deal with this problem that is a very serious one for a number of people.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, as I understand it — and I've had some correspondence myself, not only from the hon. member but from other people — the concern is the criteria that qualify people for the extended or additional homeowner grant. We have some studies going on about it.... My deputy is just passing me a note saying that to get a disabled homeowner grant, you have to be unable to function in the home, regardless of whether you get GAIN or not, and the criteria that have been attached to the qualification at this point have not been that you get GAIN or you don't get GAIN.

However, some of the letters I have had and seen have made a case that, I have to say, warrants us looking at it. We're in that process, but there's nothing pending immediately.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to thank the minister for that response. I hope that that issue will be dealt with

[ Page 11193 ]

soon. As I say, it's a serious issue for a number of people.

I'd like to turn now to the question of culture and, more specifically, archaeological resources. This has been brought to my attention in a number of ways, partly in my role as Tourism critic — there is obviously a role there — and partly because of an archaeological site recently identified in my riding, which I've spoken to the ministry about. We're in the process of arranging a talk about it. I understand, however, as is the case with the dig in my riding, that the vast majority of archaeological resources in the province are located on Crown lands and, more specifically, Crown lands designated for logging and forest resources. It crosses over a number of ministries; I understand that. I'd just like to clarify what the role of this minister and ministry is in archaeological sites.

I understand that once an area is identified as a valid, valuable archaeological site, it is automatically designated by the ministry and placed on a map of some sort, and I also understand that the ministry stated last May to the Forest Resources Commission that it ensures that archaeological items are not damaged by requiring that proper management procedures are implemented during the planning and carrying out of forest activities — that's the major conflict, obviously. I wonder if the minister can tell me if his ministry can make a decision about whether or not an area can be logged, or does that decision still rest with the Ministry of Forests?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is correct that as archaeologically important sites are recognized, they're not designated as such. But there is a system of notice. In the case of a subdivision, for example, if there is a site that has been recognized as archaeologically important, and a subdivision wishes to occur, we ask for an assessment or some other remedies that may be available to us to be registered against the title. If it is a separate title to a separate piece, you can register against the title that it is an archaeologically sensitive or important site, and there may have to be a study. If that study brings forward information that the site truly has some very important material, there may be a requirement for excavation and digging.

As far as forestry is concerned, when there is a site that is about to be logged or is in the process of having a permit for logging, and it is recognized as having archaeological importance, the final decision doesn't rest with our ministry; there is consultation that goes on between the two ministries. The process for the logging — or whatever the activity may be — is ensured in the agreement with the operator who is doing it, and it is monitored by the Forest Service. So there's good cooperation there. I see, from my experience, that it has been working quite well. At this point in time I don't see any need.... I haven't seen any huge problems with that process. We continue to monitor it, and the ministries cooperate very well. The final say is with the Ministry of Forests, though.

MS. PULLINGER: I want to pursue the same subject for a moment. I would like to know also if forest harvesting plans in this kind of situation are always referred to your branch of cultural affairs if archaeological sites are listed on the plans. Is it a standard practice that they're referred to you for input if the sites are listed? I wonder how often this happens. How many of these are referred to you? Could you just give me a sense of that? Then I wonder if you can tell me the number of people involved in dealing with those plans and the referrals, and where those people are. That's four questions.

HON. L. HANSON: The magnitude of the issue makes your question rather difficult to answer. We get about 1,700 reports a year of sites that may have some archaeological significance. We have a register that keeps track of these. When there is an issue to do with mining or forestry on any of those sites, it becomes an immediate imperative to look at the importance of the site. I believe there are 11 or 12 on staff who deal with this pretty well exclusively. We also have a number of consultants who deal with it. Of course, you can appreciate that of all the reportings we get of significance, not all are truly of a significant nature. You can see the magnitude of the job of making that assessment. We do it in the style of a registry, and if there is some imperative happening on one of the sites that has been recognized as having some importance, then we go further.

I mentioned earlier that the Ministry of Forests has the final say. I should qualify that by saying that if the site is of an archaeological significance of importance to our branch, to the level that we may designate it, then the control of the site reverts to the archaeological branch. That doesn't happen too often; the cooperation is absolutely excellent between the ministries.

MS. PULLINGER: I have one last question on this issue. I'd be interested to know whether or not the ministry checks for compliance. My last question involved whether there were people out in the field, or if they are all in Victoria. I'm interested to know whether or not your branch checks for compliance either before or after timber harvesting has taken place, and whether there's any systematic way in which you are informed about those kinds of activities. Are there people out there monitoring that and keeping your branch informed of that kind of activity?

HON. L. HANSON: As I said to the member, we get about 1,700 annually, and if you compound that over a few years, there are a lot of those sites.

We don't physically have people who act as policemen going around to all of the various sites. On most of the sites, Forests reports if there is a difficulty or if there is not. We've had very little difficulty with that, quite frankly. Some complaints, as a result of things that may have happened, have gone to court, but that has happened very seldom.

[ Page 11194 ]

No, we don't have a bunch of policemen looking into those things. We do have the cooperation of Forests to assess the operation as per the permit they issue, and it works very well.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you for that response.

I would like to turn now to the question of the Islands Trust. As I'm sure you're aware, there have been some major conflicts over resource use and development in the Islands Trust. As we know, the mandate of the Trust is to preserve and protect the Trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the area and of the province generally. That's a very valid and valuable mandate, given that the islands in trust are unique.

I've had an increasing number of calls from people on South Pender Island and Bowen Island who are concerned about increasing development — not just small development, but development that contravenes the official community plan and is also out of compliance with the mandate of the Trust, essentially. We've got Cowan Point on Bowen Island and Bedwell on South Pender, and I understand there was one in question for Galiano Island — all of them Whistler-type resorts.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

These, as I see it, contravene quite clearly the intent of the Islands Trust legislation, and they also contravene in every case the official community plan. There is enormous outcry, and the overwhelming majority of the residents are opposed to these developments — not to development, per se, but to these enormous developments that will, for instance, in the case of Bedwell Harbour, quadruple the population of South Pender and destroy the rural character which is part of the uniqueness that's in trust.

[3:00]

I wonder if the minister could enlighten us a little bit about this kind of development and why it's being allowed in the Gulf Islands, when it so clearly contradicts both the mandate of the Trust and the local community plans. Could you tell us a little bit about that and the ministry's involvement in it? What position do you take?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member is well aware that the Islands Trust was just recently given a certain amount of autonomy, in that they now have the ability and have been taxing the local residents for their services. They now have the employees of the Trust under their jurisdiction; they are employees of the Islands Trust. They are empowered, and their mandate is to control or be in charge of land use on the islands.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any developments going on that are beyond the zoning that is in place. If there are situations — and I guess this is what the member is suggesting, or at least that's what I was getting from the conversation — where a development is going ahead that is contrary to the zoning bylaw that is in place, the Islands Trust has enforcement powers. They have a considerable legal services budget if there is contravention going on.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister is quite right. Technically these developments are all right — within the zoning, if you like. However, as you know — particularly with the question of South Pender — it's a loophole in the zoning regulation that has been used to facilitate this development. There has been no reaction that I can see, or any attempt from the ministry to enforce the intent of the Islands Trust, which, as I say, is a very unique and special resource that we have.

Both developments I'm speaking about and the third one that was in question — I'm not sure if it's still in the works on Galiano — are self-described as Whistler-type resorts. I'm sure you understand that will significantly increase population and change forever the character of the islands. I don't think there's any question about that, and it seems to me that the ministry has a role to facilitate and work with the Islands Trust wherever possible to ensure that that kind of development doesn't begin to take over our islands and destroy their character.

I understand as well that the minister has on his desk — or has had on his desk — a number of amendments to the official plan and zoning bylaws for South Pender. Obviously quick ministerial approval would indicate support for the Islands Trust and would indicate the fact that you understand the mandate of the Islands Trust and are willing to put the weight of your ministry behind that. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not those orders have been signed yet.

HON. L. HANSON: I know of no bylaws that are being held up. I guess I should go back a little bit. We look at bylaws that require ministerial approval from the provincial-interest point of view, and when a bylaw comes in we circulate it to Health, Highways, Social Services and the various ministries to see if they have a provincial concern. There being none and the bylaw being within the scope of the responsibility or the authority of the entity that generates it, we process it. I don't know of any that are being held up.

The Islands Trust has that authority. I hope the member is not suggesting that when we delegate authority to a locally elected body that we would start to provide legislation — which really is our only option — that would override the bylaws those people have decided to put in place. I think it would be a regressive policy to give local authorities — as was suggested by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — more autonomy and more ability to make their own decisions, and then have government come along and pass a bylaw to say we don't like their decision and are going to override it.

I don't know of any bylaws that are being held up, beyond what is our normal procedure. I don't know that there is any development that is going ahead that is contrary to the zoning that is in place. There are some conditions that apply to all municipalities and

[ Page 11195 ]

to all local governments. If the land use designation is appropriate for a project, and there is an application to take out a building permit, there is a time factor whereby a municipal government cannot come along and change that zoning to stop the development — as they shouldn't. Somewhere we have to have some understanding of what we can and can't do on various pieces of land. That's the purpose of zoning and the purpose of community plans.

The Islands Trust has the enforcement authority. They have a budget that should allow them to enforce it. If they are having difficulties, they should be pursuing it.

MS. PULLINGER: I see the operative words in that are "appropriate development." I would suggest the vast majority of people on those islands think the developments that are happening are highly inappropriate. As I say, they fly in the face of the intent of the Islands Trust.

In the case of South Pender Island, there is an official community plan which this development will contravene. As well, the Islands Trust has asked for support from the ministry in passing bylaws to close the loophole that has been used for the Bedwell Harbour development to go ahead. They would like to close that loophole. While they are forced to pass this development because it does comply — they don't have any option; they would like to not pass it in its present state — they would like to close that loophole. They are asking the minister for support in doing that to make this particular resort legal nonconforming. Should it burn down or be damaged, it can't be rebuilt and no others can be built, thereby protecting the nature of that island as per the Islands Trust.

That's what's in question. I think the minister would agree that when there's that kind of opposition, when there's a very clear mandate of the Trust, when Islands Trust people have asked for this support, then the onus is on the ministry to provide it. Their bylaw changes were sent to you some time ago. I'm interested to know whether they've been signed, and if they haven't, when they will be. What's the time-frame for this process?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't know of the loophole the member is talking about. I have heard some conversation or some suggestion that the zoning that was on some of the properties — I don't know if it's a specific one she's talking about — allowed more than the Islands Trust thought should be allowed. If they wish to put a bylaw in place that changes and reduces that density, I don't see that there's any reason why the ministry would hold that up, other than the people who intend to go ahead with the development perhaps not doing their proper thing. They should not be stopped, because that was the allowance that was there. I don't see that as being a loophole. If you wish to classify it as an error, that is up to you, but I don't see it as being a loophole.

I suppose that the elected local representatives at some time felt that the land use applied to the particular area you are talking about was appropriate. I don't know that, but I imagine that's why it was, or it wouldn't have been there in the first place. There may be an election, and different people will come along, and there will be another opinion of what it should be. That's the process of land use and why we give the authority to local people, who should best know what that land use should be.

I assure the member that if there is a bylaw that is unduly being held up, we will look into it and see why it is being held up. I have no knowledge of one being held up.

MS. PULLINGER: This is a really interesting question. As I say, the overwhelming cry from the Islands Trust and the people there is that, because of understaffing, insufficient funds and the history of the Trust, it's simply been overlooked. They're asking for a change. I will formally ask the minister to look into that bylaw and the changes presented by the Islands Trust several weeks ago, to ensure that they are passed as quickly as possible. Obviously it's very important in this case and for others that might come along. The minister says that if he's asked, he will look into it, so I put forward that formal request for you to do that. I would very much appreciate a response to that at some point in terms of precisely where that bylaw is and when we might expect it to be signed and made law for the Trust. I think that's a critical issue.

The Islands Trust officers are indeed elected, but I think it's worth noting that since 1982, when the government introduced Bill 72 to repeal, in essence, the Islands Trust Act in section 190.... It was not successful, and since then there have been a number of things.

In 1983, for instance, the Municipal Act was amended to erase regional plans, including those developed by the Islands Trust. It also eroded the Trust's power to designate protective zoning for special areas.

Since 1983 a number of changes to the Municipal Act have removed the restrictions on the approval of subdivisions and condominiums, and have had the effect of opening up the islands to more development. I think what we're seeing now is a backlash to those changes, and I think that people are, quite rightly, fearful that our very unique and special islands will be changed. As you and I know, that's not reversible. Once you have a Whistler-style resort on one of those islands, it's irrevocably changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Past legislation which has been deliberated on in this chamber is not a matter for debate in the estimates. I am sure the member is aware of that.

MS. PULLINGER: I am simply suggesting that those changes have created the problem that we have today; therefore it's part of the discussion that we need to look at those changes and perhaps reverse some of them. That's simply my intent.

[ Page 11196 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The need for legislation is also not a matter for debate in Committee of Supply.

MS. PULLINGER: Again under the Islands Trust, on the question of Bowen Island we have had the restructuring committee. I guess it was struck about a year ago. I wonder if the minister could inform me why that committee was struck, how the members on it were chosen and what the criteria were. Were they elected by the community at large, as I would assume would be the most democratic way to have public input? What kind of funding was that group given? I wonder if you could answer those questions, please.

[3:15]

HON. L. HANSON: Going back to the Islands Trust, I hope the member would not suggest that we would approve a bylaw that would retroactively change something in progress. We approve bylaws for local governments that wish to change something that will happen in the future, but not retroactively. I know of no bylaw before us that is particularly delayed.

On the issue of Bowen Island — I guess it's their restructuring study that you asked the question on — we are getting fairly close to deciding whether or not there should be a referendum. I haven't seen the final copy of that study — nor would I, necessarily. A recommendation would come forward from the committee as to whether they would see a referendum being appropriate at this time.

I see now that I have a note in front of me that the study has been completed, but it wouldn't necessarily come to the ministry in any case.

The whole purpose of the study in the first place was to see if Bowen Island should incorporate and become its own municipality, its own entity, have an elected council and do those sorts of things. The study will look at all of the ramifications of that: the cost of servicing, the cost of providing local government, and all of the other things. As a result of that there is usually a request of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to gather the various assistance grants that come about as a result of a restructuring process so that they might incorporate those into a referendum.

The study has been completed. We are in the process of putting together what the restructuring grants might be. They will discuss those with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and it will, I suppose, ultimately end up in a referendum. That could take another three months, six months, nine months — it depends on how long all of these bodies wish to discuss it before they arrive at a conclusion.

We have a fairly standard formula that provides highway assistance, population assistance in restructuring, servicing assistance and that sort of thing.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to thank the member for that information. However, my questions were more specifically about the restructuring committee. I am interested in knowing why that committee was struck and how it has been funded, apart from the study. I know the study was paid for 100 percent by Municipal Affairs. But I am interested in knowing how that committee came about — I guess that's a better way to phrase it — and how the members of the committee were selected. Was it a public election, as one would think it would be? How is it representative of all the interests in the community?

HON. L. HANSON: Unfortunately, I wasn't in this chair at that time, but I have been here for some others' and the normal procedure is that, first of all, the community expresses an interest in looking at whether it would be beneficial to study the form of government that they are under. Then, through either their elected member or directly to the governing body, which in this case is the regional district, they usually request to look at that. We try and encourage the local community, along with the regional district, in this case, and the local representative, to structure a committee that is broadly based and well-representative of the community. I think that that has been accomplished in the Bowen Island case.

It is an informal committee, but it is linked to the regional district. We provide study funds to local entities. We don't usually provide them to local government, such as the regional district or a municipality, if it was to be a boundary expansion or other areas to be taken in. There may be some variations in various parts of the province, but that's generally the way it's done. It works very well.

MS. PULLINGER: I am still not quite clear about this committee. When you say that the community requests a study, would the regional board hold a plebiscite? Where does this come from? Is it just a decision that some members of the community make? Or in this case, is it just a person from the regional board? Must it be a decision of the board in its entirety? How does that come about?

Secondly, I asked about how these people are appointed. Who decides who is on this committee? I would be most interested to know the process of decision-making — whether the people on the island have some input into who sits on that committee or whether it is appointed by the ministry. Who appoints the committee? I'm sorry; I'm not clear on that.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the member should understand that this is an informal community committee. There are no rules, regulations or format that must be followed. They don't have to hold public hearings. It is truly an informal committee.

It usually starts by some interest in the community in either joining another municipality, forming their own or just looking at that. It's a study group. It's not going to make any conclusions that this or that should be done. It's a study group. Usually we ask the local government to give us some assurance that the committee being structured is representative of the community.

[ Page 11197 ]

Maybe the member has had someone say: "I should be on that committee, and I'm not." I'm not aware of that. I don't know how that particular committee was formed. I have never had a concern expressed to me about a committee member who shouldn't be on the committee in this particular instance.

It is an informal committee. It is usually structured by the regional district or the local representative. If a community has a committee that it doesn't respect or that isn't representative of the community, you will hear about that very quickly. It's an informal fact-gathering committee that will provide some information to a study process which may eventually lead to a very democratic process of saying to the people who live there: "Here are the implications of doing this. Do you want to do it, or do you not?"

MS. PULLINGER: I take from the minister's comments that this committee is simply a group of citizens who have come forward and requested funding, and have got it but are not bound by any rules or regulations. I find that surprising, quite frankly, because the impact that these people are going to have on the community has the potential to be very profound.

I have one last issue that I would like to raise, and it has to do with a letter dated June 11 sent by the minister to Mr. Ian Terry, chair of the Regional District of Nanaimo. This has come from the ministry, so it involves ministry funding and ministry staff and therefore comes under this ministry's estimates in terms of its mandate and what it's doing. The letter is about a $10,000 study grant for Lantzville sewerage: north shore interceptor. I'm sure the minister is familiar with the letter. Lantzville is well within the present Nanaimo constituency, which is represented by me and the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). We are very active members and work very hard for our constituency — like most members of the House.

What's fascinating here is that the minister refers to the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen) as the local MLA when dealing with this Lantzville sewerage. I wonder if the minister could tell me why that is.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I want to correct the hon. member. She suggested that this committee, which is a very informal committee, has a huge influence on what happens in the community and are spending the study money. The study money is given to the regional district, and the regional district must be happy with the terms of the study and with the people taking part in the steering committee. In most of the cases the study is actually done by a consultant who is not in any way associated with the community interest. So to suggest that this local committee is influencing what happens and to suggest that they are spending money is not correct. It is under the authority, the auspices, the control and the regulation of the regional district. I'm sure that the member would not argue with that.

Secondly, the answer to her last question is that Mr. Hagen is the nearest cabinet minister to that riding.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to just respond again to the Bowen Island study restructure group. I didn't imply that they were improperly spending money; I know that the money they have received is being spent on the study. I have no question about that. I am not implying anything incorrect there. However, I stand behind my comment that those people will have an enormous effect on the outcome of that community and in fact have had a profound effect on the dynamics and politics within that community already.

I find the minister's response to my query about why he's using a neighbouring MLA, referring to him in this letter.... He says that he's just the nearest cabinet minister. I don't understand why the minister would call the neighbouring cabinet minister the local MLA for Nanaimo. I find that very difficult to explain, and clearly the minister does too.

Tell me this then: if it's because he's a cabinet minister — and that's why you've named him in this letter, you tell me — why then have you also named the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) as the local MLA in the Nanaimo riding? Could the minister tell me that?

This House should have an explanation from the minister. This is clearly, as I see it, a use of a ministry of the Crown, in a letter to our local people in Nanaimo, to promote two people who are known to be running in the new ridings in Nanaimo, one in the north and one in the south. I would suggest that it is highly improper and highly unethical for any minister to use his position, his staff and his resources to promote Social Credit candidates. I would suggest that's highly inappropriate, and the minister owes my colleague from Nanaimo and me an apology. He owes this House an explanation for the misuse of his position of minister for those purposes. I hope the minister will stand up and give us some sort of a satisfactory explanation, because if he does not, I would suggest his silence would say quite clearly that he is guilty of the charge of operating outside how he should operate in his ministry.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox is also the minister in charge of the regional development program and responsible for that area, which is another good reason.

If we sent that letter as a c.c. to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, maybe we goofed; I don't know. I didn't even know that we had.

[3:30]

MS. PULLINGER: I see the minister has changed his story. First it was because he was a cabinet minister, and now it's because of the position he holds. I stand by my comment that it is more than a goof. This has happened in the newspaper; the other ministers have advertised for Ladysmith, your local MLA being the member for Cowichan-Malahat. It's

[ Page 11198 ]

clearly a partisan political game that's being played here.

On the first day that this Legislature sat, the first committee that we on this side moved should be added to this House was a committee on ethics. When we see this kind of misuse of ministers' positions and ministry funds — the crass, blatant use of your position to promote Social Credit candidates — I would like to reiterate that it's time we had a committee on ethics for a government that clearly has no understanding of ethical behaviour.

MR. D'ARCY: On to something completely different, further pursuing in general terms what my friend the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) was discussing. He was discussing with you the question of assistance for water and sewage treatment on a specific basis within his riding. I'd like to talk to the minister and find out his feelings on the question of general assistance from his ministry for freshwater systems and for improving water quality throughout the province, rather than dealing with sewage or water problems on a brushfire basis, which is what the overlapping and combined jurisdictions of his ministry, Environment and Health prefer to do.

There is out there in the province of B.C. — as I'm sure the minister knows, from the area he represents — a major problem in this regard. It's not trendy and sexy in the lower mainland and greater Victoria news media, simply because both of these areas have and have had since the early years of this century large watershed areas set aside by legislation, which they and they alone administer. For most of the rest of the province there is a major problem with water quality, with maintaining that water quality and with sewage disposal.

I'm giving specific reference to what we used to call unorganized areas of the province, the truly rural areas. I don't mean small towns. A lot of people in B.C. refer to anything beyond the Pitt River as rural I'm not referring to the Kelownas or even the Vernons, although they may have that problem. I'm referring to the large number of irrigation districts, improvement districts, water companies and those many areas of which every riding in the interior has dozens and dozens licensed under the community water supply or the Health Act, from just a few connections to a few hundred or a few thousand, almost all of which have to one degree or another at one time or another throughout the year a quality problem relative to fecal coliforms and sometimes other impurities.

I'm not even mentioning the question of the distribution system itself, this brushfire approach. The Health ministry issues a boil warning, and it hits the local medical health officer, who issues a warning, and the health inspectors run around, and the local regional union board of health; it becomes an issue in the papers, and your ministry and the Ministry of Health get together and say: "Boy, we're going to deal with that one." The fact is that they all have the problem.

The present policy, even though your ministry has gotten more generous this year.... We tend to see this in B.C. every third or fourth year; the Municipal Affairs ministry and others get more generous with money at the local level, and I welcome that. The fact is that you have not improved the situation for these so-called rural areas. There's not only a major water-quality problem; there's also a sewage problem in a great many of these areas as well, both with collector systems and the question of disposal.

I need not belabour the point, but it's also true that there is inexorably a development in the catchment area or the watershed area supplying these various community water systems throughout the province. I'm not opposed to that, but it is simply an inevitable growth of the province of B.C. that activities such as residential development, logging, right-of-way development and even recreational development — provincial and regional park use — will add to water-quality deterioration and situation in a great many community water systems throughout the province.

I'm advocating that the government and the ministry go back to the formula we had in the 1970s and early eighties of 75 percent capital funding, on approval by the Treasury Board and your ministry, where needed and where there is a manifest need for water-system improvements. While we hear a great deal about sewage and sewage treatment, if we don't have fresh, quality water.... That comes first before sewage treatment. In fact, it's even part of it that you have to have good-quality fresh water and lots of it.

In a province as rich as this one, with the incredible freshwater resources we have, the fact that most of the smaller communities in B.C. have water supply problems in quantity and quality, for the most part, is really something we shouldn't be countenancing in the 1990s.

I don't want this to sound as if I have a criticism of the trustees and owners of these systems. They are extremely responsible, hard-working people who get none of the glamour and the scrutiny that their municipal brothers and sisters get; yet they are responsible for a very important natural resource that goes for irrigation and soil conservation. The quality of the resource they handle, manage and distribute also has a great deal to do with the general health of the community.

I don't expect the minister to come down with a major pronouncement on this, but I want to indicate to him that in my riding-indeed, throughout the interior and anywhere beyond the GVRD and the Capital Regional District — water quality and quantity and the question of sewage collection, catchment and disposal are major problems. The province should be dealing with it in a much more general way instead of this specific brushfire way, where a specific problem of health emerges and the government rushes in and says," Here's what we're going to do for you," because virtually all of the communities — large and small — to a greater or lesser degree have the problems.

[ Page 11199 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, a lot of these water districts have grown up over a number of years and were usually started as an amenity for the agricultural community. I believe many of them did, on their instigation, get provincial and federal assistance under ARDSA originally. There are all sorts of water-quality problems in various communities; I'm aware of those. There is a very simple solution. They can become a service area under the regional district and then qualify for the same grants that municipal water systems do. A number of them have taken advantage of that situation.

It is true that we deal with those systems with a serious health challenge with more priority than others, but I'm not sure the member would say it was a bad policy. Quite frankly, though, assistance is available to an area if it simply becomes a service area of a regional district; they qualify for the same assistance as any municipal water system in place.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the fact that improvement districts can get around the limitations on rural system funding simply by becoming a specified area of a regional district is a technicality that was never really needed or valid. It came about historically only because in the years before you were a member of this House, the question of assistance to rural areas came up, and at that time the licensing of municipal systems was entirely under what is now Environment. It was then the Water Resources ministry, which was not really interested in assisting these areas. But Municipal Affairs was, so the way around the limitation of jurisdiction was for Municipal Affairs to come up with this notion of," We'll draw a line around it and call it a specified area, and it will qualify for assistance under the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Since that time the question of community water system licensing has gone from Water Resources cum Environment to your ministry. So there's absolutely no reason in the world for keeping this hoary old minor qualification of being a specified area as a limitation for essentially a second-class citizen imposition on most rural water areas.

The fact is that taxpayers in B.C. are licensed under the same act. They have to meet the same water quality standards — whether they are a water company, an improvement district or an irrigation district — as the city of Vancouver or the city of Victoria faces. The same Health Act governs them, and of course people in British Columbia face the same taxation laws all the way through.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm asking the minister to do is not simply hide behind the specified area thing. There are a great many improvement districts in the province of B.C. that don't want to become specified areas. I dare say that most regional districts throughout the province really don't want to suddenly take jurisdiction over literally dozens and dozens of small water distribution systems within their area.

Quite frankly, the ministry should seriously consider treating a water system as a water system as a water system. That's what I would very much like to see. I have long objected to the attitude that this government and governments past — including in the early 1970s — had that municipal water and sewer systems were somehow more equal than non-municipal systems, and that taxpayers living in British Columbia, if there was a city hall downtown, somehow got better and more serious treatment on a per capita basis than if they lived in a rural area. The taxation rates are the same, the need for the resource is the same, and it's high time that government policy grew up on this issue and treated all of the water users the same in British Columbia.

I would point out that the need for adequate sewerage system assistance is not just in greater Victoria, where it has a high profile right now, but is the same throughout the province. And it should be the same throughout the province on approval of an approval authority, which I submit might as well be the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARLEE: This is on a different tack. I received a letter from the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) in which he alludes to your involvement. The letter is dated June 15, 1990. Both these subjects I'll be mentioning are really quite important, because time is extremely important in them.

The first one I mentioned in the letter was the importance of saving a mining camp in the Similkameen district. There are mining camps all over British Columbia. The minister and I both realize that not all of them are worth saving, regardless of their age. Most of them do not exist anymore. But this is a particular case. This is a unique case. This particular mining camp is still there after over half a century. And it's probably unique to the Pacific slope.

[3:45]

It's an old mine called the Hedley Mascot. It was staked in the 1890s by a guy called Leo Cahill, who was very strange, and he staked it for a stranger guy, a guy called Duncan Woods. They were both Scots and they were really quite original, even in the annals of mining. This particular camp was located on the western slopes of Nickel Plate Mountain. I think most people who are aware of mining history in British Columbia will be aware that the Nickel Plate Mountain spawned a galaxy of mines and became, at least for a brief period, the largest producer of gold in the Dominion of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: I've climbed right to the top.

MR. BARLEE: I bet you have; and the original two individuals who discovered that, Rundell and Walston, also climbed to the top and made a king's ransom. However, I digress.

What I'm saying is this. This particular fraction — and a fraction is part of a claim, which is approximately 40-odd acres; this fraction was seven or eight acres — became the richest fraction in Canadian history. Because it was so rich, they built the mine

[ Page 11200 ]

buildings right at the mine site itself, probably to prevent high-grading. Those mine buildings are kind of an eagle's nest of mine buildings. You look from those buildings right down into the valley floor below; they're about 4,000 to 5,000 feet above the valley floor. If you pass by on Highway 3.... I'm sure both ministers have; I see the Minister of Tourism is remarking to the minister. If you pass by on Highway 3, those buildings are still visible. I think they're the last surviving monument to the lode miners of the province of British Columbia.

I know we've done a certain job in Britannia. Certainly something has been done in the city of Rossland with the LeRoi and the War Eagle and the Centre Star and all those famous mines on Red Mountain. But this is a unique case. This will not occur again. Once these buildings have vanished, that monument to another generation of lode miners will disappear entirely.

It would not cost a great deal to preserve that particular area. There are advantages in it, and one of the advantages is that you can hardly get down to it, so the threat of vandalism and the threat of fire are virtually dispelled. I would suggest that the ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Tourism, take a hard look at this particular area. First of all, it has some economic value, because there's nowhere else on the Pacific slope, including the United States — with one or two exceptions in Colorado — where this particular collection of buildings occurs. I am saying it's worth looking at. It's long term. If we don't save it now, we will regret it for decades.

I really think the minister should seriously consider that. I know that both ministers have looked at the letter. I would like to hear his reply.

HON. L. HANSON: The issue as yet has not crossed my desk, but I'm not suggesting it isn't in my office. Certainly I have no difficulty with that. I do remember discussing the issue. We'll ask both the heritage conservation branch and the Heritage Trust to look at this as a possible site.

MR. BARLEE: Well, unfortunately, if you examine some of the material put out by the Ministry of Culture, their policy up to last year, which has now changed dramatically, was to allow old buildings like this to disintegrate in a natural way. I think we're far behind our European cousins, and we have the literature which suggests that.

This letter, by the way, evidently crossed your desk a month ago. I don't expect you to remember every letter, Mr. Minister, but I do think it's very important that when you have a very unique area.... I would suggest strongly to the minister that he take a look at British Columbia as a whole and put aside various things as a continent-sized tourist draw and a local tourist draw. That would also apply to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael). This certainly falls into the category of a continent-sized tourist draw, and that particular area, with an unemployment rate of around 25 percent, can well do with some help.

MR. SERWA: I've worked for the past three or three and a half years on the matter that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy) brought up. I would like to point out that the inequity is not simply in the rural areas of the province. The minister is well aware that in the interior of the province approximately 50 percent of the domestic water consumed comes from upper elevations, through irrigation districts and water improvement districts. The fact is that you cannot differentiate visually between urban areas which are served by the Glenmore Irrigation District of the Black Mountain Irrigation District and the South East Kelowna Irrigation District, and those systems that have the revenue-sharing funds which allow municipalities to minimize the cost to the taxpayers.

While the ARDA program certainly contributed to these systems to a degree, the fact remains that most of the systems are dual systems, providing both irrigation water and domestic water. It would seem appropriate if the minister would seriously consider endeavouring to come up with some sort of formula so that we could treat all residential taxpayers in British Columbia in a more equitable manner. We've had a variety of meetings with the irrigation districts and the former minister. I hope that there would be serious consideration of that.

In a lighter vein, I see that our historical member for Boundary-Similkameen alluded to the Hedley Mascot. In the mid-1950s I had the pleasure of working up at Nickel Plate for two years. The interesting story of finding the Hedley Mascot was that a greenhorn had come and spoken to the miners panning in the creeks at the bottom — that is the story I was told. In order to get rid of this gentleman, they said that the mother lode was up there. And, by golly, he climbed up to the top of the mountain and found it. It's very interesting.

It's certainly very beautiful. I've come to the Hedley Mascot through the tunnel system, entering the Nickel Plate area, walking for several hours and coming out above Hedley. It's a most beautiful place and really awe-inspiring.

MR. BARLEE: I thank the member for Okanagan South. Actually, that was not the discovery of the Hedley Mascot made by Rundell and Walston; it was the discovery of the Nickel Plate, with other claims such as the Rollo, the Copperfield, the Nickel Plate itself, and four or five other key mines. However, I do appreciate your interest in history.

The second one is rather interesting-and the same applies. This is one of the CPR lines. The CPR, of course, is an unusual corporate entity — and I will not elaborate on that. However, most of the CPR lines in the southern part of British Columbia have been abandoned, including most of the Kettle Valley line. The order for abandonment was given, I believe, for the last section of the Kettle Valley line late last month.

I realize that possibly all of that line cannot be saved, but I also realize that in other parts of the world they are far ahead of us  — for instance, in

[ Page 11201 ]

Colorado, in a place called Silverton. There's a little line running from Silverton to a place called Durango, an old mining community. It's a 20- or 30-mile line. A few years ago somebody got the bright idea to run a tourist train in that area, so they did. In the first year it was not very successful; it carried about 20,000 or 30,000 passengers. But as the years went by, the number of passengers grew from 50,000 to 60,000 to 100,000 to 150,000. Now they have to shoehorn 200,000 people onto that line in the summer months. They make a fortune, and all the towns along the way benefit.

We have the equivalent — and, by the way, there are other equivalents. There are other areas all around the world. The English have a number of those tourist lines; one of them is called the Lower Severn Valley. Its great attractions to the tourists are one 60-foot gully and one 50-foot cliff. The Lower Severn Valley has done a remarkable job. They put half a million people per summer onto that line. They realize the attractiveness of the old railway lines of the past; I don't think we realize that in British Columbia.

What I'm getting down to is one specific part of the old Kettle Valley line. The old Kettle Valley line was designed by a real genius, a guy called Andrew McCulloch. He loved Shakespeare and he loved railroads. All the various places along the line, like Myra or Othello, were named after Shakespearean characters or his daughters. This guy built one of the most magnificent lines in Canadian history. The grade was absolutely incredible. We allowed that line — I must say that your government allowed it; you did not, Mr. Minister — which has no equivalent in Canada.... They pulled the rails about ten years ago; they pulled the ties. But some of that line is still there; the right-of-way is still there.

That line is really quite unique. There is part of it which can still be rescued. That part which should really be rescued lies between Penticton and Okanagan Falls; it's nine miles. I asked the Minister of Tourism; he knows this line. The right-of-way is still there. The rails are still there. The bridges are still there. Everything is still there. Not only that, this is a line with almost no grade; it would not have terrific upkeep. It's a cliffside run. It runs from Okanagan Falls to Penticton through that agricultural area. You end up in Penticton at a Samuel Maclure — one of the greatest architects in British Columbia, in case you didn't know — station. It is really quite unique.

The CPR has to pay taxes on this until they pull the rails. Of course, being the corporate entity it is, the CPR is going to pull the rails. I am saying to both ministers who are in the House that you should do your level best to make some deal with the CPR to prevent it, or to hold these taxes in abeyance until you can do a real study of this line.

This line has the ability and the attractions. It could quite easily carry several hundred thousand people per summer. It's not a long run; it's a flat grade. It's in a very attractive scenic area; it's a lakeside run. I would like to hear the minister's answer to that. What are they doing?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly interested in the member's comments regarding the rail line. He is a little bit late, though. I have already been briefed by the first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Messmer). As a matter of fact, the first member for Boundary-Similkameen has, through me, arranged meetings with the entrepreneur who is interested in that line. We have had one-on-one telephone conversations with the CPR, and we have also arranged a meeting for the entrepreneur and the CPR to sit down, which they have done already. A member of my staff was present at that meeting, so it is really quite old news that the member is bringing up here today.

I must say for the record that I am extremely interested in the member's interest in heritage sites. Perhaps he could be kind enough to have a short discussion with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and pass on some of his concerns on the value of heritage sites. I can recollect waging a very strong fight — a lobby — on behalf of myself back in 1987 to salvage the Royal Colwood golf course building, which was one of the most beautiful old heritage buildings in the southern part of Vancouver Island. I got no cooperation whatsoever from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, nor — I might add for the record — from the senior columnist of the Times-Colonist, both of whom came out very strongly against preserving that building, despite the fact that there were more than 100 people prepared to put up $1,000 cash each in the way of donations.

[4:00]

As well, a substantial commitment had been made from the Lottery Fund to preserve that very beautiful heritage building. But there was no support at all from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Perhaps the member could give a short lecture on the value of heritage sites to his caucus. He could maybe get on the agenda for 15 or 20 minutes and talk about something other than bugging telephones.

MR. BARLEE: I won't make a gratuitous remark like "bugging telephones," because it wasn't done, as the minister well knows.

Concerning the Minister of Tourism's remarks, I have been prodding on this particular subject for several years. The first member for Boundary-Similkameen became interested last week. I do not notice his name on the list of members of the Kettle Valley historical society. He is not noted as being very interested in history. With an election looming, perhaps the government is getting the message. Indeed, that member needed a considerable amount of prodding. If you look at the last newspaper accounts, he stated that $10,000 a mile for upkeep was a lot of money. This $10,000 a mile for nine miles of track in place is really very cheap. We could not replace it at ten times the amount.

I think your look at that area deserves a revisit. I would like to hear from the other minister who is concerned with this: the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 11202 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I am certainly aware of the issue also. We have done a fair amount of research into it. I would submit that the costs of retaining it and the continual operation are beyond what we consider to be reasonable. I would suggest that the member, if he sees it as being an enterprise which would give a reasonable return-even a break-even point — give me his business plan. I would certainly be prepared to look at it. Our assessment of the situation is that it would be a very expensive process to get into, and that it didn’t merit being on the priority list of things that those kinds of public funds should be invested in.

MR. BARLEE: I find that remark rather interesting and rather puzzling too. First of all, I should perhaps allude to it.

If, as the Minister of Tourism stated, you have an entrepreneur on the line who is very interested, you certainly wouldn't mislead this entrepreneur. You are saying that your studies indicate.... I would hope he would have access to your studies which indicate it's a losing proposition. But I don't think there's that innovative approach. The minister mentioned that I should give him a corporate plan; well, I just spent about a quarter of a million dollars on a museum in Penticton — and that was my own money, not government money. I am willing to gamble on the tourism business. In fact, if any member on the opposite side wishes to gamble with me in an equivalent, I would be quite pleased to give them my corporate plans as well.

If you have figures to indicate that this would not pay, I would like to hear those figures. Or was that just drawn up out of the moment?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just, like to talk a little bit about the adequacy of this ministry and the regions in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area to do the job that's really necessary to be done. There's no evidence for me that you have the capacity to do the work that is necessary in the lower mainland and the Victoria region, and that is part of your mandate.

British Columbia has two realities: small-town British Columbia in the interior, the north and upper Island; and the lower mainland and the Victoria region. These are large, significant urban areas that require sophisticated management. There is no evidence whatsoever of sophisticated management being applied to these regions.

Jane Jacobs, the great urbanist and historian, said that cities basically lift themselves out of and create their own economics. As I see it, that's basically what has happened with Vancouver and the Vancouver region. More and more, we see it lifting itself out of the provincial economy and developing an urban economy with links across the Pacific and a unique quality to the urban region itself historically, earlier Social Credit administrations have worked at destroying planning capabilities in those urban regions. I happened, as a young graduate, to work for the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, a planning board that worked for the whole region, from Hope to the sea and from the border to the mountains. It did extremely good work.

You people, and earlier administrations, have seen to it that the planning function does not exist. It's been an ideological position which is an anachronism in this day and age in terms of urban regions and urban policy. It's a shocker that there isn't the capability in the regions that is absolutely needed to manage those regions now.

The same thing happened in the capital region. After the establishment of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, a capital region was established for this area we are in right now.

There is a chronic need for coordination of the activities of government in those regions, and you people are the most myopic people we've had in government in decades, and you reap the heritage of your narrow-minded colleagues that went before you, who said: "No planning in these regions."

You're directly responsible for highways in these regions; you're directly responsible for housing in those regions; you're directly responsible for transit, for SkyTrain, for B.C. Ferries, for provincial parks. But where is the coordination? There simply isn't any.

You know, the city of Vancouver has a calibre of staff and, I would suggest, a political capability that exceeds this outfit by a country mile. That happens to be partly the choice of the electorate in Vancouver, and partly the choice of the electorate of British Columbia. Hopefully that's going to change. The reality is that the city has continued to build up a superb civil service that deals with coordination within the city, and does so extremely well. I think that's part of the reason for the city's success, and the urban region's success.

We now have this whole linkage to the Pacific Rim, the Pacific region. Again, where are the linkages in terms of that agency - your so-called new Crown corporation for trade and investment? Where are the linkages there in terms of the urban region? I don't think there are any.

As a person that has watched this region grow all my life, and as a person interested in urban planning, the gaps get bigger and bigger between of what could be achieved versus what is being achieved. It's an absolute necessity. We have the most constricted city site in North America in the Vancouver region. We've got the 49th parallel on the south, the sea on the west, the mountains on the north and the mountains on the east. It's an extremely narrow ribbon for the province's greatest city, one of the most important cities in the future of the west coast. It creates internal land market problems that are unique and serious and that require management. That's what's needed in these urban regions; and management is what we don't got from you people. The whole question of expensive land is tied to this constricted-site problem. It requires innovative work on the part of government. We don't have that.

We've got the little municipality of Maple Ridge with a whole band of Crown land on its northern slopes. A new freeway is going to go through there.

[ Page 11203 ]

What's provincial government policy in just that one small fringe of the urban region? "Flog the land" — before the freeway goes in, of course. We certainly wouldn't want to make any money on Crown land, would we? No, somebody else will do that. We wouldn't want to use it to deal with the housing problem. Oh, no. We'll let the market solve that. But it isn't a simple market. It's a market in a constricted region, and that requires management. You people don't seem to understand that. The mayor of Maple Ridge understands it. He's frustrated. There's no plan, even at the limited municipal level. There's a void.

Clearly what we need, Mr. Minister, is a replacement — in the grand sense, of course. We need two ministries in this province: a Ministry of Municipal Affairs and a ministry for the urban regions of the lower mainland and greater Victoria. They're simply different. They should be managed differently. They require intensive management.

Just think of it. Just think of B.C. Ferries. Do your people in Municipal Affairs ever think about that as an urban development question in the Georgia basin? Well, they should; and you should. It just isn't part of the package. It isn't part of the mandate. It isn't even allowed as a part of the mandate of the existing regions.

Remember the history of the destruction of the old Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board because an earlier Socred administration didn't like its work. They busted it up into four regions and subsequently removed their planning functions. That's the real history. That was in reaction to Roberts Bank and the railway to Roberts Bank.

There's a desperate need for coordination of all provincial activities in these regions, with top-notch management know-how in coordination with the existing municipalities. We don't have it. There's a need for entrepreneurial drive in this as well. God knows we don't have that from this so-called free enterprise administration.

There are opportunities in terms of new colleges in the suburbs, but what did you do? You flogged hundreds of acres in South Surrey, for pretzels, that could have been new college sites in areas that needed it. There's absolutely no vision over there.

There are great opportunities right now — even now — in the city of Vancouver. All of False Creek Flats, the industrial flats on the east side of Main.... There are 350 acres there that can be changed from a low-density industrial area into a major new housing opportunity within the city itself. But where's your capacity for dealing with that? It's nil.

Fortunately, there's a new chairman of the CNR who had the smarts to abandon you guys a couple of years ago. He might do some worthwhile work in that regard. But it ain't going to come from you, Mr Minister.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let's reflect on what your policies have been in the urban region. Here's a little list of land sales — creative policy — by your thoughtful, visionary Social Credit government. You sold the Expo lands. The auditor-general has told us about that one, and how dumb it was, and how costly it was. You sold the Westwood lands, and you didn't even keep school sites. The local community and school boards are going to have to spend $10 million there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, it's not normally appropriate to discuss the actions of other ministers in Committee of Supply, when we're on vote 47, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, just for your information.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I thought you had noticed the light, and I'm waiting for those guys to see the light.

You've sold all those lands, and the list is a litany from Riverview to Maple Ridge to Westminster Quay to South Surrey — which we haven't discussed — to Tilbury. Others are still threatened in Maple Ridge and Colony Farm — still threatened by the internal gamesmanship over there.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your debate is relevant to others. Please direct your comments through the Chair and not to the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was. I know of your special interest in that area, Mr. Chair.

It's to everyone's loss, Mr. Chair. There has been no coordination. What that really means is that the urban future of these two regions is frustrated in terms of their full potential because of the lack of capacity at the political level and, I'm sorry to say, at the administrative level, where they don't have the mandate to do the job. There's a desperate need for a new ministry to coordinate provincial and municipal activities and do the job that can and should be done to see that these two urban regions achieve the greatness that really is possible for them.

MS. CULL: I want to take a very local example of what my colleague has just been talking about and draw the minister's attention to an article that appeared in today's Times-Colonist, which is headlined "View Royal Firmly Against Participating in Colwood-Langford Sewer Project." I'm sure the minister is fully aware that the Victoria region has been looking at the need for sewage treatment, and certainly any sewage treatment here is going to have to happen on a regional basis. The regional district isn't talking about sewage treatment for one or two of the 11 municipalities, but for the region. We have here today one of the 11 municipalities saying that they don't want to participate. This particular news story illustrates the very problem we have in our metropolitan areas with the policies of your government.

The other day we were talking about the Transportation and Highways estimates, and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston),

[ Page 11204 ]

the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, made the comment that we have a voluntary system here and that if municipalities want to get together and coordinate their activities — whether it's on housing, transit or land use — there's nothing stopping them. That's true. There is nothing stopping them, but there's no leadership there. Could the Minister of Transportation and Highways build the Pat Bay Highway from the ferry terminal to Victoria if she had to negotiate with every municipality along the way? No, of course not; it couldn't happen. You don't rely on a system like that to deal with these large-scale issues that require either a provincial or regional perspective. But this government persists in dealing with land use and urban growth in a compartmentalized, fragmented way in all of these different municipalities.

My colleague has said quite clearly that the metropolitan areas of this province are unique. They are unique; they're very different from the other villages and towns throughout British Columbia, and they deserve special treatment. I guess the way that British Columbia's metropolitan areas are most unique is that they're probably the only metro areas in all of North America that don't have some regional decision-making body that allows them to get together to solve problems as a region. What we get is the fragmented approach.

I noted this morning that greater Victoria has 11 municipalities in an area the size of Surrey, and I have lost count of the number of municipalities in the greater Vancouver area. But we just can't go on trying to resolve these issues on a municipal-by-municipal basis. The View Royal attitude towards sewers is just one example of many that we could cite to show why this isn't working.

It all comes back to this whole issue we were talking about this morning: quality of life in our urban areas. In greater Victoria and greater Vancouver, we need some way of addressing these issues that cross municipal boundaries. You can't deal with air pollution on a municipal basis. There's no way to keep the air pollution inside the boundaries of Saanich or Surrey. You can't deal with water pollution or even with the preservation of farmland. The Saanich Peninsula is more than just a rural community that is enjoyed by the people who live there; it is an urban amenity for all of us who live in greater Victoria. But we don't have any way, except through this voluntary system that supposedly exists, to come to grips with these kinds of problems.

We could look at what's happening elsewhere in North America. It's not like we're trying to re-create a wheel here. There are lots of other experiences to learn from. Other major metropolitan areas have faced these problems before Vancouver and Victoria and have had to come to grips with them. We can look again to our neighbour to the south, Seattle. Last year there was a major study done on the growth problems in the Puget Sound. It's called the Pierce commission and was done by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by a man called Neil Pierce, in consultation with many community groups, elected people and other experts in the urban field. Whatever way he looked at it — whether he was talking about environmental issues, transit issues, growth or density — it all came down to the fact that these are regional problems and have got to be solved on a regional basis.

In 1983, past administrations here threw it away. We had the ability to do some of these things, and we threw it away in a snit over the Spetifore lands because things weren't going quite the way the cabinet at the time wanted them to.

I will be the first person to admit that the planning system that was operating prior to 1983 with the regional districts was not perfect. But why did we just toss it out? Why didn't we look at fixing it? Why didn't we look at some way of addressing the problems that were identified at the time, but recognizing that there is still a need to have this kind of regional forum? But oh no, the whole thing got tossed out, and now greater Vancouver and greater Victoria are stuck with a voluntary system. If they want to get their act together, they can, but the province is not going to direct them in any way.

Mr. Chairman, this government is confusing the giving of autonomy to local governments with the provision of leadership, and they shouldn't be confused. That's not what's happening. It's an abdication of your responsibilities and of leadership.

Vancouver, for its own reasons, has managed to keep some semblance of regional planning alive, and that's because the people there, as my colleague has just said, recognize the problems they're facing. They have good elected people. They have strong communities, and they know they can't solve these problems in isolation from one another. They have the pressure of urban growth right now. It's breathing down their necks in the confined urban area that was just described to you. They haven't got time to wait for something else to come along. But in my community the pressure hasn't quite built up yet. Regional planning and decision-making has been lost in greater Victoria to a great extent, and now local politicians are scrambling to put it together. They're scrambling behind many of the other groups in the community.

The Urban Development Institute has said that we have to get back to regional planning and decision making of some sort. The B.C. Real Estate Association has said that. Even the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C. has recognized the need for some regional strategies on growth and development. Community groups have recognized it. It was the major thing that came out of the Visions Victoria conference 18 months ago here in Victoria. People out there in the community recognize the need for this. They are way ahead of this government, and they are considerably ahead of their local politicians.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it's time that your government said: "We made a mistake in 1983 when we tossed it all away, and now it is time for us to come back and recognize that these urban areas require coordination, leadership and a regional approach to decision-making."

[ Page 11205 ]

I can see nothing in your ministry, Mr. Minister, that deals with metropolitan areas. There is no vision for the metropolitan areas. It doesn't come out in your opening remarks, and it hasn't come out in any of the comments you've made today in response to questions from this side of the House. It's as if the metro areas just don't exist as far as the ministry is concerned, and it is time the minister recognized the need of the metro areas and made a priority in his ministry to look at how we're going to deal with these growth management issues, because they're coming, and the municipalities need our help in dealing with them. It's your responsibility to provide that system and to sit down and start working with the communities again, so that we can deal with urban growth issues in a fashion that makes some sense instead of the piecemeal fashion we have right now.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to two members from the opposition giving us their views of what the world should become and how it should become. I will surprise them by saying that I have some sympathy that there is some recognized need for regional planning. I'm not sure what the form is yet. But the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) mentioned the issue of sewage and one municipality refraining from taking part in that. There is a mechanism for the Capital Regional District to deal with that in a very democratic manner.

Unlike the philosophy of the opposition, I don't think we will ever come to the point of ordering 11 municipalities to become one in order to solve the difficulties you're talking about, as your government did in the past. But if it is an area-wide service, the regional district can ask through a process for an area-wide referendum. Providing it is truly an area wide service, that referendum will bring everyone into the fold, regardless of what the individuals may.... We're going to see that very shortly with the issues of sewage and of water.

I have listened to the comments of the members, and I understand some of the things they're saying. I don't agree with some of the things, but that's natural. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr Williams) gave a wide-ranging — sometimes questionably connected — discourse on how he sees it, but I accept that, seeing where it came from. We will all have an opportunity to read Hansard and meditate over what it says.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, there are other issues to cover, but at this time I want to conclude the discussions we've had today on Municipal Affairs.

In case the minister doesn't recognize it, this side has put forward three themes that need addressing by the government of the day. Much of it is to do with what I said this morning and what my colleagues have said this afternoon. Meaning no disrespect to the staff working in the ministry, the ministry is really not prepared for the future. This is the way it was done before — checks and balances, those who check and move paper around and help municipalities. Those were the days of some time ago. But as I have said for a long time, this ministry has to be on the cutting edge of developing and helping to develop this province, and dealing with the urban problems that we face in British Columbia.

I suggested this morning when I started my discussion that we needed a new approach to local government. We need to empower local government. We need to find ways for local government to feel that what they do is important, that it counts. We need a Municipal Act that doesn't restrain local government from developing for the future.

This afternoon my colleague for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) talked about regional planning. We've talked about that many times in this Legislature, and once again the member from Surrey, now the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), symbolized the philosophical problems that this government has in refusing to deal with the coordination of planning, particularly in urban areas. It won't do anymore. The old rhetoric of preserving local autonomy won't fit anymore.

[4:30]

You've got two well-known Social Credit mayors up in the peninsula here who won't even work together with the regional earthquake planning, because they say: "We'll take care of ourselves." This is just ridiculous; carrying this past position that planning is a bad word to the nth degree. My colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked about something that we talked about in many of our discussions today: the need to see another ministry or another approach to separating our policies for rural versus urban — a Municipal Affairs ministry to deal with some of the things that have to be done on a daily basis, but an urban ministry or department that starts to tackle the serious problems of growth and transportation and environmental issues facing the lower mainland and metro Victoria.

There were three themes that, quite frankly, I don't think this government is prepared to tackle. I don't think they've got the ability to do it. But we've got to do it, and we've got to stop the attitude that planning for the future is wrong or bad. We need coordination; we need analysis. We need to know where we're going to grow. And our citizens deserve that approach.

During the period of only a few hours, we have given our suggestions for how this ministry must work for the future. It can be an exciting ministry. But it has got to start to tackle the issues of the day in an innovative way, and currently it is not doing that, in our estimation.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: ministry operations, $73,387,482 — approved.

Vote 49: municipal revenue-sharing, $351,900,000 — approved.

[ Page 11206 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CROWN LANDS

On vote 15: minister's office, $310,312.

HON. MR. PARKER: I am pleased to present to this House the budget estimates for the Ministry of Crown Lands for the 1990-91 fiscal year. This is a responsible budget that will allow the Ministry of Crown Lands to continue effectively fulfilling its mandate, which is to provide stewardship and management of this essential public resource on behalf of the people of British Columbia; to encourage appropriate and orderly regional development that will contribute to our province's goals for economic expansion and diversification by making Crown lands available for a variety of purposes; to ensure a fair economic return to the province; and to support the activities of government and industry by providing state-of-the-art comprehensive base-mapping and land information services.

In support of our mandate this year, we are requesting a total voted expenditure of $37,960,000 in addition to special account funds of $2,280,000, for a total general fund expenditure request of $40,240,000. This request represents a modest and responsible increase over last year's budget. These funding expenditures are distributed as follows: $310,000 for the operation of the minister's office, $37,650,000 for ministry operations and $2,280,000 for the Crown lands special account.

We anticipate a year of increased activity. Real estate markets continue to show reasonable growth and, both from the demand for Crown land and to support economic activities, our revenue expectations are rising. Revenue targets for 1990-91 are estimated at $61,450,000, an increase of over 71 percent from the '89-90 estimates of $35.9 million.

Driving this growth are both an active real estate market and a larger inventory of marketable properties. This ministry was given responsibility for the disposal of the significant number of major properties from the dissolution of BCEC.

As well, my ministry has initiated a program to substantially increase its marketing of surplus properties from other government ministries. These properties, primarily from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, are now being identified for marketing.

Also, ministries are now required to list their real estate holdings and surplus properties in a Crown land registry. The surplus lands will become part of the Crown land inventory of marketable properties, which are expected to increase by approximately 40 percent over the next several years.

The ministry's program to sell recreational waterfront leases to leaseholders will continue at a brisk pace this year. It's expected to taper off over the next several years.

This year my ministry undertook a series of opportunity studies to identify potential areas for land-based economic development initiatives. These included agriculture, commercial winter recreation, retirement opportunities and back-country recreation studies. The studies support my ministry's efforts to identify future potential and demand for commercial activities in a variety of sectors. As well, they will form a basis for identifying and resolving potential in existing land use conflicts.

Over the past year, my ministry conducted a public inquiry and comprehensive review of our agricultural lease purchase program. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the program in supporting agricultural development, primarily in the north of the province. When the study results are implemented, the program will be more effective in ensuring supportable land use decisions and allocating Crown land to agriculture.

This year the ministry will continue to review programs to ensure that they are consistent with the principles of sustainable economic development. The budget allows for the maintenance of necessary levels of service for continuation of the ministry's programs.

A major ongoing project is the terrain resource information management — or TRIM — program. This digital, topographic base map of the province is vital to managing our land and resource base. The application of powerful new geographic information systems will rely on this land information base.

The ministry is striving to achieve more efficient allocation of staff resources. Completing the automation of the Crown land registry database over the next three years will improve delivery of service by making this information available to all regional offices. It is also essential to ensure that the remaining 25 percent of the data which currently exists in the form of original documents, some dating back to the 1800s, is not lost.

The ministry, through its surveys and resource mapping and surveyor-general branches, has a direct responsibility for consolidating government mapping and land information programs. This responsibility was given to the ministry in the government reorganization of July 1988.

Earlier this year, cabinet approved the corporate land information strategic plan, CLISP, as a comprehensive framework for managing all government land information. This ministry is committed to implementing this essential mechanism for managing government land-base data. Benefits of this initiative will include more efficient and cost-effective systems development, expanded private sector involvement, fostering of British Columbia-based high-tech industry and maximized opportunities for public and private sector users to access and share land information.

If our province is to take advantage of the tremendous data resource we have compiled over the years and apply this information to assist in the management of our resources, we must undertake an aggressive program to lay the groundwork for future applications.

In conclusion, I'd like to stress that this budget is sensitive to the needs for responsible fiscal management and supports the ministry's objectives to encourage sustainable development. The ministry has

[ Page 11207 ]

demonstrated restraint and responsible management, while also aggressively pursuing new opportunities for future development and growth. This budget supports our endeavours to maintain a high level of client relations throughout the province while at the same time providing support for sustainable economic development activity on Crown land and rational and responsible land use decisions.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ah, that ringing applause. It must muster something for the ego, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like some?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, thanks.

Mr. Minister, I congratulate the staff on a nicely crafted statement for the beginning of estimates. Congratulations, staff, on that nicely crafted statement.

Mr. Minister, you were here a few minutes ago when we were discussing the Municipal Affairs estimates. The point was made that there is no coordination between you folks over there — none whatsoever. Yourselves and Municipal Affairs. There is a lower mainland region over there. It desperately needs coordination.

No, I want to see the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appreciate it if you would speak where the mike could pick you up.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. There was that thin fellow in front of him, and I have trouble seeing the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so the minister could have the benefit of your words, that's all.

MR. WILLIAMS: The point is that you have been consistently flogging off public lands with very little thought. You've gone through that whole hurdle of the Expo lands mess. The auditor-general has looked it over and said it is a monumental failure in terms of costs and benefits. That is all on the record.

One would think that after that exercise your activities or sense of delivering more bloopers would have been curbed, but it still happens. A few minutes ago I went over a list of lands you foolishly disposed of just in the lower mainland. The Expo lands you foolishly disposed of in an inadequate way. That has all been documented. The Westwood lands were disposed of with subsequent significant costs for the Crown, the school districts and so on. It could have been handled so much better. The Riverview lands were handed off — different staff, but still neat in terms of that ongoing arrangement with Andre Molnar. That ones goes on and on, and it's a fascinating one. That's the one where Peter Hyndman was the lawyer for Mr. Molnar. Do you remember that? That was one. Westminster Quay: we covered that one last year.

I haven't discussed the one in South Surrey that your B.C. Enterprise friends flogged. In South Surrey you flogged 700 acres — can you imagine — for about $2 million. Mr. Minister, these are opportunities in terms of needed housing, social housing, community colleges, education and so on. But you keep flogging off the public lands for pretzels.

[4:45]

The whole north side of Maple Ridge, the hills below Golden Ears, the Alouette, the Kanaka Creek area and those parts of Maple Ridge — all of that you have had for sale. I don't understand why you would want to sell it when the Highways ministry is going to put a freeway through — a major road, a connector — on the north side of the valley. Why would you sell the lands before the highway is built? That's got to be built within the next few years. Some of it is going to be on the intersection leading into the denser parts of Haney and Maple Ridge. Why would you flog them off? I don't understand that. A hundred acres, in terms of the old site.

You can go through your exercise books — and the staff can — and you can say," Well, we actually did do this kind of an appraisal, " and "Yes, we thought about this, but once the mayor told us about gravel and other people, then we looked at it again, but still we decided to sell it." Come on! It doesn't add up. Not for the money we get, because the money is modest; you know that.

Shouldn't there be discussion with the municipalities or Municipal Affairs in terms of the better answer? There is this aching problem that we don't really have any coordination anyway in the big regions in this province. We need a ministry of urban affairs that really understands the lower mainland region.

I keep asking myself: "How many times can you keep doing it and then not ask for a review?" I wonder if your staff, Mr. Minister, have looked at, say, the Tilbury lands — part of the BCEC sales and part of that old bargain basement sell-off of the Enterprise Corporation that you guys got stuck with the remnants of. Have the staff or you, Mr. Minister — it's hard to tell if you're listening — done any review whatsoever of those sales, in order to see if you might handle such things differently in the future?

Just a small one, for example. Check out Tilbury Island, where enterprise lands were sold off. Check what those sales have been, since you let them go. Check how much money has been made, just in the Tilbury industrial estate in the last couple of years, since those lands have been let go. Have your staff done any work in that regard, in terms of understanding what has happened there, what the losses have been and what you might have achieved? Have you given any thought to what the Californians do with surplus public lands? You're now saying surplus public lands are coming through your ministry. In California there are significant new enterprises developing around non-profit housing, where the public lands are first available to those people. Has that crossed your mind, Mr. Minister? Has the possibility of a first priority in terms of social need and social housing, or non-profit housing, as a use of public

[ Page 11208 ]

lands crossed your mind? Maybe we can leave it there for now.

HON. MR. PARKER: All of the land transactions taken on by this ministry are done in conjunction with other ministries, through a protocol arrangement, which means we take into account not only the other ministries but Crown corporations in other public agencies and their needs. Any dispositions are done only after we've determined from the other ministries whether or not it is clear to go ahead. That's what has taken place to date. Of course, the Ministry of Social Services and Housing is the one that deals with social housing, and they make their requirements known to us, as do the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Tourism, etc.

The analyses carried out by the people in our ministry are thorough and knowledgeable. When we feel that the expertise isn't in-house, Mr. Chairman, we go out and source expertise. The counsel that we get from the private sector is usually from people who are very well skilled in their fields. From time to time, we have individuals who recognize their own shortcomings in a particular aspect of an assignment given to them, so they source, in consultation with us, further expertise. We go to great lengths to make sure that the judgments are rational and sound. Of course, whenever you do something, you leave yourself wide open to somebody who doesn't do anything but sit around and carp and criticize. We get a good deal of that from the other side, but that's their role in life, and let's hope it will ever be thus.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.)

MR. WILLIAMS: In California they make these lands available for non-profit groups as a first priority. Isn't that a reasonable idea? If your Ministry of Housing hasn't asked for some land for a project, then isn't it reasonable that these different non-profit groups might have the first priority, in terms of serving social need in their own communities, in terms of the public land base? Isn't that a reasonable idea?

HON. MR. PARKER: The question is properly addressed to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. It's stretching you to handle lands, period, isn't it? What we're talking about is a policy framework and seeing your mandate with a little bit of enlightenment. That's what we're talking about. Isn't it a reasonable idea, Mr. Minister, that non-profit groups, community groups, might have first priority for Crown lands that are put on the market? Isn't that a reasonable idea?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we have protocol arrangements with all the ministries. Any requirements for Crown lands we can provide, we provide. If the priority is for social housing initiatives, we deal through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. They specify what they need for lands, and where and to what extent, etc. We support Social Services and Housing in carrying out their mandate in the superb fashion which they are following.

MR. WILLIAMS: They are ideological cripples like yourself — that's the problem — hampered by their own ideology, indeed.

Basically the Ministry of Housing simply asks the private sector to come forth with proposals, and they provide funding around some modest framework for those proposals. That's the current process. But there are lots of non-profit corporations out there, Mr. Minister; there are municipalities out there. There are community groups that are interested in doing worthwhile things in their communities. The Californians, who are not known for their wild left position these days, think that the right thing to do with excess public lands is to make them available to non-profit groups and non-profit societies that are doing worthwhile things in the community. Wouldn't that be a reasonable thing for your ministry to entertain on its own initiative?

HON. MR. PARKER: We're certainly happy to assist the Ministry of Social Services and Housing in its endeavours to provide social housing in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it is a challenge, and that's the way it is.

Mr. Minister, I'm interested in how you have leased some of the lands under your jurisdiction. Could you advise the House of the process with respect to the former port lands in Delta? For a little historical background — I know this will be a challenge for you too — this reaches back to the days of W.A.C. Bennett, when the Roberts Bank super port was established. Several thousand acres of farmland in Delta municipality were expropriated by the Crown, presumably for long-term backup for the port and the railway right-of-way. It's a huge band of land north of the Tsawwassen causeway and the road to the Tsawwassen causeway that stretches right across the western part of Delta. It's now, of course, very valuable.

Could you advise the House what the process was with respect to the lease of those lands? Could you advise the House who managed the leasing of those lands? Could you advise the House whether there were agents of the Crown for leasing of those lands? Could you advise the House whether the process was different than the way you handle other lands in the province?

HON. MR. PARKER: He's asking for a bit of instant history recall, Mr. Chairman. The land assembly for Roberts Bank was done, I believe, by the W.A.C. Bennett administration. The leasing of the lands not immediately necessary for the port at that time was done, I think, by the British Columbia

[ Page 11209 ]

Development Corporation, which was the vehicle used to assemble the lands.

They continue to be leased. In a lot of cases, they were leased to the owners from whom the lands were purchased, and for the most part they continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question was: what was the process of leasing those lands to the parties that currently hold them on a leasehold basis? The question was: were there agents outside of the civil service that handled the leasing of those lands?

HON. MR. PARKER: I would be happy to go to the archives and bring that answer back.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there not currently agents other than ministry staff who handle some of those matters? Your staff are ready to give you the answers if you don't have them. If you want to stay here for August going to the archives, then be our guest. I don't know how your House Leader and your colleagues will feel about that.

I think it's important, because those are very valuable lands; I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) is interested in them. The process of leasing them is important. In the last six months the press has covered the handling of other similar sales and leases, and I think it is of some significance and importance. The question of whether these lands were handled somewhat differently than others is intriguing and interesting in terms of normal policy on the part of the ministry. The question of whether there are agents to handle the leasing of these lands is one that could be readily answered. Maybe the minister needs more briefing in that regard.

I mentioned the Maple Ridge lands a little earlier. I would hope the minister or his staff will be conferring with the staff and mayor of Maple Ridge regarding that band of public lands there, so that a genuine community plan is evolved that has full local input and is not just arbitrarily sold off.

Maybe the minister could comment on the Delta land.

[5:00]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the critic droning on and on, and I was trying to pick out the germane questions in the monologue. As I said before, the Delta lands were leased back, for the most part, to the owners of the land when they were purchased for the accumulation of the land bank for Roberts Bank development. As to the specific methodology some 20 years ago, we'll have to pick that out of the archives. We can do that, but it will take a little time to get the information.

The matter in Maple Ridge is what I refer to as the Pacific Vocational Institute lands. It wasn't all sold; a portion was sold. It was offered at public auction several times. The final price was about 10 percent over the appraised price. There was some gravel stockpiled on the property which we received full payment for.

The property is now an asset in the private sector in Maple Ridge, which will help with the development of that community. If there's a highway through there, then that's good, because there will be a highway to somewhere instead of a highway to nowhere. The activity there will help with the economic land base and the economic entrepreneurial base of the Maple Ridge community, which means their employment opportunities and their tax base are improved substantially.

1 don't know how much detail the member would like to have on the Delta leases, but if he would like to know precisely the methodology that took place in the late sixties, we'll have to dig that from the archives.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. The leases have been signed in the past year, Mr. Minister, with respect to some of those lands. That's not an archival question.

HON. MR. PARKER: That's a more defined question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 157

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is conferring with his staff, Mr. Chairman, on a question of more current leases with respect to the Delta port lands. He might also get background in terms of agents other than the Crown — the civil service itself — with respect to these lands. Could he explain the process with respect to agents outside the Crown handling some of these lands?

HON. MR. PARKER: With respect to renewals in the Roberts Bank lands, pretty well all of these renewals have been to the individuals who were occupying the lands previously. It was a direct renewal to the lessee in place. There are variable terms, mainly because their properties have variable histories and variable uses. They continue in the land bank for the potential development of Roberts Bank.

MR. WILLIAMS: On several occasions I have asked regarding the agent for the Crown managing those lands. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture can help us out, since he's advising the staff now.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, the staff will find out the name of the contract firm that's assisting us with the administration of these leases in the Roberts Bank lands.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Could you advise us what the policy is in terms of how long you are willing to extend these leases?

HON. MR. PARKER: It's variable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure, because some of the leases will have been initiated on different dates, so they'll

[ Page 11210 ]

go for different lengths. But the question is: do you give them options to renew? The normal tradition is to register leases that exceed five years in the land title office. These leases are not registered, Mr. Minister. Can you explain why that is the case?

HON. MR. PARKER: The name of the contract consultant is Maribod Services, and a Ms. Bodnarek is the principal. The reason the leases are not registered, as I understand it, is that we're trying to keep the properties unencumbered so that we have a ready land bank for any potential development that may come along in conjunction with the Roberts Bank initiative.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could explain why not registering the leases versus having them registered would make any difference in terms of the encumbrance of the property. What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that if you give them a ten-year lease or a 20-year lease, that's a commitment of the Crown for ten or 20 years. Whether it's registered or not, it's a commitment of the Crown for ten or 20 years, or whatever the term of the lease is. You said that you didn't want to register them because it would be an encumbrance and that you needed flexibility for the Roberts Bank port and future uses by the Crown.

Mr. Minister, if you lease the land for 20 years, that means you've got to pay to get it back, right? That's an encumbrance, right? Whether it's registered or not, it's an encumbrance, right? Maybe you'd like to start over again.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the contract lease and the language that provides for cancellation. Both parties know what the land is accumulated for. If you have to move quickly, then I guess you make provision for that. Some people say that if you write a ten-year lease and you have a 30-day, 60-day, 90-day or six-month cancellation period, you really only have a lease that's good for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days or six months.

The relationship between the Crown and the lessees appears to me, having been in this ministry for a just few months, to have been a good working relationship. It's a matter of a satisfactory working relationship. If any of the lessees wishes to register, I doubt that staff would have a problem with that.

The purpose of those lands is to provide a land base for development to support the Roberts Bank port. In the meantime, it doesn't make sense to let the land sit fallow, so it's in use. It's supporting the agricultural community of Delta. The lessee-lessor relationship seems to be quite satisfactory. If anybody feels that they must have a registered lease, we can certainly deal with that on a lease-by-lease basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is admitting that the first reason he stated for not registering the lease is redundant now. You were wrong — is that so? Okay, fine.

Can we be assured, Mr. Minister, in terms of the forms of these leases that the right of reversion to the Crown for any of the Crown's needs is short-term, then? Or do we have to compensate? That is, if for some reason the Crown determined that those lands had to be available for the Crown's purposes in the next two to five years, would we be able to get them back and avoid compensation to the people who are presently leasing the land?

HON. MR. PARKER: The renewals, I'm told, are short-term. It reduces the exposure of the province to any substantial pay-outs on lease takebacks. One has to remember that because these lands were accumulated back in the sixties and people have been on them for this period of time, undertaking their agricultural enterprises, of course they have improvements on the lands. So there are these assets and improvements that have to be taken into account. We deal with each of these lessees as we have in the past, in a fair and equitable manner, to make sure that individuals aren't hurt. By the same token, we have to guard the interests of the province, and that delicate line is walked by the staff quite effectively.

MR. WILLIAMS: The reassurances are not reassuring. You say that these leases and options are short-term, but what you've really told us is that the Crown indeed has a liability, Mr. Minister, and if the Crown wants the land back, we've got to pay back those farmers for the remaining value of the lease in those later years. So again you have to correct your earlier statement, Mr. Minister, don't you? Your last statement corrected the one before that, and the one before that corrected the one before that. Shake your head, but it's what you've been doing. It's now clear that we have to pay the farmers back for our own land if we want it back before the end of the lease. That's not, my friend, what you said just a few minutes ago.

HON. MR. PARKER: Read the Blues.

MR. WILLIAMS: You read Hansard, my friend. You make it up as you go along. You read the Blues, you get the blues. Come on!

What assurances do we have in the length of these leases, Mr. Minister? Can you assure me that they don't go to the year 2010? Are there not leases going to the year 2010? That's 20 years from now. You said we needed the flexibility. You said we didn't register this, because we needed the flexibility to get the land back. There are leases to the year 2010, and if we want them back, we pay to get them back.

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh. the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) says no, we don't have to pay to get them back. I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture knows more about what's going on in Delta than the minister, so let her go.

[ Page 11211 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The member asks whether you'd have to pay the lessee anything for an unexpired term of the lease. In normal business practice in this part of the world, yes.

There are some 104 leases. The staff tell me that some may go as long as 2010 A.D., but some are a year or so. They're quite variable. But if you have a lease arrangement with somebody and you want to cancel the lease, then there will be provisions in the lease for cancellation. And if there's to be any pay-out to the lessee, then that will be defined in the agreement. There are about 104 agreements. If the member opposite has some problem with any of those contracts, perhaps he could identify the particular one, and we could get the details for him.

The purpose of the program, Mr. Chairman, is to keep agricultural land in production until it's needed to support the port. Our options are kept open with this program, the people of British Columbia retain the asset if the land remains in production, and the farmers in Delta still have the opportunity to produce foodstuffs for the lower mainland and for commercial purposes across the line.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then maybe the minister can advise the House what the standard form of agreement is for getting land back, as to what we have to compensate them for for the remainder of the term if we want the land for public purposes. And let's get it straight, Mr. Minister. Nothing has been paid cash on the barrelhead up front for these leases. These are annual leases paid on an annual basis, so they haven't put money up front. But because of the long term of the lease, we get locked into a major payback, I suspect, if we want the land back. The prudence of that is what I'm really questioning at this moment.

In addition, there is the question of how many of them were in fact not farmers that had occupied those lands before — now occupied by different farmers. There might be some justification for the policy with respect to the farmer that was on the original homestead; but new farmers moving onto the land is, I think, another question.

HON. MR. PARKER: If the member would like to see a draft lease contract, I am sure we can provide him with a standard draft for leases. If he's looking for something else, perhaps he could get a little more definitive.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the minister is saying that the individual leases are available for perusal, then I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. PARKER: I said the standard form you want to read the Blues.

MR. WILLIAMS: Don't get nasty now.

I think the individual ones are interesting, Mr Minister — let's get it clear again.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: These are not registered. Everybody else in business, by and large, registers these leases when they exceed five years — standard business practice. It's a term you use: it's "standard business practice" to register leases over five years. But if these leases stretch well into the next century, Mr. Minister, if these leases stretch to the year 2010, then that's perilously close to selling the Crown's interest.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, it's a long time.

I don't know why you want to hide these leases. That information should be public, Mr. Minister; it should be in the land registry office. The terms of the lease should be clear, and they should be in the land registry office. You provided us with no explanation for them not being there. Why would the ministry not see that these leases are registered?

HON. MR. PARKER: It took the gentleman 40 minutes to finally get his question out. He wants to see the lease agreements — each and every one of the 104 lease agreements. We are supposed to take the business between the Crown and each individual and lay it publicly at his feet. If he would like to see them, he is welcome to come to the staff in the precincts and take a look at those leases. But we're not going to pass them out like so much wallpaper to be plastered all over here, there and yon. The information is available. It is public record, but it isn't something we pass around willy-nilly.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister. When there is a mutually acceptable time with your staff, I would be pleased to review those leases.

MR. MOWAT: How about now?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, we could take a bit more time here, but I won't burden everybody with that.

Maybe the minister, however, could advise us of the qualifications of Maribod Services and Ms. Bodnarek to carry out these duties with respect to these lands. Is Ms. Bodnarek an agrologist? Is she a chartered surveyor? Is she a land surveyor? Is she an expert in leasehold management generally? Maybe the minister could enlighten us on the unique qualifications of Maribod Services that are brought into play with respect to the management of these lands.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have with me a CV for the lady. I am told that Ms. Bodnarek had a number of years with the Agricultural Land Commission and a number of years in lease administration, and as far as staff is concerned, handles the job extremely well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could advise us how common this process is, in terms of lease administration outside the ministry on a consulting basis, and how many other agents do that in the

[ Page 11212 ]

lower mainland, for example. I was unaware of this kind of thing being managed outside the civil service.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, we hire expertise in a number of fields for a number of reasons for different terms. In this particular instance, we received this package of lands through the organization of the ministry. This particular person had substantial background in dealing with and administering these particular leases, so the contract was put to this person to continue that administration. It made sure that the service was delivered well by the ministry, taking into account the concerns of the people of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I accept what the minister says. But is the policy with respect to leasing for 20 years simply ministerial policy? That's the policy of the ministry, is it? They think that the 20-year lease is okay in this situation? That's a decision made by the ministry; that's not made by the consultant, I presume. If the consultant negotiates with the people on the land, I guess she operates within a certain framework of ministerial policy. That being the case, the 20 years is acceptable to the ministry. Don't you understand that your earlier answers don't fit very well in terms of wanting the flexibility of change of use of the lands or public control of those lands? Twenty years is really a long time to turn these lands over. The farmers on those lands might well argue that they need some tenure in terms of their own improvements, but it does seem to me that it's stretching it to say they need 20 years for the kinds of improvements they put into these properties.

HON. MR. PARKER: The lower mainland regional staff cut the leases; the contractor administers them. The terms vary from one year up to 20 years; they are quite variable. The crops are quite different. In some instances it would be a simple matter to terminate a lease, and in others it would be an involved situation. It's something the ministry has inherited and works very hard at administering — and at keeping a good working relationship with the lessees, It's important to keep this very high-class farmland in production as long as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister can advise us what the rationale is for the varying terms. What's the rationale for a 20-year term? Is it the particular farming process? Is it the individual? What is it?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can only conclude that the variability in the contracts reflects the likelihood of demand for that land base in the foreseeable future Those areas on the fringe of future development probably have a little longer term than those that are sitting immediately adjacent — they that would have a much shorter term.

There are some 104 leases. The merits of each one and the determination of each one.... I'd be happy to go through them all, but this is probably neither the time nor the place.

[5:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Look at the map. I don't know if the minister is familiar with it. The map of Delta is something like this, with Roberts Bank and Tsawwassen down here, Delta and the river here and Boundary Bay here. There's this whole swath stretching from Boundary Bay Airport out to the old Swenson farm at the mouth of the river at Canoe Pass. Maybe you could advise the House what the priorities are within that pattern in terms of leasing, which areas are suitable for long-term lease and which areas are not suitable for long lease. Then we could understand the rationale behind the various lengths of leases in those lands.

HON. MR. PARKER: If the member opposite would like to know what the development plan is for the Roberts Bank port, then he should appropriately address those questions to two other ministries — one being Regional and Economic Development and the other being Transportation and Highways, which has the responsibility for port administration.

In the meantime, the land bank is managed by the Ministry of Crown Lands on behalf of the government of British Columbia and all the ministries that are involved here. The lands, as he may have noted when he held up the map — which I presume, Mr. Chairman, he is going to deposit with you so that it's on record.... I didn't think it was permissible to hold up charts, maps, etc. without depositing them with you so that they are a matter of record. You will see that on the chart the member held up, the lands follow the railway route to Roberts Bank. Obviously that's the development core, and the development plans for the port are more appropriately addressed to those ministries with responsibility for that function.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're going to have fun going over these Blues, Mr. Minister. You plow one furrow, then you have to plow another and bury what you say; then you plow another furrow, and you have to plow another to bury what you say. Just remember, Mr. Minister: a few minutes ago you said there was a rationale for the length of the term of the lease, and that it was relative to development pressure and development needs. I'm paraphrasing you. Now when I ask you what that pattern is, you tell me to go see another ministry.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, if that's what you do.... Then you're advising me that there's a rational pattern here, and that the longer-term ones are the ones your ministry has determined will have the least demand on them in the future for any other use. That's the rationale? That's what you said a few minutes ago. Now you're telling me to go see another ministry.

[ Page 11213 ]

Make up your mind, Mr. Minister. Which is it? Does the length of term depend on the person who applies? Or is there no rationale whatsoever, and you simply accept 20-year terms? And if somebody comes in next year for a renewal, it will be 20 years, and it will be to the year 2011. Is that what it is? It's not too sophisticated, but I can understand it if that's what it is. Or is it a patchwork quilt? That's what I'm not sure about. We've been advised that the leases will be available for perusal, so I guess we can figure out the pattern ourselves; that's clearly what will have to be done.

I guess the minister has been getting some help. If he has some further comments on this, he might enlighten us. Had the minister some further elaboration on the rationale with respect to the term of the lease and the pattern in relation to development? Or is that a furrow we've just buried again? That's the case, is it? We got a waving of the hands. I guess it's another furrow that has been buried. So be it.

My colleague from the Cariboo has questions on agriculture, on grazing and other leases, so the minister will get a kind of reprieve.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd like to be out plowing a few furrows myself. I want it to be known that I can plow straight furrows.

I'd like to deal with the first issue, the status of the agricultural lease policy revisions. You alluded to that in your introductory remarks. I noticed that your policy paper did say that through the summer we’re not through the summer yet — you would be dealing with a number of the recommendations in there. Can you give us an update on where the policy revisions are presently?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. PARKER: Perhaps the second member for Cariboo should clarify whether this is on a personal note or if this is a generic question, because he is an agricultural lessee of ours in the Cariboo country. I guess that's where he practises his straight plowing.

The inquiry into the agricultural lease administration policy has been completed, and the matter is to go to cabinet in the next few weeks and will be made public probably, I would think, in the middle of August.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I am happy to respond that, no, anything to do with my own personal business I usually handle in the normal course of events, and I don't expect to abuse the privilege of being a member in order to have any personal gain that's any different than anyone else would have.

I'm trying to listen to some of the banter there, because I might learn something about how to operate in the House from the learned minister. But to pursue this, thank you for the update.

My concern is generally from those people who raised it with me. I did make a presentation to the Gillespie commission, and some of those recommendations were from what I thought would work. One of his recommendations was that there be coordination of the different Crown programs.

In particular, I think Gillespie alluded to the fact that if we're after sustainable economic development — if we're trying sustain the people who are currently on the land — we should probably tie the woodlot program, rather than agricultural leases, to some of the existing farming operations. I've noticed in the new criteria for woodlots that they aren't really biased in favour of people who have existing lands. Certainly some of the criteria are, but there doesn't appear to be a cooperative effort here between Crown Lands and the Ministry of Forests to try to use the woodlot program as a better tenure on the Crown land to enhance the economic viability through diversification of existing agricultural operations. Could you comment on that, please?

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't think we should be using public assets to subsidize farming enterprises. There are programs in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which assist farmers and ranchers in their endeavours.

However, being a supporter of the farm woodlot idea, I agree with the hon. member that in many cases woodlot husbandry can be done very well by established ranchers and farmers. Not only that, it fits very well with the equipment they have and the seasons that we encounter in this part of the world.

As far as working with the Ministry of Forests is concerned, from the standpoint of woodlots, agricultural leases and farmer opportunities, we have substantial discussions between this ministry and all ministries, as I said earlier, and particularly Forests. When it comes down to agricultural leases, invariably they are within a provincial forest, and before we can award an agricultural lease we have to get it removed from the provincial forest. In almost every instance there is direct communication for that particular issue.

As far as policy on woodlots is concerned, and particularly in the more rural areas of the province, we try to have effective communication with the Forest Service on any of the development opportunities. We are quite prepared to do that in the area the member represents. If he feels that that is not taking place, we will be happy to address the issue and try to make sure it is carried on more substantially.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I don't think that there isn't substantial cooperation between the two ministries. I suspect they don't have a mandate. It probably would take a protocol agreement or a packaging of several programs.

What I am getting at here is something that I think Gillespie spent some time with. I know it is future policy, but presently I see a gap in the policy. I see the direction of optimum use of Crown land not being reflected in the proposed document that you have.

I would like to elaborate a little bit here. When you consider the unit and look at the development plan — which is part of what you use in making

[ Page 11214 ]

decisions — there is room for relaxing the guidelines on the extent of development of private land in order to qualify for agricultural leases.

I'll give you an example of wooded land. In effect, it is being farmed. It might even be farmed as old growth-in other words, very little interference, but it is still managed for forest purposes. The present policy recommendations would suggest that you have to clear, say, up to 80 percent of the arable land. But you know and I know that arable land often will grow trees as well as it will grow grass. If it is marginal in terms of wetness or particularly good soil, then in order to encourage diversification and hence stability and viability of the farming operation, there should be some provision to relax that requirement so the person doesn't have to clear perfectly good forest land that is under management, maybe as part of the schedule B lands or whatever. Then if you add an agricultural lease you may add....

What I am getting at here is finding out whether we are moving in the direction of privatizing some of the forest land for good purposes. We're looking at combining agriculture leases — possibly woodlots on grazing leases and the woodlot portion of private land — and packaging these programs to optimize the land use.

I'm talking about flexibility and cooperation. I don't see policy moving in that direction sufficiently to give optimal economic use of the land. Am I making my point clear?

HON. MR. PARKER: Coming from a similar background, I think I understand what you're saying. A lot of what you're addressing is future policy, and I take it under advisement. I think you're saying that tree crops should be considered as well as forage crops or cereal crops or cattle.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I appreciate that you are taking it there, because I think there's an opportunity there.

[5:45]

HON. MR. PARKER: Just tree crops?

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, I'm talking about tree crops simply because, if they are considered agricultural crops and if you're growing tree crops, the land is probably receiving its optimum use. Therefore people should qualify for additional development on Crown lands.

I'm saying there has to be flexibility in the way in which the grazing leases, agricultural leases and private land are managed as an integral unit. I don't see the flexibility from the administration of the Ministry of Forests in the woodlot program to allow that to happen. There's a need there for more cooperation, and it has to be done at a fairly senior level in order to have your people in the field administer it.

I want to get on to the status of some of these agricultural leases. There have been problems. I know you were visiting the Quesnel area to deal with some of the problems which probably led to this. I'm wondering if you can tell me the extent of the agricultural lease land that is not in good standing under the terms of the leases. I'm not talking about future leases. How many leases are not in good standing and therefore liable to revert to the Crown?

HON. MR. PARKER: We can ask for that information, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to have it back to you in short order,

MR. ZIRNHELT: The reason I asked the question is that I want to know what you will do on the lands that are reverted? Do they become NSR lands, assuming they've been logged, there's been a lease and people have defaulted on their leases, haven't purchased and haven't cleared the land. It's now Crown land again. Does it become NSR land, or is there a provision or program for reforesting those lands?

HON. MR. PARKER: First off, they are offered to the agricultural community, again on a public-offering basis. I would presume that since these agricultural leases are primarily arable lands by terms of reference set forth by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, they would be of interest to the agricultural community. If they aren't, it doesn't make a lot of sense to leave them fallow. The opportunity, then, is to return them to the provincial forest, which means forest renewal. That would be at public expense. The first move would be to make them available to other operators in the agricultural field.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I attempted to find the status of a number of areas in order to see how valid some of my concerns were, and I wasn't able to get that information, but I didn't go back and ask for it again from your regional office.

There are a number of parcels that I observed to have been offered for sale, I think ostensibly for the timber revenues. Looking at the lands and at the way they've been managed since they've been logged, they appear to have been "get rich quick" on the part of the provincial government. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars.... These people bought them and paid bonus bids on the leases. Basically, in any other guise, it was a timber sale. They've been logged, sometimes with the backing of surrogate bidders. It has become part of the private timber supply. These areas were large enough themselves to make economical units if they had been really good land, But my observations would indicate that they're class 5 lands; they aren't good lands. We're talking about lands covered with lodgepole pine.

Specifically, I can mention the Beaver Lake road between McLeese Lake and Beaver Valley; there were some in the Horsefly area too. There was substantial revenue to the Crown and there does not appear to be a likelihood that they will be farmed. I'm not sure any farmer would want to buy it, because it's not particularly desirable land.

Has your department looked at this situation, and in specific terms, these large areas? What have you done to ensure that this doesn't happen again?

[ Page 11215 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest to the member that to answer his question, he take his right hand and carefully place it on top of the report he waved a few minutes ago. It deals precisely with his concerns. That's why we commissioned Mr. Gillespie to do the investigation and provide the report. From that we drafted policy that is going to be vetted by cabinet in the next week or two and released, as I said earlier, probably about the middle of August.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm familiar with the recommendations. I guess I'm making my point to reinforce the fact that there is a bit of a legacy here, and it's not a good one. When policy is being considered, make sure that those lands, when they do revert — if they do revert — to the Crown are reforested, because they do become symbols. I'll continue to remind this government of that if the policy doesn't address these problems.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm kind unless I'm on the campaign trail.

The other issue I'd like to canvass is the assignment of grazing leases. As I understand the policy, grazing leases will be reassigned if they're in good standing when ranching operations change hands. It's been brought to my attention that you're very liberal in your interpretation of whether a lease is in good standing. That's a discretionary power that your officials have which creates pretty.... People get cynical when they see ranching operations break up and then the grazing lease, which appears to be part of the value of the operation, is in effect assigned; but the conditions of the original lease were left for maybe as many as ten years, and improvements have not been made. It appears that the assignment of these leases is made when they're not in good standing. How do you justify that policy?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Cariboo understands that when you're dealing with the ranching community, you want to have a fairly liberal attitude — although most of them aren't liberals. I would expect that in the instances he's bringing forth — and I'm guessing, of course, because I wasn't there, and I'm not part of it — the circumstances were such that in the judgment of the field staff, what they did was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The ranching and farming industry in the interior, and particularly in the Cariboo Plateau, is a tough one. It takes good operators and a fair amount of good fortune on the part of Mother Nature to make a viable operation.

If there were some discrepancies in a grazing lease development, the particular property to which the lease was appended changed hands, and in the judgment of the field officer.... We have a lot of faith in our staff and give them the opportunity to function in a realistic manner that befits their title of manager. If, in their considered opinion, it should happen that the lease goes with the property, then we probably accepted their recommendation and did the transfer accordingly.

Just to drop back for a moment to touch on the earlier question on agricultural leases and the lodgepole pine stands that were probably class 5 lands, every agricultural lease receives a land capability examination. It's not done helter-skelter. But if you happen to have an agricultural lease that's in a lodgepole pine stand, and you clear it.... If what took place is what the member suggested — that is, just a straight logging operation — then the area will be regenerated to lodgepole pine in no time flat. That's readily apparent to anybody who lives and works in the Cariboo and in the lodgepole pine stands. However, if there was a genuine effort on the part of the lessee to clear to stump, to root-pick and get all the fibre material off the land so he could get a forage crop going, and then it failed — he did everything he could — we'd offer it again for sale or for lease. If there are no takers, then indeed it is NSR land and has to be regenerated.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I take your comments, and I appreciate that there was an assessment. I suspect your officials were a little bit too liberal in interpreting their ability in this case, but I realize it was probably done.... I think they were fairly hasty in putting land on the market. I still say that it appears it was done really to make timberland available and get the stumpage for the Crown.

Back to the issue of transferring grazing leases. Judgments are often made, when you've got a case where there are other people who are interested.... This is when it becomes a real problem, where neighbouring ranching operations.... In the case I'm speaking of in particular, you've had a large ranch split up into several smaller units, and then you have one of the unit owners absent; they don't live there. It's not a case of somebody who's there slugging it out, trying to run an operation. He really is probably speculating on the land value, but he's using Crown land to do that. So he's broken up an operation, he's selling part of it, and he retains the value of this lease that is not in good standing. He's been given the benefit of the doubt, and I suspect that in this case he is gaining from the benefit of the doubt, financially. I'm suggesting that the policy isn't tight enough and is too liberal in this case; it's not warranted, given the record of the ranching operation itself.

HON. MR. PARKER: I would suggest that if such instances occur in his constituency, he flag the issue and we'll deal with it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Are those kinds of decisions made at the regional level appealable? The assignment of a grazing lease? My cursory reading of the policy doesn't indicate that it is.

HON. MR. PARKER: Are you suggesting a third party appeal?

[ Page 11216 ]

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, I'm talking about a third party appeal.

HON. MR. PARKER: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this hasn't been the case. If the issue is of some substance, I'm sure if it was brought forward, we would deal with it. Particularly if one of the MLAs brings it forward, we can certainly deal with it at the ministerial level and carry on. But normally our field staff don't hear third-party appeals on these issues. Although they do meet regularly with the Cattlemen's Association, the ranching association, farmers' institutes, etc., there is no formal process for third party appeal.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm trying not to be too specific about one case, because I could write a letter about the particular case. I'm trying to generalize and find out where the policy sits. Thank you.

MR. WILLIAMS: There are certainly a few other tidbits we'd like to cover, Mr. Chair. I think the government House Leader normally moves on to bills at this time of the evening.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, actually we have several other members who have significant contributions to make, so I move the committee rise, report resolutions and progress today, and ask leave to sit again. We're waiting on the city charter, and it could take longer on another occasion.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

[6:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 24.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1, in the definition of "post-secondary education" by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting the following:

(c) is provided by

(I) a school as defined in the School Act,

(ii) an independent school as defined in the Independent School Act,

(iii) an institution established under the University Act, College and Institute Act, Institute of Technology Act or Open Learning Agency Act or an institution that is authorized by or under an Act to grant baccalaureate degrees in arts or sciences, or (iv) a professional organization established by an Act, where the training or instruction is part of professional requirements or is provided for professional development, .]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I apologize to the House; our critic is, I'm sure, on his way. At this stage of the session one doesn't want to filibuster these questions. However, this is a bill which I know our spokesperson on this issue feels strongly about, so we may have to canvass some of these for a little while until our member arrives in the House. However, even having said that, I must say that if he doesn't come soon, it may go faster. I know that our critic has a couple of hours' worth of discussion on this bill, and that's fortunate, because the dining-room is open.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will ask if the minister could explain the purpose of the amendment. In particular, it's unusual to have an amendment to section 1 of a bill, at least in my term. Was it just an oversight, or is there some significance to the amendment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are about four or five components to the amendment. One has to do with Trinity Western University, so I would leave that explanation to the member who has proposed the amendment with respect to that portion. I will deal with the other sections of the amendment.

MR. PETERSON: It certainly gave me a great deal of pleasure to move the amendment. The reason for the amendment is to exclude Trinity Western University from this bill because they are indeed a duly constituted university, and they have their own separate act which has achieved this for them. It is my belief that the intent of this bill is not to cover such valid and upstanding institutions as Trinity Western. The job they do for British Columbia and Canada — indeed, for students from all over the world — is highly commendable; and many times in the past, Mr. Chairman, I have spoken of Trinity Western as one of the jewels in Langley's crown. It gave me, as I said, a great deal of pleasure to amend that section of the bill.

MR. ROSE: I was going to say that probably some other institutions would be equally pleased to escape from the jurisdiction of this particular commission. We don't like it much either, but we've said that earlier.

The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology — AT&T — was on the committee when we authorized certain powers to that university having to do with their offerings of postgraduate courses and that sort of thing, and they promised they would have their courses audited by Simon Fraser. They made a number of other promises to the committee — in 1984, I think — if they were granted those powers. I wonder if the Ministry of Advanced

[ Page 11217 ]

Education has been monitoring this university to see whether or not they have fulfilled those promises they made.

If you recall, at the time we sent them away, to come back with a better proposal, because we felt they hadn't been quite up front about everything. And I would like to know, on behalf of interested people and the freedom of information, whether or not there has been any monitoring of this institution since they were granted permission to do what this House granted them: that is, to provide post-secondary education and, indeed, postgraduate education.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, I perhaps can't give any details in terms of the monitoring, but I really want to thank the opposition House Leader for bringing this question up. I just met with Dr. Bill Saywell, the president of Simon Fraser University, who was telling me how closely and how well coordinated the activities of both universities are, and it gives me an opportunity to say that. In addition, I would like to say that they also worked very closely with the colleges in our area; there's a lot of co-operation between Trinity Western....

One other point I'd like to make is that, you know, nothing stays stagnant. Things always improve, and that's what Trinity Western is doing. They are always improving, and I give them full marks for that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the member's specific question with respect to Trinity Western University: it is accredited and is a member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is the accreditation board in Canada and, as a matter of fact, is the same accreditation board which accredited UBC, where the member opposite taught. So the standards there are of the highest class, I would suggest. That certainly satisfies us. To be a member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is in fact accreditation of the highest order. With that accreditation, we would have no interest in further examining Trinity Western's ability to teach and to put on its programs, any more than we would have in UBC, where you taught, sir.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't aware of the powers of CAUT in this field; it's very interesting that they've joined it. For many years, as a matter of fact, Simon Fraser didn't belong to CAUT.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. It's the accreditation body.

MR. ROSE: All right, fine. But they are regularly monitoring the courses offered at that university and are also given, I imagine, an examination of the qualifications of those people who profess to profess It's important, because there were some serious reservations about granting them those powers at that time.

If this sounds negative towards their university, it's not, because I was one, in about 1973 or 1974, who attempted to get the government of the day to pass through federal moneys to that institution which were interrupted at the time. As you know, the moneys had to come to the provinces and then to the universities. I'm quite interested in the progress of that particular university. But in any case of a new university embarking on a program — in terms of enrolment, it's not a big place — I think we have to be guardians, if you like. We really are a licensing body, in terms of granting university charters and that sort of thing, so we have to make sure that the public is protected here and make sure that the consumer, in this case the university student, is given the attention and protection that he or she needs.

I just want to say something else, and this is for the record. I said something off the record about President Saywell, which was just flippancy and I was just kidding about it, So if that happened to end up in Hansard, which I wouldn't want it to, then I would apologize for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to get back to consumer protection of any university in Canada, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is the accreditation body. To be a member of that, one has to have the highest standards. All universities and colleges that are accredited in Canada have reached those standards of membership.

I'd like to discuss a few other things on the amendment proposed by the member. The committee will note subsection (c) (iv), where we've added a statement about a professional organization established by an act where the training or instruction is part of the professional requirements or is provided for professional development. That was clearly to exempt the chartered accountants' association, the Certified General Accountants' Association, the Law Society, engineers, MDs — all those people who have their own....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Right. If they're doing their professional development stuff, they don't have to register under this act. Clearly they have an excellent program of instruction and of professional development for their own membership. We did not want to see them be required to be accredited under this act. That's the reason for part (iv) of the amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. JONES: We're dealing with the amendment first of all, and then section 1 after that. I'll just confine my remarks to the amendment, which we on this side of the House very much want to support. Whereas we don't support the bill, we certainly support those organizations that are going to be "escaped," as the venerable opposition House Leader suggests. Those organizations are going to benefit from the amendment by escaping from this legislation.

[ Page 11218 ]

There are many more organizations in this province that would dearly love to escape this legislation but are not going to be able to. Very clearly the minister has had the same kinds of representation that I had from organizations that quite legitimately don't fit into this kind of legislation. The member for Langley mentioned one, and the minister mentioned several others. There are several more that clearly don't fit into the definitions that are in section 1 of this bill. So we very much want to support the amendment, even though we don't support the bill.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, in section 1, the definition of "post-secondary education" in paragraph (a) of that definition says: "...training or instruction that is provided to persons who are 17 years of age or older." Paragraph (b) goes on to say: "...provided to persons under 17 years of age and is designated by regulation of the minister." My first question is to the minister. I'm wondering why 17 years of age was chosen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the age where you would no longer be interested in something that a public school would be able to offer to you.

[6:15]

MR. JONES: I apologize, because I didn't get all of the minister's answer. Let me rephrase the question, as the minister is aware, we have a "Year 2000" graduation program that has a stage at the end of grade 10. Many people at the end of grade 10 are 17, so I'm wondering if the choice of 17 had anything to do with dovetailing with the "Year 2000" graduation program of the Ministry of Education.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not necessarily. We want to cover young people who are pursuing employment-related training or instruction at the age of 17 or, as we say in subsection (b), under the age of 17. There's no particular dovetailing with another minister's act; it's simply that this is a standard definition of post-secondary education. It's something that's provided to persons who are 17 years of age or older, or to persons under 17 years of age and designated by regulation of the minister to be post-secondary education.

MR. JONES: I hope the minister can appreciate the suspicions on this side of the House and in this province ever since a former Minister of Education Dr. Pat McGeer, suggested that grades 11 and 12 really weren't needed for many students in this province — that grade 10 would be an appropriate leaving point for many students. Anytime there are suggestions along these lines, many in the province question the motives of the government. They feel that it is a way of shortening our public education system for many within that system.

I am wondering if the minister might be able to give an example of post-secondary education under subsection (b). I stress the words "post-secondary," because they really imply that it's after having completed secondary education. What kind of designation would the minister consider under subsection (b) for students under 17 that would qualify as post-secondary education?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll deal with the member's comments in order. First of all, with respect to his comments about public schools and his concerns about a former minister, I can't say that I disagree. However, any discussion with respect to the public school system would have to be addressed to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who's responsible for that.

What we're doing here in (b), essentially — and it's a good question — is ensuring that those institutions that quite typically would be training people under the age of 17 are in fact covered under this act, and so are the students under that age covered. I think of the private hairdressing institutions and institutions like that. It's quite conceivable that many private institutions providing good training would enrol students under the age of 17.

MR. JONES: In this province we have the largest number of private post-training institutions per capita in the country. The reason for that, in my view, is that we have short-changed our public post-secondary education system. We had many programs offered in our college system and other public institutions' that were cut back in the eighties. Those young people still need the training and education. So what we saw was tremendous opportunity for the marketplace to provide this education.

I'm a little disturbed by the minister's comment. Not only did he not reassure me that the attitude of Dr. Pat McGeer is ancient history but he implied that it was alive and well but just wasn't part of his ministry. Very clearly, this particular bill fits exactly into the kind of thinking that was well understood in the province and understood as part of the attitude of Dr. Pat McGeer.

I have nothing against private institutions. The vast majority of them offer an important and necessary service, and if the government does not provide opportunities for young people in our colleges and elsewhere, then quite rightly the marketplace is bound to and should provide those opportunities. As I say, I'm a little discomforted that this bill fits into that philosophy, and the minister did not escape the concern I had and the charge I had by suggesting that it was really a matter for the Ministry of Education.

The ministry used to be one ministry and now it's two. When Dr. Pat McGeer uttered those statements, it's my understanding that it was one ministry. Then he became minister of universities. So I'm very disappointed that that thinking is not ancient history, and clearly if it's over there, then it's in the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[ Page 11219 ]

As for section 1 as amended, I still have concerns about the 17 years of age or older and that fitting into the "Year 2000" program, but it's certainly better as amended than it was originally.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. JONES: Section 2, Mr. Chairman, is really the heart of the bill. This section establishes the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. Maybe I could start by just asking the minister about the necessity of such a commission. Why do we have to set up a commission when we have a branch, albeit understaffed, in Burnaby to carry out the duties and responsibilities that this commission is proposed to undertake?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is really second reading debate. The member is not relevant to this section. To provide him with some comfort, I'll explain that section 2 is one section of the bill. The bill offers a lot more in terms of just providing a commission, and I'm sure any thinking person who read the bill would understand that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you're getting it. There will be a commission standard. The members should recall some of the debate we heard during second reading. There was a litany of consumers who had been affected by post-secondary private training institutions that had not really performed in the best interests of their students, and that is the reason for this legislation. The industry itself — and it's a good, legitimate industry — wants legislation like this to give itself protection — to protect it against the unscrupulous private institutions. It's on the request of that very, very good industry — something like 450 private institutions — that we have implemented this legislation. Part of the legislation is the establishment of a commission to operate, investigate and carry out the mandate of these statutes.

MR, JONES: The minister more or less indicated that there had been problems in the past, and a commission is being set up to address those consumer protection issues. I'd like to ask the minister why he feels that some commission — and we'll talk about the makeup of the commission shortly — is better able to handle consumer protection issues than a branch of government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've been very successful in industry commissions handling their own affairs, and it's common. Take the real estate commission, for example. We find them to be better than government bodies. I think they're more aggressive; they're far more representative, and they would have a tendency to know more about the private training milieu and areas. So it was clearly in our best interests to put this commission in place. We feel that it is the best way of serving the public.

MR. JONES: Well, that was really a non-answer, Mr. Chairman. The minister says he likes commissions better than government service. That's really all he says. I don't hear any real rationale or compelling argument from that minister as to why consumer protection will be better handled by industry in a self — well, not even a self — regulating mode better than it would by honourable members of the civil service who can be objective and at arm's-length and can be, if provided in sufficient numbers, on top of the tremendously diverse industry that we're talking about, as is done in other provinces in Canada.

In my view, the motivation of the ministry is jettisoning two things. One is responsibility, because when these complaints occur, they often end up on the minister's desk or in the House. Because of its understaffing of that branch, the ministry has not been able to handle the complaints in as satisfactory a manner as the consumers and the public would like. Now we have a buffer with the commission, so the minister in the future will be able to say: "Well, that's the commission's responsibility." Secondly, another branch of government can be closed down, with some cost-saving. That cost-saving, plus a much greater cost, is going to be passed on again to the consumers of this education service — the students.

Quite frankly, I think it's well understood in this country that education is a responsibility of the province. It should be the province that is monitoring those private institutions that are carrying out training and education in the province.

Section 2(1)(b) suggests that the commission will ensure "that standards of integrity and educational competence are met by accredited institutions." I'm wondering about institutions that are not accredited. I have to interpret, then, that the commission will not be concerned about standards of integrity or educational competence for those institutions that have not gone through a voluntary accreditation process. Is that correct?

[6:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I realize the member was late getting in here and maybe hasn't had a chance to look at the bill totally. He skipped over (a) to get to (b) when he talked about accreditation. Had he gone back to (a), he would have seen that every institution is either registered or accredited.

If you follow through in the other sections, you will understand the process of registration and accreditation. Registration is mandatory for everybody; accreditation is for those who wish to volunteer to be accredited. There is a process in further sections that describes both registration and accreditation.

MR. JONES: I'm having to go back a bit, Mr. Chairman. Let's go back to a statement the minister made a few minutes ago when he indicated that this

[ Page 11220 ]

commission was desired by the industry. The legislation, the heart of which is the commission....

The minister, the Premier and I have been in receipt in the last couple of weeks of a letter-writing campaign that is still going on. I'm still getting letters every day on this. At this point, I have received letters from roughly 20 percent of the 450 private training institutions in this province. I assume the minister has had that same mail and a lot more. So I reject the notion that this was desired on the part of industry. I've received letters from a huge segment of that industry already. I've talked to many others who are unhappy with this for a variety of reasons. So I reject that notion on the part of the minister.

Let's back up. The minister wanted to go sequentially: (a), (b), (c). We dealt with (a), and the minister was not able to provide a rationale for why consumer protection will be better provided by a commission than it is by our civil service in this province. Under (b), it says that "ensuring that standards of integrity and educational competence are met by accredited institutions." Yet under section 5(2), it's quite possible that we will have unregistered institutions offering post-secondary education, should the minister so deem.

So let's go back to "consumer protection" in (a). Is the minister saying then, as a result of section 5(2), that consumer protection for those unregistered schools will not be provided by the commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everybody will have to register unless they are exempted. The purpose of the exemption — and I guess this would be better discussed under 5(2) — was to in fact cover off the people whom we mentioned in the amendment: Trinity Western, the professional organizations. It is not our intent to exempt anyone who should fall under this: in other words, any private post-secondary institution.

I would like to comment on a couple of things. The heart of this legislation is not the commission; the heart is mandatory registration and public scrutiny of that institution. Secondly, we do not envisage laying off or displacing any staff with this. Staff will be needed by the commission or by the ministry to ensure that we are fulfilling our mandate as a Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. This is not, by any means, a way to downsize or cut costs. This legislation clearly offers consumer protection as its prime function.

MR. JONES: The ministry has already cut back that branch of government so much that there's really only one person left to cut. I agree with the minister; I'm sure that that individual will be essential as part of the ministry to oversee the government's involvement in this legislation.

The minister said that the heart of the bill is registration and public scrutiny. In fact, we will have lost the window on the industry through the existing legislation and the existing branch that's charged with the responsibility of overseeing this — albeit understaffed.

What we're doing is pushing the responsibility away from government into a buffer, an intermediate stage or another body, and we are losing public scrutiny. The heart of the bill isn't public scrutiny; the heart of the bill is the commission that registers, accredits and serves a similar function to the branch of the ministry now. But it is one step removed from public accountability, public scrutiny and the intent of the British North America Act to have public education a responsibility of the province rather than a responsibility of some quasi-whatever body that the commission will be.

If you read the bill logically, I think you have to conclude that the consumers of the institutions that the minister exempts from registration will not be afforded any consumer protection. I don't know how else you can read the bill. Perhaps the minister could help me by describing the kind of institution that he envisages would be exempt from registration. That may be helpful. Maybe there's something I'm missing here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We can discuss that in greater detail when we get to 5(2), but coming to mind are the theological schools that are accredited with American universities — the Bible schools. That's common. I've pretty well covered and defined the list of exemptions in the amendment. We spent some time with Trinity Western, as we said, and with all the professional groups that have acts of their own.

We still maintain that we should have a right to exempt in this legislation. Coming to mind quickly would be the Bible schools, which are quite legitimately offering American Bible training and are accredited with American Bible institutes. There's no reason to include them in this act. The commission will have the ability to do that, and that is as far as it would go.

We're still entering into second reading debate. I'm amazed at the member's opposition to this. Does the member feel that the consumer would be better protected if there were no legislation? That is the real test. You can't answer that truthfully and say yes. There has to be legislation, and this is it.

You may be opposed philosophically as a party to anything the private sector does, but that's not the point. The private sector is out there; it's alive and well in a very healthy industry. There are a few unscrupulous operators. The private sector wants legitimate legislation that establishes registration, accreditation and a commission to ensure that they are doing a good job, so the consumer is protected and the private sector's reputation is protected. That is the crux of this bill. If you are opposed to that, if you say that if you were government you would do away with this bill, that's interesting. I don't think you'll say that.

MR. JONES: In response to the minister's question, I have no problem with the industry. I agree with you, and you agree with me, that the vast majority of practitioners and operators of schools do

[ Page 11221 ]

a wonderful job and that their students are well served. As with every large organization, occasionally there are problems. The question arises: how do we handle those problems? How is the consumer and the public best served by the government in terms of handling those occasional complaints from that very large industry — roughly one-third of all the private training institutions in Canada — in this province? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a commission. I think it's a good idea. But when it comes to the registering, bonding, monitoring and accrediting, which is the best body to do that? Which is objective? Which is at arm's length? Which is the body that can best represent the public interest? Those are representatives of the provincial government in the provincial civil service who have no axe to grind. Their primary motive is to serve the public interest and not private interest. Their primary motive is to make sure that the legislation is followed properly. Their primary motive is not to make a buck on the side. That is the vehicle by which those students and the public are best served.

I'm absolutely convinced of that and that the government is on the wrong track on this. If the minister is looking at other jurisdictions, he will see that this exact same problem is happening right now in Saskatchewan, and guess what Saskatchewan is doing. This is not an ideological question. I think Grant Devine and his government certainly fit philosophically with this government. What are Grant Devine and his government doing about this? They are toughening the regulations governing private training institutions. They're not jettisoning their responsibility; they're not farming it off to some commission. They are toughening their regulations and probably beefing up their civil service to handle the responsibilities for education in that province.

This is the situation in Saskatchewan and all across this great country. The direction in which things are happening in the United States is just the opposite to that of this government. There's a very good reason for that, and that is that there are many unscrupulous institutions in the United States for which young people, women, people who are down on their luck and people who are dying to have some hope brought into their lives, are being recruited for training and education.

They are told, for example, that they can have six weeks in the Bahamas learning to operate a computer. The method by which they achieve that is to get a government student loan. They end up in the Bahamas or Bermuda and the equipment and facilities are shoddy; they get six weeks in the sun, go back to the ghetto and default on their student loan. Guess who picks up the tab for that student loan? The public — the taxpayer. In fact, 40 percent of government student loans in the United States for these private training institutions are in default. That's a lot of money that the American taxpayer is picking up.

Which direction are our friends and neighbours to the south going? Are they removing things from government responsibility? No way. They are moving to ensure more state and national control over private training institutions, because many of them are ripping off the taxpayer. You ask me my view — that's it. You're going in the wrong direction. Other jurisdictions in Canada know what they're doing. The States is going in a more proper direction, and you're off on some tangent all by yourself. This is not the answer.

[6:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't have made a better argument for the legislation than what the member has just said. You see, the problem with the United States is that they do not have legislation. They do not have bills like this. That is why the consumer is being ripped off. I'll tell you something else. The rest of Canada is looking at our legislation. This will be the best private institute legislation in Canada.

I'll say it again: the U.S. does not have legislation. What you're arguing against is an American system. If you're opposed to this legislation, you're endorsing what's happening in the United States. Can't you see that? This is model legislation in Canada. Ontario and Saskatchewan are looking at it. This is the way to go, my friend. Without statute, without statute authority, you have the bad situation you have in the United States, the one you've described. If the NDP position is to have that sort of runaway rip-off of the consumer, then that's your position. But this is legislation that will be the best in North America and will exist for the protection of the very consumer you're worried about.

I'll repeat for the last time that the U.S. does not have legislation; however, some states, because of the incidents you've related to the committee this evening, are considering legislation such as this.

MR. JONES: I pointed out to the minister that the problem isn't legislation; the problem is not a commission. There's nothing wrong with either of those things. It's where the responsibility lies. Is the commission and is the responsibility at arm's length from government or is it a government responsibility?

I just indicate to the minister that Saskatchewan is not following this model. They've wrestled with this problem in recent months, as this government has, and they've made quite a different decision. Their decision was to beef up the regulations, I assume under the legislation that they have.

'There's nothing wrong with legislation. There's nothing wrong with a commission. But who is going to have the ultimate responsibility for registration, for bonding, for accreditation, for supervising? That should not be at arm's length from the government. It's what's behind this legislation and the direction this legislation is going, not the fact that there is legislation, that's the problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

Let's carry on to section 2(2). This section suggests that the commission will consist of not more than 15 members appointed by the minister. Well, what a surprise. I would suggest that the minister and his

[ Page 11222 ]

predecessors don't have that hot a track record in terms of appointments. We've talked many times in this chamber about the college appointments and the frustration that that causes in the college community, and the university boards of governors and the frustration that that causes in the university community. So there's not a great track record there.

We have a very diverse industry: as the minister mentions, everything from Bible colleges to international schools to hairdressing schools to post-secondary training. There are all kinds of diverse interests in this. I'd like the minister to comment on the composition of this committee. Who is going to be appointed to this committee, and who are they going to represent? Is there going to be any democratic aspect to this? Will there be any student representatives on this? How heavily will industry be represented? How will the public interest be represented on this commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I want to get back to something the member mentioned earlier to do with consultation. He mentioned all the letters that he, the Premier and I had received. I'll point out to the committee that most of those letters came from the province of Ontario, not from British Columbia.

In terms of consultation, we began our initial consultation with about 40 institutions. In July of '89 we hired a consultant by the name of Jan Broocke, who continued more consulting for us with representatives of the individual institutions. We had regional consultation meetings with institutions during the month of October 1989, in Victoria, Prince George, the interior — including Kelowna — and Richmond, Surrey and Vancouver. There was a follow-up letter and summary of recommendations sent out and a follow-up consultation with the original group that met in July 1989, on March 2, 1990. There was a full mail-out to all registered and known unregistered institutions in 1990. So you cannot say that we have not been consulting, and I want the record to show that the letters the member was referring to, in the main, did not come from the province of British Columbia.

MR. JONES: Have you seen them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

With respect to the makeup of the commission, it's really too bad that the New Democratic Party has such a fear of anyone from the private sector. But I guess that's their policy.

One of the inherent reasons I like representatives from industry is that we do trust them. We are not afraid of the private sector. They do a very good job. As a matter of fact, your member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) spoke about that. It is in their best interests as a ministry to ensure that all private sector institutions are run properly and that the interests of the student, the client and the consumer are protected.

To describe the commission's membership, the commission will have 15 members, as the legislation points out — eight from private post-secondary education institutions, three from public institutions, two from business and industry, one from the ministry and one chairperson. This commission also has the ability to set up panels and advisory subcommittees to address the diverse needs of the commission and the diverse questions that it's going to be asked.

We have a list of 37 nominees to date which we will be reviewing as a ministry, with our staff and with Members of the Legislative Assembly. We will be drawing up a list then in terms of establishing a commission.

Finally, I know the members opposite have an aversion to government-appointed bodies. I will point out that in the case of the community colleges, we probably have one of the best systems in Canada with appointed members from diverse walks of life. We ensure that we have good regional representational balance on these college boards. That's one of the reasons they run so well. Likewise for our universities — the best universities in Canada are British Columbia universities. Clearly, it has served us very well. The fact that the government is going to be appointing these members does not cause me any concern at all. As a matter of fact, I get some comfort from it. I find that's a better way of handling it.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, we're having a little debate here about opposition from industry. The minister suggests that he has seen the letters from industry, and he suggests those letters are from Ontario. I have here a stack of 90 letters from institutions in British Columbia. I'd like to list those institutions for the record. When the minister agrees that he was in error on that, maybe he'll stop me.

The first one is Puppy Love Training Academy, Lamont Road, Saanichton, B.C.; Dale Carnegie Training, 1755 West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C.; Penticton School of Hairdressing, 379 Martin, Penticton, B.C.; Reva Lander Word Processing Training Centre, 1628 West 7th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.; John Casablanca’s Career College, 525 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, B.C.; Rosella Towers of H&R Block Income Tax, 1001 Baker Street, Cranbrook....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. It might possibly be more expedient if a list were tabled rather than reading it. I understand you might be reading the full 90.

MR. JONES: No, I don't want to do that at all. What I suggested to the minister is.... He said these letters were from Ontario. I'm pointing out they're not from Ontario. I don't want to read them; I would like to have the minister agree with me that they're not from Ontario. If he's willing to do that, I don't want to read them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be that when the committee rises, you could table the whole list.

MR. JONES: The minister said he wanted to indicate for the record that those letters were from Ontario. That's what's left on the record. The minister

[ Page 11223 ]

can correct the record or I'll correct the record, but the record requires correcting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has said all it needs to say. The member may continue or do the other.

MR. JONES: Maybe the minister would like to comment, and that would expedite matters.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think I know what the member is getting at. He can just send the letters over, and I'll have a look at them.

The Granton Institute of Technology, a correspondence school based in Toronto that offers courses to students in B.C., is registered as a private training institution under the Apprenticeship Act. The president of this institute recently sent out a questionnaire to B.C. training institutions requesting four amendments. My information is that we have received 35 responses from that Ontario school-instituted letter. If others have come in since, I have not seen them at my desk, but I'm sure if the member has them, then they have arrived at the ministry. However, I do want to point out that it is our information that the letter-writing campaign seeking amendments was instigated by the Granton Institute of Technology, which is a correspondence school based in Ontario.

MR. JONES: The point is that these 90 institutions are opposed to legislation or wish to see the legislation amended, so the minister's comments about support from industry or.... I assume that if I have letters from a fifth or a quarter of the industry, they're not embracing this legislation wholeheartedly. In fact, on the contrary — there is strong opposition to this legislation.

The minister, in my absence — and I apologize for that; I ran out to grab those letters — indicated the composition of the committee. My information is that he indicated there would be eight members from private institutions, three from public institutions, and there was a three and a one number. Would the three be from employers and the one be a ministry representative? Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll do it again: eight from private post-secondary institutions, three from public institutions, two from business and industry, one from the ministry, and one chairperson — appointed by the minister.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the ministry's difficulty in setting up this commission, and I have no real objections to that composition, because I think it's impossible to have a commission whose makeup can really represent the tremendously diverse interests of this huge industry. Very clearly, if the minister is sincere about the heart of this legislation being consumer protection, then it would follow that there would be some consumers on this commission. If we're interested in protecting the interests of consumers on the decision-making process, it would not be too difficult to find some students or former students or to set up some process to have student representation. We are able to have student representatives on boards of governors of universities, and I don't think it would be too difficult to have student representation on this board. We have faculty representation and alumni representation on boards.

[7:00]

I think the minister did an excellent job with the interim governing council at the University of Northern British Columbia in having regional representatives and representatives from particular college regions. But this commission is representing such a broad range of interests that it would be impossible to strike a commission that could really represent the diverse interests of industry, of the students served by that industry and of the public. I maintain that we are moving in the wrong direction, because we are ending up at arm's length with this commission and have one representative of the ministry there. That's an important aspect of the composition, but it's an impossible situation for a commission to be struck that can represent all those diverse interests. The minister is already looking at nominees to that commission. With the diverse interests of hairdressing schools, international schools and other private training institutions for business, trades and training, I don't see how the eight representatives of private institutions on the commission can cover all those diverse interests.

I do believe that we risk the kind of appointment process we’ve seen in the past with the colleges where these political criteria will come into play and a membership card of a particular political party will be one of the major criterions. We won't have representatives of students, and the public interest is really not well represented on that commission. I guess, because the minister appoints all the members of the commission, that clearly there will be ministerial interest, but I don't think that necessarily coincides with public interest.

Perhaps we could move on to a short question on part 2(6), where we are talking about remuneration for the commission. It indicates that remuneration will be determined by the minister. Obviously the minister doesn't trust this commission to set their own remuneration. Perhaps the minister could define how this is going to be done. Is it going to be a per diem, a per meeting, an annual kind of remuneration? What sort of remuneration is the minister looking at?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, to the general philosophical comment the member had to make about the commission. He mentioned that consumers aren't represented. If you look at the list, industry and business are represented. They are the consumers of these private institutions. Most people go to a private training institution to get a job to go to work for somebody. That's why you have two employers on that board as consumers. They are the consumers.

Also, as I mentioned earlier — and you might have been out of the room when I said this — this legislation allows for the commission to have advisory groups. That's common in universities and in col-

[ Page 11224 ]

leges, and I see no reason why we wouldn't have advisory subcommittees to address the many and diverse needs.

Finally, I don't have any problem with the 15 member board being able to carry out its duties in a really efficient manner. It will have the advice of subcommittees and advisory committees. Fifteen is the same number of members as on the board of governors of a university. That's a diverse plant — probably far more diverse than the whole spectrum of private training institutions, if you look at what's done at UBC, SFU or UVic, for that matter. You know that it's a very diverse operation. The number really doesn't bother me. The commission can garner lots of expertise in terms of subcommittees and advisory panels, the same as we do in universities and colleges.

A student might be represented on a subcommittee. I have no problem with that at all. The commission might think that's a good idea, although the students are normally working pretty hard day and night in the various training institutions and may not have the time to sit. It may be appropriate to have graduates. It may be appropriate to have them as appointees of the government; I don't know. That's something we'll always consider. As you know, it has been my practice and the practice of the minister before me to insist on diverse representation on the college and university boards. There will be no difference in this commission.

Finally, with respect to remuneration, if the member is reading his orders-in-council, he'll know that there's a recent Treasury Board dictate that says that the chairmen on these boards are paid $250 per them and a member $150 per diem. That would be the amount paid for the members of this commission.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask the minister how many members of unions he expects to appoint to the board. Quite traditionally in this province, members of labour unions have not been appointed even when they've been recommended to boards of regional colleges. Perhaps the minister would like to tell me what he expects to do with the boards in these institutions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hadn't thought about that. I appointed a labour union representative to the board of the College of New Caledonia. I don't know what's going to fall out in terms of putting the commission together and someone representing organized labour. It's certainly food for thought. I'm not going to make a commitment to you at this point I really can't say.

In many cases we're dealing with institutions that are not necessarily feeding into the organized labour scheme — although I really can't say that either, because one could think of many certifications. With 450 institutions, it's difficult to say. However, it is my practice, when it's appropriate, to consider representatives of the labour sector, people who hold some position — not just a member of a union, but someone who holds some position in a union. That's my record. If it's appropriate, I will probably continue that practice in this commission. I don't know if it is appropriate, but it's certainly food for thought.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd certainly like to say that in one of the most highly unionized areas of the province — the southeast corner — there is not a member of a union appointed to the college board even though recommendations have been made, not to this minister but to the previous minister. I certainly would be delighted if this minister chose to follow his own example. As he said, he's appointed one to the college in his area. Maybe he'll appoint one to the college in my area if he's going to continue appointing for as long as he has that power.

The point is that some of these private schools might well be training towards apprenticeships. I would think that the minister should be looking at that fairly closely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure. I may appoint someone who is very familiar with this and who is a consumer of the apprenticeship system. I just may do that. I haven't really thought of a list at this point. I think it's far too early to start naming or designating categories of people who are going to sit on the board. A lot of thinking has to be done. What I'm providing for is the ability to do it. Your comments are well taken.

I guess the bottom line of what we have to say here is that this act has to be successful. That's my philosophy. I don't do anything if it's not going to serve the best interests of what I'm trying to do. For the act to be successful, it's going to have to have a very good, responsible commission. We are therefore going to have to draw the circle as widely as we can, to ensure that we have the best possible people on board, that they are prepared to set up advisory committees to assist them and that the industry is well served. It's not in my best interest to have it any other way.

MR. JONES: On a small point, his definition of a consumer of the services of private training institutions.... It is the students. The students acquire education, training and skills from those institutions. Then they offer to industry their services, their skills and their talents. Industry is not the consumer of the services of private training institutions. With a minister with that definition of consumer and that attitude, it's no wonder there aren't any student representatives on this commission.

I asked the minister a couple of things with respect to subsection (6). Why doesn't the minister trust this wonderful commission to set their own remuneration? How does he envision this remuneration taking shape? If he's setting it, is it going to be a per diem, a per meeting, an annual salary? What's it going to be?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question was answered earlier, Mr. Chairman, quite specifically.

[ Page 11225 ]

MR. JONES: As long as that took to say, the minister could have repeated it. I'm sorry if I missed it. I apologize to the minister. I don't mean to waste the time of the Legislature, but I think it is a legitimate question. I don't know why, when later on the commission is empowered to employ employees and set their remuneration, it is necessary for the minister to determine the remuneration. I would beg the indulgence of the minister to repeat very briefly the answer that he gave and that I apologize for missing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: An order-in-council, which is public information, was passed by cabinet, I think about a month ago, indicating per them maximums and also general guidelines. In this case, as I said earlier, we envisage, in keeping with those Treasury Board guidelines, that the chairman would be paid $250 per day and a member $150 per day. That's what we're envisaging at this point. I can tell you what the policy is. The policy is up to $200 per day for a member and up to $350 for the Chair, but we don't envisage that per them payment for this commission at this point.

The reason it's determined by the minister is that in all of these — no matter if it's an appointment I'm making or an appointment that one of my colleagues could be making to another board — it's the minister responsible for that legislation and that board who brings the order-in-council to cabinet. That's why we put in the legislation that that amount is determined by the minister.

On a more general answer, it is a Treasury Board policy that has been established within about the last month or six weeks in terms of organizing and making consistent the per diems paid to our various people serving on boards and commissions.

[7:15]

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, it's just dandy that the Treasury Board is setting these figures, because ultimately the people who will pay that $350 a day or $450 a day or whatever will be, again, the consumers, who won't be represented on that board. They will pay through their fees all of these costs of the commission. Again, we will see government, in effect, setting fees, abrogating their responsibilities and abrogating those costs as per usual.

We've seen the fee protests in this province annually. Perhaps now we'll see protests from students of private training institutions that this government is setting fees for this commission that will be picked up by the students of private training institutions.

I'd like to go back very briefly to the industry concerns about the commission. This letter says:

"We are concerned that Bill 24 contains a loophole that rewards unscrupulous conduct. The combination of total ministerial control, political appointees and a non-arm's-length accrediting system with some $10,000 per school could cause potential problems.

"For instance, a minister may receive a political contribution, in good faith, from a school seeking accreditation. Should this school succeed in gaining accreditation, that minister would be vulnerable to accusations from schools that had not succeeded in gaining accreditation. The damage to the minister's reputation would be irrevocable."

Very clearly, there are problems associated with this arm's-length relationship. When we take it away from the objective and public-spirited civil service and move it into an arm's-length relationship and a political relationship, we do run into problems that I don't believe are there at present.

So I see that as a little shot across the bow. There's a warning. The government is moving in a direction that is dangerous, and I don't think it's in the best interests of the consumers or of the public. But I'll leave that for section 2 right now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if it's a shot across the bow, it's a little one. We do have a philosophical difference of opinion here that is not going to go away, so there's not much more I can say about it.

I believe the commission will act in the best interests of the student and act in the best interests of the industry. I believe that the industry is the consumer. I know that's a difficult connection for you to make, but nevertheless the industry — the employer — is the consumer of that product — the same as the job you had. You graduated from a faculty of education to work for a school board. The school board is then the consumer of that. That's why they have input into faculties of education. Right? To ensure that you, the product, are serving the consumer, your employer, the school board, in the best possible.... I'm giving an example that I hope you can relate to. I realize it's difficult for some people to make that connection; nevertheless, industry and business is the consumer.

MR. JONES: We could dance on the head of that pin for a long time. The minister has some facts about my background right and some of them wrong. He continually raises them in debate, and they are irrelevant.

Perhaps we could have a vote on section 2 and go on to section 3.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. JONES: Section 3 is the duties and powers of the commission, It's kind of interesting that whereas the government really wants to abrogate its responsibilities with this commission, it can't quite let go, because in subsection (1) we have the commission issuing directives to institutions respecting any aspect of their operation; and then down in subsection (6) we have: "...the minister may, by order, rescind a directive issued by the commission..." We're setting up this commission, but we're not really trusting it. Why does the minister want to have this buffer, this commission, this arm's-length body, and then not trust it to do such things as determine their own per them or issue directives that can't be turned around by the minister? It seems to me the minister wants it

[ Page 11226 ]

both ways on this one. Why don't you trust this wonderful commission you're setting up to carry out its responsibilities?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a fundamental of democracy that there must always be the right of those elected to make the final determination. That's essentially what we say in all our legislation, and that's essentially what everybody says in their legislation — there has to be recourse to an elected person.

MR. JONES: I don't see that as quite the case. The case is that good legislation has an appeal mechanism. It seems to me that concern for the consumer rings rather hollow with this one.

Let's go on to (b). The commission is going to "establish criteria for accreditation." I'm curious about that. I suppose we're going to have these advisory bodies and they're going to assist with establishing this. I support that, and I think it's important that this be done; but I'm interested in how deeply this process is going to be carried on. Are these criteria going to be institutional criteria, are they going to go right down to the course and credit for each hairdressing operation and each aspect of each school? Is it going to be institutional criteria or individual course criteria?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not course accreditation but institutional by sector. Let's take hairdressing, for example. There are health and a whole lot of other standards you have to be taught, and those are mandatory. So if you're accrediting a hairdressing or barber school, you'd want to ensure that school has instructors qualified in all that is required by the law — health, cleanliness, all those types of things.

Let's take a small institution teaching first aid and health and plant safety. That's very common. Some very successful small entrepreneurs are working for industry in terms of teaching first aid and those types of procedures. That, again, is a proven accredited program of studies. There are certain standards that have to be met, and that's the type of accreditation that would take place. Is this private training institute going to meet those criteria? That's why we say criteria for accreditation, and there's a variety of.... If you look at the broad range of instruction that's carried out by the private sector, you can understand why you want to have the ability and statute to establish criteria.

You've got to remember that you have a bill here and a subsection of a bill that says you're going to establish criteria, and the reason for that being there is so you can do it under the force of law. I don't think we're here to discuss really what the criteria shall be, because the institutions themselves and the schools know that.

In fact, to establish their criteria, they need the force of law. That's why you have legislation like this, and that's what we're doing. We're giving the commission the ability to act under statute authority and to enforce what it has to do. If those sections weren't there, then the bill would be toothless; so that's why it's there.

MR. JONES: Sections 3 and 4 refer to employees. Section 3 empowers the commission to appoint or employ employees, and I just hope that the commission does a much better job than the government has done in this area because, as I mentioned earlier, they've basically reduced that branch down to one employee.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Wrong.

MR. JONES: Well, there's one main employee and a couple of.... I think if you add it all up in your figures, it comes to two and a half full-time employees, but there's really one person and some support.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's two and a half times as many as you said earlier.

MR. JONES: If we compare with other provinces, for example.... I do hope the commission does a better job than the government, because we have in proportion more private training institutes in this province than in any other province, and we have fewer support staff from the ministry than in any other province. So I hope the commission does a much better job.

If they staffed on the same ratio as New Brunswick, they would need 66 employees rather than the two and a half that are presently there. If they staffed on the ratio of Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia, they would need 20 employees; if on the ratio of Alberta, 18 employees; if on the ratio of Manitoba or Saskatchewan, 30; if on the ratio of Ontario, 13; and if on the ratio of Newfoundland, 27.

Very clearly the two and a half employees in British Columbia.... Something had to be done. I agree with the minister. The choice was wrong, but I agree that something had to be done. I do hope the commission is properly staffed so that this important, vast and diverse industry can be properly supervised.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I was just noticing section 3(4). It says that the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the commission and its employees. I wonder if the minister could explain the reason for that. I assume it means that they're not covered by the BCGEU collective agreement. Are there are any other ramifications of that and does the transfer of the FTEs that exist at this commission — I assume they're being transferred — exempt them from the current coverage they have? That's section 3(4).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's there, but it's not under 3(4). Oh, pardon me. I'm sorry. I've got an old version of the act, Mr. Member.

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Member. It's consistent with the University Act and other legislation. We, as a government, feel it's appropriate to have it written that way: that the Public Service Act and the Public

[ Page 11227 ]

Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the commission or its employees.

MR. CLARK: I don't want to belabour this point. I'm not sure of the significance, but I would appreciate the minister's explanation for it and the ramifications of it.

Maybe the minister can tell me. I apologize if he has already done this. What is the size of the staff of the commission? What is contemplated? Will the two and a half — or whatever it is — people dealing with the area now be transferred to the new commission? Other than just being consistent with the University Act, what's the reason for exempting them from the Public Service Act? Is there a public policy reason the government has?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is yes. It is consistent with our public policy, when we have a board and a commission such as this which is separate from government, that we put this type of provision. I cannot at this point tell you how the commission is going to staff or determine the number of staff that it may want to hire. I would imagine that it will determine.... That's clearly what we've envisaged: it will determine the number of employees it needs, and I'm sure it will do a good job of that.

[7:30]

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that this is a new commission, so I know the minister doesn't want to prejudge it. But I wonder if he could give some indication of.... It's a large bill. It presumably will need some staff. Excuse my ignorance, but I assume that the funding will come through a vote in the Legislature — maybe a vote under the minister's estimates. Maybe we can get at it that way. I can do it in another section, Mr. Chairman, but it's as easy now. In other words, if the minister could give me some sense of the budget that's being contemplated, then it's easy to make some guesses as to the size of the staff being contemplated as well. I accept that those definitive absolutes are not decided upon yet.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We envisage a staff of four to six to begin with. As the member for Burnaby North has indicated, there are two and a half people currently operating, employed by the ministry. I understand that they have indicated some willingness to be employed by this commission. That would be appropriate, because they are well trained in this type of work. From your point of view, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, they will take their pensions and everything they have to have with them over to this commission, as employees of the commission. That is consistent with public policy, government policy. We are envisaging that there will be four to six employees at the beginning, and we have allocated out of our base budget an amount somewhat in excess of $400,000 per year till 1992, when we envisage the commission, with dues from the private sector, managing its own affairs and expenses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce two people who are in the gallery: a very dear family friend, Cathy Richardson, and her friend Sandy Dunn. They are in Victoria taking a course on learning disabilities. They are both constituents of my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier). I would just like to mention, for the interest of the House, that Sandy Dunn is the daughter of the Hon. Ray Williston, who is at this moment, she tells me, mountain-climbing in Banff. I hope the House will join me in making them welcome.

MR. JONES: Responding to the last comments of the minister, students attending private training institutions in this province after 1992 are going to be paying some $400,000 that they are not paying now. The minister has just confirmed the point I made earlier that their fees are going to be increased substantially.

Going back to section 4, the minister says that we have two and a half employees now, and they will be going to the new commission. I assume they are now members of the BCGEU, but under this section of the act, they will be prevented from being members of the BCGEU. Is that the effect of this section?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Section 3 (4) says: "The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the commission and its employees." The member's assumption is correct.

MR. JONES: So what have you got against the BCGEU? These people are members now; why can't they continue to be members?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They can't currently be now; they're excluded.

MR. JONES: I thought the minister said they were members now, all two and a half of them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, you did.

MR. JONES: I thought you agreed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. JONES: You said that that was the effect. I prefaced my comments by saying that they were members now. Regardless, the BCGEU is being discriminated against in section 3(4) of Bill 24. I don't understand the government's attitude on that one.

That's all I had on that. We can do sections 4 and 5.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

[ Page 11228 ]

MR. JONES: I'd like to get some indication from the minister of the kind of bond that's going to be required. I know members of the industry are very concerned about this part, as well as the last thing the minister mentioned about the cost of the commission being borne by members of the industry. They are very loath to pass these costs on to their students.

Section 6(1)(a)(i) talks about a bond. I know that in the Independent School Act there is talk of a bond of 50 percent of the previous year's total tuition. I wonder what sort of bond the minister envisions in this one. Is it going to be large enough to cover a tuition refund?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I missed some of the member's questions, I apologize, but I'll provide an answer in terms of the amount of a bond. The practice for setting a bond will be the current practice, which is to look at the tuition and the number of students registered and ensure that the institution is operating close to that. If tuition for the program is $500 and there is a potential for 30 students to be registered in that program, a $15,000 bond would be required by the government.

That's the current case, and the commission would follow those guidelines, I'm sure. There's no reason to deviate. It's a practice that's working well, it's one that the industry understands and it's a bond that's appropriate to the amount of money the student has invested in the program.

MR. JONES: I'm curious as well about 6(l)(d) — the amount of the prescribed fee for registration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We simply want to prescribe. That means we want to have regulations that say that every application for registration is going to tell us about a bond, a variety of things and also the prescribed fee for the program. The fee that we're going to charge for the person to apply.... "Prescribed" is a way of saying it will be in the regulations.

MR. JONES: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my question. I'm curious, and I know members of the industry are curious, as to what the fee will be. How many dollars will it be for registration?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Only $350. We envisage where it's a smaller school or a lower tuition fee, it could be less; and where it's more, it could be more. But the commission will want to weight that registration fee, taking into account the tuition fee, the number of students and those factors. I think that's probably a fair way of doing it.

MR. JONES: The last question that I have for the minister is regarding section 6(1)(b) — the information required for registration. I'm wondering what financial information might be asked about here, in addition to that which might be asked about in the normal bonding process.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The financial information we are interested in is for the purposes of bonding. I've described the format for establishing a bond....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Male bonding, did you say? It's not that type of act. That's a little bit of levity; some diversion.

It's the financial information needed for bonding. I suppose that if the commission were really concerned about someone we suspected was not going to be able to deliver, we'd like to know: what's the status of rent on this building you're occupying; do you own it or are you in arrears; what about your equipment; do you own all these computers; do you own this mini radio station, or have you stolen or borrowed it?

In fact, as you look at this type of thing, that's the reason to have people from the industry on the commission: they know the legitimate operators and where people can go wrong. So that type of information may be required, but primarily we want that financial information solely for the purposes of bonding. Again let me stress that this is consumer protection legislation, and bonding is a critical element in consumer protection. We want to know that the bonding is in place and that the financial resources are there for that institution to have that bonding in place,

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

    [Section 7., by deleting the proposed subsection

(1)(b)(ii) and substituting the following:
                (ii) bylaws made under the authority of the Municipal Act or the Vancouver Charter.]

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. JONES: just a short question. I am interested in providing the highest level of standards with these private training institutions, and I think that's achieved through the accreditation process. Section 7 talks about the registration certificate. I'm wondering if, as a result of receiving that registration certificate but not accreditation, an institution and the students of that institution are eligible for the B.C. student loan program and the Canada student loan program.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is yes.

MR. JONES: I think the minister appreciates that that is one of the key elements of operation of these private training institutions and very important to their operation. It appeared to me that this could be used as an incentive for a higher level of achieving standards accreditation rather than.... If you didn't want to do a mandatory accreditation, there could be

[ Page 11229 ]

something used here as an incentive through the B.C. student loan program to ensure the highest standards, not just the standards required for registration. But I'll leave that point.

[7:45]

I'd like to suggest something to the minister that is a small point but perhaps a critical one. The minister may want to consider this as a friendly amendment. In section 7(3) it says that the executive director may suspend, revoke or refuse registration where an institution is in breach of this act. It's really unclear how that process is to happen. The question is: in whose opinion is the institution in breach? The suggested amendment that I'd like the minister to think about for a moment is to insert, after the word "is" and before the word "in," the words "proven to be." It would then read: "where an institution is proven to be in breach." It's a little vague, but at least it implies that it isn't going to be some sort of single judgment about guilt or innocence and that there's going to be a process there. Perhaps the minister agrees with that or perhaps he thinks it's unnecessary. Perhaps the minister wants to comment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect to the member, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would be redundant. "In breach" is "proven to be in breach."

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. JONES: The minister didn't like that amendment, so let me try another one here. These are not my concerns; these are concerns that have come to me through industry.

Subsection 8(2) talks about promotional literature. There's nothing wrong with the wording of this legislation unless we're talking about a very short television clip or about something very small in the way of advertising — say, a business card or something like that. When there are space limitations in terms of printed promotional literature or time limitations in terms of, say, radio or television advertising, it's going to be difficult for some institutions to follow the regulations here.

The suggestion that has been made to me is an amendment that would say at the end of the introduction to subsection (2), before (a): "when referring to registration or accreditation." It would read: "...an institution accredited under this act, shall, in all promotional literature and advertising, use one of the following phrases when referring to registration or accreditation." That would preclude them from abusing this or being misleading about whether they are registered or accredited, but it wouldn't preclude them from other advertising that would not refer to whether they were registered or accredited by the province of British Columbia or the commission.

Perhaps the minister would consider that when some ads are as short as five lines and you have to put in those phrases, he could even construe this as unnecessary interference in the marketplace. I know he wouldn't want to encourage that kind of thing. Perhaps if that's clear, the minister could comment on whether that amendment is also unnecessary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess I accept the member's intent, although I will not accept the amendment. Briefly, if we refer back to subsection 2(1)(a) already passed, the act says: "consumer protection in respect of registered institutions." We insist upon that. Then we say in this section under discussion, that in any promotional literature advertising, we want you to use on the following phrases if you are registered; those who are not registered cannot operate. That's clear.

We have the ability to make regulations. Is there a regulation ability there? Yes. It's pretty clear. If they are registered, they use that term. If they are not registered, they can't in any way express approval or recognition by the commission or the government. This is a very solid section of the act.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR, JONES: Just on the voluntary nature of accreditation, in the section we just debated the minister was very firm on the importance of advertising and on being sure that those institutions putting out promotional literature clearly indicate, for the interests of the consumer, whether they are accredited or registered. The vast majority of those reading promotional literature really won't understand the difference between accreditation and registration.

The minister indicates that consumer protection is the underpinning of this bill. What we have now in British Columbia is voluntary accreditation. I know of only one institution — Columbia College in Burnaby — that undergoes voluntary accreditation. If consumer protection is the underpinning and the major thrust of this bill, why not make accreditation the higher standard — as opposed to registration - that all schools wishing to be recognized by the commission would undergo? Why not accreditation as opposed to registration? Because that won't be clear in the minds of the consumers of this service.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In many cases registration is adequate. Registration does impose bonding; therefore registration does ensure consumer protection. However, there is going to be the case where an institution is going to want to be accredited for whatever reason by its peers, by external accreditation teams. The reason for accreditation will be to protect key areas, including federal government grants, visa schools and non-repayable student assistance. To have those benefits, accreditation will be required.

But if it's a fellow teaching industrial first aid within industry, he certainly isn't interested in that type of accreditation. He'll have industrial standards in place and will just go about doing his job. He

[ Page 11230 ]

wouldn't be at all interested in visa students or federal government grants. That's why we have the two classes.

MR. JONES: As I mentioned, I'm only aware of one institution that undergoes voluntary accreditation right now. Does the minister have the number of institutions that he would see taking advantage of accreditation under this commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In looking for the benefits of federal government grants, visa schools and non-repayable student assistance, the number would be 170 to 180.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. JONES: Just a quick question to the minister on section 13. It seems like the accreditation process would require accreditation teams. I'm wondering why this is permissive in this section.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because I would imagine that in some cases you won't need an accreditation team. If we put "shall" in there, it may not be necessary. We've given the executive director the permissive power. I think that's probably the best way of managing it. If we use "shall," it would maybe cause us some undue expense and unnecessary effort.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. JONES: There was almost perfect harmony, but it sounded too mindless. We have to have a little more discussion of this legislation.

Under section 19 we're investigating institutions, and in subsection (2) it talks about the institution paying the costs of the investigation. What if the charges being investigated are unsubstantiated? Is there an escape in here? As I read it, perhaps there is in the phrase "as determined by the commission." I would like the minister to provide some reassurance that where the charges are unsubstantiated, no fee would be charged for the investigation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is correct. Let's say there has been a complaint that turns out to be frivolous and vexatious. If there were an investigation and the investigation proved that, the commission would then have the ability to say that the investigation was not warranted: "It's the result of a frivolous, vexatious complaint. Therefore we will not impose the cost of the investigation on the institution." That's essentially an escape clause for cases like that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Sections 19 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

MR. JONES: This section refers to tuition refunds; it's an important part of the bill. However, the very first subsection talks about where an institution is not registered with the commission. It seems to me that all institutions are registered unless they've been given specific exemption by the minister. If they are not registered with the commission, what authority does the commission, the government or anybody have to demand tuition refunds? It seems to me that we're probably into an area of common law here, and not the authority of this act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's essentially a protection measure. Having it in the statute says that we can do it. I guess civil law would come into play, but at least we have the statute, which allows to pursue this remedy if required.

Sections 28 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

MR. JONES: Just a quick comment, Mr. Chairman. The minister's going to be making regulations with respect to registration, renewal, fees to be paid, penalties, standards for accreditation, information and the circumstances under which the commission may exempt institutions from all or part of sections 6 or 12(2). I just wonder how the minister is going to go about making all those decisions.

The answer I'm looking for, of course — and, I'm sure, the answer the minister is going give — is that he is going to consult widely. I'm not aware of that consultation having taken place to this date, although the minister seems to have made a lot of decisions about these things already. I know the minister says there's lots of consultation out there, but I proved conclusively earlier, when the former minister was here, that that was not the case. Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

[8:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, how am I going to make those decisions? I'm going to make them very well. The reason I'm going to do that is because I have an extensive advisory committee in place now, as well as staff from the ministry. The advisory committee has some substantial people on it. They really are an advisory committee of experts, and from that the regulations will flow. They are regionally selected, and it is also well balanced.

Sections 36 to 46 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[ Page 11231 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 24, Private Post-Secondary Education Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 24, Private Post-Secondary Education Act, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 18.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. JONES: Section 2 talks about the object of this bill being to establish a fund to ensure the continuity of funding of scientific and technological initiatives, with emphasis on applied research, development, technologies, etc.

It seems to me that although financial support for science and technology in this province has been woefully inadequate — as it has been in this country — very clearly we have managed to provide some support without some $420 million fund. I would just like the minister to comment on the necessity of such a fund.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What a great opportunity for a wonderful speech! Research has been seen as a priority by this government for some time now. Clearly, we see it as a priority.

I had the good fortune to attend the National Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Councils, which was held in Edmonton a couple of months ago. They looked at this funding. Clearly, British Columbia is the envy of Canada, and you can talk to any of your colleagues....

MR. PERRY: The member for Okanagan North (Hon. L. Hanson) is laughing at you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've been at vespers, haven't you? I can tell by that glow.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't invited.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, that's why he's miffed.

The Edmonton conference.... These are people who are major researchers and who are in the know — scholars from across Canada. It became clear to me that they envy British Columbia for a couple of reasons. Number one is the size of this fund, which has increased considerably; plus the fact that there's a commitment from government for five years of funding through this Science and Technology Fund Act.

It may surprise the member for Vancouver-Point Grey to know that in the centres-of-excellence award, his own university came out as one of the best in Canada. I know they are not much interested in research; nevertheless, UBC scored very well. As a matter of fact, on a per student basis, they outshone the University of Toronto.

We're very proud of the science community — both the university science community and the private sector science community in British Columbia. This type of legislation and funding is entirely appropriate to reward them, and to acknowledge the fine work they've done and to ensure that their monumental and international leadership is maintained.

MR. JONES: Were it only true. We are very supportive of initiatives that encourage the development of science and technology in this province. Very clearly, the history of this province has been one of over dependence on natural resources to the detriment of the economy. We are vulnerable to fluctuating world markets. We know the future we all desire will get us out of that straitjacket. We'll broaden our economic base, and we can move from dependence upon natural resources to a more knowledge-based and idea-based industrial model.

In principle, we would really like to support this bill. However, as it is drafted, we have serious reservations about the accountability aspect of the bill. This government has a poor track record when it comes to accountability on funds. We've seen all kinds of problems with funds not having fulfilled their original objectives, without the kind of safeguards, monitoring and advice that is essential.

HON. S. HAGEN: Are you against this bill?

MR. JONES: Not in principle. We're against the lack of accountability in this bill for this government, which very clearly needs as much accountability as any government in the western world.

The minister is quite wrong, of course, about our standing in the scientific community and our expenditures on science and technology. They are among the lowest of provinces in Canada. Canada is among the lowest of the leading industrial nations of the world. We need this kind of effort that the bill stands for, but we need accountability so the public can trust this government to carry out the principle of the bill.

We're in a bit of a conundrum. The thrust is fine, but we've seen this fund process abused so many times in the past.

[ Page 11232 ]

Interjection.

MR. JONES: We'd put in the regulations. With that, we can vote on section 2.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have to react to that. To hear a member of the NDP say that British Columbia's standing in science is the lowest in Canada is really off the mark. Your research is pathetic.

By the way, if you want to do some academic anthropology here, I will point out to you that when the NDP were government, they reduced capital funding to universities and colleges by 25 percent — cutback after cutback after cutback; no money at all for university and college funding. Don't give me any of that history nonsense, because your own record is dismal.

This is an excellent bill; this is an excellent fund. It's welcomed by the science community. It's seen by scientists and researchers across Canada as being the best legislation right now and also the best fund. You can look that up when you get home. That is the case, my friend. If you want to contact any of your colleagues in any other province across Canada and have them speak to their provincial advisory councils, you will find out that B.C. leads Canada in commitment to science and technology.

MR. JONES: Let the minister get it clear: spending on research and development in the province has been and still is very low relative to other provinces in Canada. Less than 1 percent of the gross domestic product is spent on research and development in this province. The minister can challenge that until he's blue in the face, but that is less than the Canadian average. Does the minister challenge that statement? It's less than the Canadian average in terms of spending. We're not held up as any sort of glowing symbol of commitment to science and technology in this country; in fact, we can't even make it to the Canadian average. The minister and I have talked about other areas where that's true. It's less that 1 percent of the gross domestic product. That's why the science and technology community are very supportive of this. They know the funds are needed. They know we're not doing the job. I'm sure they don't like the lack of accountability in this bill, as we don't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The 1 percent of the gross domestic product argument is erroneous and really a hollow argument. For example, if you take Alberta, with its fantastic exports, you'll never reach that, yet you'll still spend a lot more money. To use a percentage of the GDP is nonsense and meaningless. Look at Newfoundland; it has nothing, yet it would have a high percentage. As long as you understand that the percentage figure is meaningless, we'll get somewhere. It's the amount of dollars spent that counts.

I'll close by saying that this is the best legislation. In terms of the science and technology community in Canada, it is recognized that B.C. leads Canada.

[8:15]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. PERRY: May I ask the minister to clarify whether the public purse will be reimbursed in proportion to the amount contributed from public funds to any ventures initiated under the terms of this act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask the member to repeat that question. We're having trouble following it.

MR. PERRY: Does the minister envisage for this bill, perhaps under regulations, any mechanism to ensure that funding for scientific and technological initiatives granted under the terms of this bill...that the public of British Columbia will receive earnings from profitable ventures in proportion to the capital investment made by the taxpayer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is a payback mechanism, and it varies from project to project. There are also university policies, as you are well aware. The answer is yes, but with the condition that it would not be proportional. Much research money, particularly the very high-tech stuff, may not produce a return to anyone for 20 years. With superconductivity, for example, we're dealing with a payback that may or may not come, but you invest in that for research purposes and for the betterment of the scientific community.

So yes, we will take back as much as we can to the public purse, whether it be in a university's coffers or the government's coffers, but it would not be proportional. There's a lot of risk-taking done here, and for a very good reason.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I guess the opposition would just like to state its concerns for the record. The structure of this particular bill, which we'll come to under the next section, affords the opportunity for a boondoggle and for investment of public funds in areas beyond basic research, which are properly funded without regard for a direct return to the taxpayer and without any guarantee in areas of applied or technological research that there will be fair recompense to the taxpayer. I guess I'd like to record our concern in the hope that it may be reflected in regulations, if this bill is passed, and that the taxpayers' interest will be protected.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To respond to that, the Science Council would administer this and give advice to the ministry. Many of the members of the Science Council are university professors. If you think they entertain boondoggles, that's your opinion, but I would disagree.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[ Page 11233 ]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, this is a classic Social Credit bill. This is a blank cheque section; this is a GO B.C. section; this is the Lottery Fund section. On the written authorization of the minister, money can be paid out. So we have a $420 million fund over four years. It's on the discretion of the minister to dispense this money.

Let's talk about great science efforts in British Columbia like Moli Energy: $30 million of British Columbia taxpayers' money sucked into the black hole of Moli Energy. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, everybody is in favour of science and technology; everybody is in favour of spending money on science and technology. But a prudent government would at least have in the bill some safeguards, rather than simply relying on a Social Credit cabinet minister to decide what should be spent on what.

The minister says," Well, the Science Council will give us advice," but it's not in the bill. There's nothing in the bill that says that there will be a committee of peers, of scientists, advising the government, that their advice will be listened to or that they'll be giving advice.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: How come we've got the strongest economy in Canada?

MR. CLARK: It isn't Mr. Member, because the Social Credit government throws money off the back of a truck to their friends and insiders. That has nothing to do with the economy.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The minister asks why I am wearing a red tie. Well, I'm a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. I'm the fiscal conservative here.

This is a bill that says $420 million is what the government can spend, at the minister's discretion, on high-tech. We've seen what happened with Moli Energy, with a friend of the former Premier's having special access and special funds given out before it went under. More and more money was eaten up by Moli Energy before it went under, Mr. Chairman. There was no peer group.

There are all kinds of high-tech companies in British Columbia doing great work. There are all kinds of software companies that could have used government help. There are all kinds of exciting high-tech companies that could use government funding. There was no government funding to be had, yet one company got $30 million from taxpayers' dollars, and it went under. All the money was sucked up by one company that went under. There are hundreds and hundreds of exciting, thriving, high-tech businesses in British Columbia that are starving, trying to make a go of it, looking for government assistance, and there's none to be had. Yet there's this big company.... Norman Keevil, or whatever his name is, goes to see the former Premier, and they sign a cheque away for $30 million so that they can cut a ribbon for an election campaign; maybe another two or three ribbons. Every month there was another announcement for more money for Moli Energy.

This bill allows that to continue unchecked. One minister can decide who gets money in the high-tech field. This minister gets to make that decision: complete discretion, a blank cheque. Again, another bill that allows a blank cheque by this administration.

MR. REID: Trust us.

MR. CLARK: This is a rich province, but how much can we afford? How much can we afford pumping that money out day in and day out to government friends and insiders? Where are the checks and balances? Why wouldn't the Science Council be written into this bill? Why wouldn't it be required that a group of peers and scientists check and vet the money that's being pumped out? Why wouldn't it be required in the bill?

We're asked to trust the government. My goodness, after all that we've gone through, can you believe that? Where are the checks and balances? I wonder if the minister could tell the House. I wonder if the minister could explain why this section gives complete and total discretion to the minister to decide how money is going to be doled out, how it's going to be adjudicated between high-tech companies applying for the money. Can the minister give us some assurance...? Well, I know he can't. But can the minister tell us why there wasn't written in the bill the kind of peer group, scientist or expert advice that would be so necessary before we allow the taxpayers' money to subsidize a particular sector of the B.C. economy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Science Council does. The reason it's not in this act is that they already have an act, the Science Council Act, and it has the ability to advise government,

MR. CLARK: There's nothing that compels the minister to take the Science Council's advice. This bill allows you and you alone to decide who's going to get money out of this rather large fund. Can the minister tell us how he envisions making a decision between competing applications?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the advice of the Science Council.

MR. PERRY: Something about this reminds me of a line from Shakespeare: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

I'm troubled, Mr. Chair. I have the greatest of esteem for this minister. My esteem for this minister is only exceeded by my esteem for his neighbour the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). In a more gentlemanly era, Mr. Chair, I should have liked to embellish my comments about the member for Prince George North. I do hold the minister in the greatest of esteem. But even I, who hold him in esteem — despite the hissing of my colleagues —

[ Page 11234 ]

cannot conceive that this minister is infallible. I come not to bury the minister but to praise him.

When I look at this bill I see virtually unqualified the provisions of section (a). The minister, without any qualification, may pay money from the fund, without any limit, to provide financial assistance for scientific and technological research and development. I see no limit. Might that include creation science, for example? Might we witness a grant from this or another minister — God forbid we should see another Social Credit minister, but that decision will be left to the voters — for S45 million to creation science to explore the anti-history of evolution without any discernible return to the taxpayer of this province?

Under section (b), the right of the minister to promote public awareness of science and technology, might we look forward to embellished photographs of the minister, rivaling even those extraordinarily handsome photographs of his colleague the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) which graced the pages of this week's Monday magazine in Victoria.

Might we look forward to pictures of the minister at Science World, at UBC—lo, even at the new university of the north, at TRIUMF — glorified pictures with halos around his head, with arches of molecular metaphysics surrounding his body, all in the name of the promotion of public awareness of science and technology under section (b)? Mr. Chair, I blush at the thought.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: My colleagues laugh because I've seldom been known to blush. "And they're blushing too," says the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore).

Section (c): "To ensure the availability of the trained personnel and the facilities that are necessary to provide an infrastructure conducive to the conduct of scientific and technological research." This is precisely the failing of this government — the assurance of trained personnel and facilities. One of the reasons that I forsook my scientific training to enter the political realm was the abysmal failing of that ministry to fund the University of British Columbia and to provide a future for young scientists in the field of medical research.

[8:30]

Section (d): "To provide funding for programs to encourage the growth of advanced technology in British Columbia." Again, what qualification...? Section (e) is to provide funding leading to greater economic diversification in British Columbia and increased industrial competitiveness. What better recipe. What better legislative remedy could we seek for last year's debacle over the funding through GO B.C. grants of an innovative proposal to corner the market for recycling technology in White Rock? What better recipe than section (e) to provide funding for major projects. The public funds disbursed without rationale — or without logic, in that case — amounted to only some quarter of a million dollars; that was a small start. But this bill would allow no limit — potentially $420 million — to a project to create industrial diversification based in White Rock, without any qualification, without any requirement of due process and satisfaction that the taxpayer will receive due value for her or his investment.

The minister has previously spoken of the role of the Science Council and other august bodies of independent scientific opinion in advising the ministry. Do we have the minister's assurance, contrary to parliamentary principle and tradition, that the Science Council will have access to the inner sanctum of the cabinet room — a privilege not enjoyed by members of this Legislature? Do we know that the Science Council will be able to intercept — before the signature on the order-in-council — unreasonable and unwarranted and untoward expenditures of public money under the aegis of this bill simply upon the signature of the Minister of Advanced Education? If we have learned nothing else from the abuses of the last year or two in British Columbia, surely we should have learned that lesson.

There is a limited pot of public money in this province. The taxpayer is not a camel or a cow that can be milked indefinitely, regardless of the use to which the money is put. If we've learned nothing from the disastrous experience of the federal government with the science tax credit, the experience where money not paid to the government of Canada, some of which belonged in this province as the property of British Columbia, was invested in Mercedes Benzes — one for each executive or board member of so-called scientific corporations in North Vancouver.... If we've learned nothing else from that experience, surely we should know that a process of peer review, independent and at arm's length from the minister, is the absolute sine qua non of rational spending on science and technology.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: "That without which there is nothing," says the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology — a correct translation of the Latin, as far as I know.

Surely we should have learned from the experience of the scientific community itself and from the experience of the business community, which does not make investments purely on the advice of one chief executive officer or one major shareholder. It insists on objective evidence that an investment will yield a real return or the probability of a return. In the scientific community, the expectation is that the science will be of the highest quality and will be obliged to compete for funding with other proposals and grant applications. Surely we must have learned from decades of experience in that field. It's for that reason that I could not possibly support this section of the bill and that I will oppose it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just have to underline what my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

[ Page 11235 ]

Clark) said. We got some assurance from the minister: "I'm going to rely on the Science Council." I thought, let's check that out. Who appoints the Science Council? I checked the statute, and here it is: "Nine positions to be filled on nomination by the minister." Nine out of 15 — not bad, guys. Then I checked on the other members: "Six to be filled out by a majority of the nine." Fifteen foxes in the hen-house, and they're your foxes. I don't know why my colleagues wanted this assurance about the Science Council. They are your guys.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: We sure do, my friend. You're just trying to move it lock, stock and barrel with your buddy there. That sure deserves a debate that could take us well into mid-August.

Do you guys never learn? We had GO B.C.; this is GO-GO B.C. Come on! There's $420 million, with no checks and balances on the cheques.

Look at Moli Energy, something you knew nothing about and that you dumped.... And that was with expert advice. With expert help, you dumped over $30 million; without expert help, you can watch $420 million go down the spout. Come on! With the state of this government at this stage of the game, you come into this Legislature and ask for $420 million with no oversight, no checking, no review. That's incredible in this day and age. It's pitiful that in the dying days of the Legislature this kind of legislation would come forth.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's been on the books for a couple of months.

MR. WILLIAMS: But if it was a priority for the government, you might have brought it forward earlier. Then we could have had the kind of lengthy debate the bill really deserves.

Seriously, it's a huge amount. One of the things I've learned in the financial area, which I've spent some time on in recent years, is that the scale of things is a real problem. The more I reflect on major items and the way we do business in this world, in government and in business.... It's big that's a problem. It's not ideology, by and large — at this stage in my life, anyway — that I see; it's scale, bigness. Mr. Chairman, $420 million is dangerous, simply because of the scale.

In the lending work I've been doing in another institution, it's become clearer and clearer to me that the scale of lending is the critical question. Moving into larger-scale lending is the dangerous area. The problems go up geometrically. The right thing to do would be to handle this incrementally. Bring in a smaller number and think in terms of smaller numbers, because the great achievements, by and large, are those that start on a small scale. There are lots of arguments about economies of scale and all that. By and large, I don't think they're valid.

This legislation begs for a smaller answer, a smaller proposal, not such a grand proposal, because even with the best will and the best science council in the world, you're going to get into trouble with this, pure and simple. It's too much, too soon, and that's dangerous.

In another financial institution, I worked on a seed capital program with the start-up of small business. As a result of the spending and lending in that area, I concluded that scale was the critical problem, that the best things were the small things. I just urge that on the minister: think small, and you may achieve something; think big on this one, and you're going to get into trouble.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have to respond. This has been a delightful 20 minutes — a lot of good humour, a lot of good messages and a lot of good words. The member for Point Grey was quite delightful. I can assure the member: if you see me at the kaon facility and there's a glowing halo around my head, we've all got a big problem. Think that one through. If I'm glowing in the dark at kaon, then something is wrong. Kaon is a nuclear accelerator; that's what I'm getting at. Think it through.

First of all, in all seriousness, the Science Council is an extremely good group. They've been picked with care by the ministry, and the members may laugh at the act, but nevertheless they are the cream people in research and development in British Columbia. I'm sure the member made his comments about the constitution of that board tongue in cheek, because they are outstanding scientists — men and women who are contributing a lot to the economy and the welfare of our province.

Yes, we can look at Moli, and that's not the cheeriest story; but then you can look at Glenayre, Epic, MDA, and you can see some very good results in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, in all those I mentioned, we have assisted with funding.

I guess I'll close on this. It's interesting that in debate on this act 'we've heard the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) saying it's not enough and the member for Vancouver East saying it's too much. I'll let you fellows sort that out; I'm going to stay with the amount that's in the bill.

[8:45]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

[ Page 11236 ]

NAYS - 16

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, can we have the count again? I'm sure the Clerk read the numbers off wrong. We have 32, and that's more than double the other side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's much to gain by counting it again, since this side of the House won.

Section 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 18, Science and Technology Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to proceeding with the next order of business, there's a matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the members of the House. On Thursday last the government House Leader rose and asked the Speaker to have the buildings inspected on behalf of all the members.

I would first of all like to thank the respective caucus chairmen for arranging cooperation from their caucuses. The areas of jurisdiction in the building for which the Speaker has authority do not include the executive council chambers — an area of the building that is occupied by members of the executive council — so this report does not apply to their particular quarters. However, the people in the RCMP who are involved in doing this type of duty did a sweep last Friday afternoon and evening up until midnight and again on Saturday. They concluded and have advised me that they were unable to detect any devices — legal or illegal — in the building.

However, I would also like to point out that approximately two weeks prior to the start of every session, the Sergeant-at-Arms arranges with the RCMP to have the buildings swept — this would be in the last ten or 15 years, for sure, that I'm aware of and maybe even longer — and there has never been a detection of any device in the building. I am assured by the RCMP that they use very sophisticated equipment and are able to tell.

They did, however, inform me — and I would pass this on to you — that the devices required to "bug" a room are illegal and readily available through any mail-order house, which concerns them. Secondly, you should all be advised that the area of your office which is most vulnerable is the speaker which transmits these very words to your office. That is the electronic area most easily bugged. Thirdly, they cannot confirm any assurances for any of us that off-site telephone lines or communication lines are secure. But as far as the building is concerned, that is the status quo.

I thank you for your patience and your cooperation on behalf of everybody.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that report, as I'm sure all members do.

I call committee on Bill 27.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. JONES: Unlike the previous bill, which we supported in principle but had strong reservations about its lack of checks and balances, and unlike the bill before that, on which we did not support the thrust of the government, we are very supportive of having the geoscientists who work closely with the engineers included in this act. We really have no concerns about this legislation.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the members opposite for their concurrence, agreement and speedy passage, and I'm sure the Association of Professional Engineers and the geoscientists thank you as well.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27, Engineers Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 47.

GUIDE ANIMAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 11237 ]

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[9:00]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, Guide Animal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee on Bill 51.

LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CASHORE: We feel that this section is a less than adequate response to the recommendations of the Mobile Home Task Force report. "The Minister of Labour is to prepare detailed recommendations for an appropriate legislative scheme that would fully protect consumers." That was the recommendation of the report and that has not been fulfilled in this section. The section would cover new manufactured homes only. If you buy a used home through a realtor, there appears to be very limited protection and no quick remedy.

Instead of amending the Motor Dealer Act, the minister should be arranging for section 54(7) of the manufactured-home act to be proclaimed. We feel strongly that manufactured homes should not be under the Motor Vehicle Act. They are a home, not a vehicle, and they have no motors or wheels. This was covered under recommendation 10 of the task force report. I just wanted to make those points with regard to that section.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I believe that the amendment here properly and adequately covers the recommendation of the manufactured-home task force report. We think that that is a complete response to what was requested.

Sections 1 and 2 passed.

On section 3.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I move an amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed section 2(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act and substituting the following:

(3) No landlord, other than an individual who is the holder of a lease under a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding 20 years and is the occupier of the rental unit, shall enter into a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding 20 years, or assign a tenancy agreement with 20 or more years of its term yet to run, except with the prior approval, by bylaw, of the municipality in which the premises are located.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

MR. CASHORE: This section implements in part recommendation 11 of the manufactured-home task force to require prior disclosure of any term that is in the pad rental agreement that specifies a manufactured home must be purchased from a specific vendor. We were hoping that the government would put a stop to the policy of people having to buy from a specific dealer in order to move into a manufactured-home park. A mixture of new homes of different styles and designs would improve the image by moving away from all homes being the same design. Also, in most cases prospective homebuyers deal with the dealer and not with the park owner.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We disagree with that. We are concerned that people be aware of all of the conditions before they make a purchase. This amendment provides that they must be informed. It must be disclosed if it is a condition that they have to buy from a certain vendor. That gives the purchaser the option to purchase that home.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive passed.

On section 7.

MS. CULL: This section provides that landlords have to give 24 months' notice to tenants where an unreasonable number of people live in the home as a result of the birth or adoption of a child. I just want to draw to the attention of the minister what the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, Vancouver region, has to say about this section. They say that it defers and institutionalizes discrimination against children; it gives landlords the right to discriminate against families who have children two years down the road. It's legislating the concept that somewhere down the line, after children reach the age of two, somehow they're intolerable in a dwelling unit.

It also leads to the situation where discrimination against children is going to become worse than it is right now, because there are going to be various ways that landlords find to get around this particular piece of legislation — perhaps by asking tenants to sign agreements that only the parties named in the agreement are actually able to live in that unit. So you go to rent a unit, and the reasonable number of people is determined by the number of people who actually rent it in the first instance. With the birth or adoption of a child, it becomes an unreasonable number of people. Alternatively, specifying some maximum number, again based on the number who initially

[ Page 11238 ]

rent the unit, could prevent this clause from having any effect.

This clause, like the one under section 10 dealing with discrimination against families, and which we'll come to a bit later, is really flawed. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) mentioned this when we talked about this bill in second reading.

We're in a real dilemma here, because the bill is flawed. It doesn't satisfy tenants; it doesn't satisfy landlords. Everybody seems to feel that the lack of consultation with all groups concerned has resulted in a less than satisfactory solution to deal with the discrimination against children. But we recognize the urgency of addressing this matter now, not wanting to be another year down the line before anything is done to protect the rights of families and children.

I'm concerned that this section will be abused in the manner that I've just described. I'd be interested to hear what the minister has to say about the potential for such abuse.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The purpose of this particular clause.... I must say that many of the comments that the member was making could probably have been made more appropriately on the sections that follow. This particular section deals with the case of a couple who may live in a unit, and a child is born into the family.... We know that under those circumstances the family has been put in some difficulty, because they have then been considered to be too many people for the unit and have had to leave their accommodation. This says that if a child is born into a family, they can stay in this accommodation for 24 months from the time they receive notice from the landlord.

It also deals with families that may be adopting. Families that are adopting often have no way of knowing when — or if, for that matter — an adoption will come through; if it comes through, they don't know when that might be. It can be a period of years. If they are suddenly informed that they have been successful in adopting a child, they too have 24 months to reside in that facility without any need to move.

The question of numbers of people that should be allowed in a unit is something I think we can perhaps deal with, and will be dealing with, when we get to the one on families.

MS. CULL: This section does deal with section 27(1)(g) of the act, which deals with "If the number of persons permanently occupying the residential premises is unreasonable" as a ground for giving notice. Again, I just bring to your attention what the Tenants' Rights Coalition has had to say about this particular section. They too say that it only defers discrimination; it doesn't prohibit it. All a landlord has to do to get around section 7 is have prospective tenants sign a tenancy agreement that names them as the only tenants permitted to permanently reside there. What we're doing with this section doesn't deal with discrimination; we're institutionalizing and legalizing it. I think it's a dangerous precedent.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: That is not the case. What we are doing here is providing an opportunity for a child to reside in accommodation for a period of two years from its birth or from when it is adopted into a family. The question of how many people can be in a unit is something that, as I said before, we'll likely discuss when we get to the section dealing with families. But this provides the protection that is needed for parents when a child is born. That's the intention of this particular legislation. If people attempt to circumvent the legislation or in some way carry on in a manner that is not compatible with what this legislation is to achieve, they risk being charged with discrimination.

This is adequate and proper for what this section is intended to do. It meets a need that exists there now. It is not provided for at the present time, but will be with the passage of this bill.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, are you telling me, then, that the statements I've read to you from the Tenants' Rights Coalition and the Human Rights Coalition are inaccurate, that a landlord could not require a tenant to sign an agreement that would stipulate the number of occupants in the unit to be the occupant signing that lease or moving into the unit at that time?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The fact is it will be up to an arbitrator to decide at that time what is reasonable. If the arbitrator decides that it's a reasonable number, then they are allowed to reside there.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. CASHORE: This section deals with termination notice when approval is granted for change of use. I'd like to ask the minister why manufactured home owners are not subject to termination notice until the day the approval is granted, while a renter who's not in a manufactured home but in other circumstances can be evicted before the municipal approvals are obtained. Is that really fair?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The existing situation is that people in mobile homes have received notices in the past that they had to vacate, and they've been given their notice. But they've been given their notice prior to any approval having been granted by the community as to whether or not rezoning the land or allowing a different use of it would proceed.

We recognize that there's a special situation with mobile homes. It is not that easy to relocate. In some cases, the municipality may not in fact give this approval, and it would continue then as a mobile home park. So we felt that in the case of mobile homes, because of the difficulty and the greater expense and inconvenience of having to relocate, people should not be required to have to begin that process until the local government approval has been given for the new use of the property, in order to

[ Page 11239 ]

avoid people having to go through this process only to find that the site continues as a mobile-home park.

[9:15]

MR. CASHORE: In this instance, it's a step in the right direction for the manufactured-home renter, but it's questionable with regard to renters in other circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister this. Wouldn't this have been an appropriate section to stipulate in the act that the amount of notice to be given when a mobile-home park is to be closed should be at least, say, a minimum of six months or even a year? There was an opportunity to have that included in this section. Why wasn't that done?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure just what the question is getting to in this particular case. Could you clarify what your point is? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.

MR. CASHORE: The government should stipulate in the act the amount of notice to be given when a park is to be closed. There should be a mandatory time stated in the act for the protection of tenants within a mobile-home park. It would seem that this would be the appropriate section to fulfil that need.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this section does. It provides six months' notice.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I've had quite an interest in this general subject over the years, and I've found in my experience that there has been some not very ethical practices on the part of mobile-home sales organizations. As a matter of fact, when I was an MP from Langley, I found a policy of continuous evictions in mobile-home parks. The sales agency — perhaps on Kingsway, perhaps somewhere else — would have a prospective customer come along and say: "Yes, I'd like to buy your mobile home, but there's a great shortage of places to park them." They would be reassured: "We've got a pad for you in Langley, Surrey or wherever." It wouldn't matter "We can guarantee you that." The park had a policy of continuous evictions. Because the sales agency leased or owned the pads, people would buy their home and then be turfed out, because there was a shortage. Municipal councils were reluctant to increase the number of mobile-home parks in the area as an alternative housing measure.

I would like to ascertain from the minister whether there is anything in this bill that protects the consumer-often retired people, people who can't afford any other housing.... Mobile-home parks are wonderful housing alternatives for many people. Is there anything in this bill that protects the consumer from the kind of activity that existed at least 15 years ago — that I know of — and may continue to exist?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To the member, I don't know or believe that such activity does exist today.

MR. ROSE: You're naive then.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Maybe I am, and too bad. The situation right now is that if illegal notice is given to a person in that circumstance, he can apply to an arbitrator for a decision on that. Perhaps people couldn't do that at the time you are talking about, but they can now, and so those kinds of cases would be dealt with by an arbitrator.

MR. ROSE: I would like the minister to be a little bit more explicit and to assure the House that this kind of activity, which if not criminal is at least very unethical, will cease under this legislation. It was a serious problem and it didn't happen just once in a while. It happened as part of a continuous policy, and a lot of people were put into terrible positions.

I think that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who is quite interested in this same industry, might be able to elaborate on whether or not that is still the case, whether it was the case, as I allege, or if it's irrelevant.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I would ask the member if he has any information that he can provide me with of this kind of circumstance within the recent past that would be reasonable and appropriate for us to deal with; I'd really like to have it, because that is not a legal act. If that has taken place, we would like to know about it, because we certainly would like to investigate it. We don't think that is happening at this time, but I can't be sure there isn't something that might be happening that we haven't heard about it, so if you have information on that, I would really like to have it so that we can investigate it. It's against the law now. It's not a matter of having to create something new in this bill to protect against that situation, because the situation you describe is illegal already.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to clarify the point that I was not making well before. The notice period should be six months at a minimum, preferably a year. Even the period that it states here, between two and six months, is not adequate.

MS. CULL: I'm having a little difficulty with understanding exactly how this applies here. Maybe the minister could help me. As I read section 8, it appears that notice has to be given if there's an intention to convert to strata under the Condominium Act or to a cooperative or to a long-term tenancy. Notice has to be given to the tenants in the building once that decision has been made or application has been made. Is that correct? I can't see how much notice has to be given. Does it stipulate in here the number of months' notice that needs to be given?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The purpose of this particular change — and there are other changes that deal with time-frames coming up in the legislation, if you've looked ahead — is that now they must give notice. That's new. Before they were not required to

[ Page 11240 ]

give notice. We think it's appropriate that people in this situation have notice, and therefore this section is to make it mandatory that notice be provided. As we come to page 2, you'll find that we'll get into the time-frames that the notice is required for. That's determined by local government — and we'll get to that in the next sections, I presume.

MS. CULL: I'm not certain that with the way this is worded, it would protect tenants of apartment buildings, such as some of those in Kerrisdale, where the buildings were cleared out before the application was made to convert. I'd like to ask the minister: is it possible that the municipality could be dealing with an empty building at the time an application for conversion to strata title or whatever is actually made, meaning that people could be evicted prior to that decision, and this section therefore wouldn't apply?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The situation is that they can't just go and clear out a building; they have to provide notice. If it's their intention to remove the building, they have to provide notice, and that's subject to a time-frame that they have to comply with. They have to deal with the local government in order to do that. They just can't go and evict everyone out of their building.

MS. CULL: As I understand it, the local government's ability to set a time-frame doesn't come into effect until there's an application for a conversion. So the local government power to set a time-period for notice only kicks into place once the conversion application has been given. What I'm worried about is that we will again see landlords getting around this section by using other provisions of the act to deal with an empty building. At that point it won't make much difference whether it's converted or not.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I think we're grasping at outside chances here; it doesn't really make very much sense. I think we have to keep legislation based on some kind of practicality and some kind of logic that would flow with it. It really doesn't seem to me that there would be much sense in a landlord who owns rental accommodation emptying the whole facility out on the assumption that after that's happened, he will then somehow be able to get permission from local government to demolish the building. He may not do that. I'm not satisfied that his situation will be any easier at that point, because it may be clear to all, if he had done that, that he did it for the explicit purpose of demolishing the building in the first place. In that case, he didn't follow the proper process.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. CASHORE: This section deals with moving expenses. We feel that the limits placed are very restrictive. That a manufactured-home owner renting a pad can get expenses of up to six months' rent, and recognizing that section 9(c) also provides that renters or manufactured-home owners may sue for more, is all very well, but not many manufactured-home owners are going to spend $10,000 on moving, be reimbursed maybe $1,200 from the park owner and then find additional funds for the legal fees to sue through the courts. Matters like that would be much better dealt with through a rentals mediator, wouldn't they, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: No, Mr. Chairman. We think the provision here is adequate. I think that it will reflect the costs to a great degree. In some areas six months' rent would be a fairly substantial amount. It certainly is an increase over the previous amount. In outlying areas where the rental per month is cheaper, it would be a lesser amount; perhaps the costs in those cases would be lesser. In the higher-rent areas, it's a substantial charge.

MR. CASHORE: If you reflect on what this government's predecessor was doing in 1984.... At that time they set the removal expense limit at $2,500 for manufactured-home owners if the park owner and the homeowner agree, the agreement is terminated and the landlord fails to advise the manufactured home owners of their rights under the act; $1,000 for manufactured-home owners who rented pads but owned their own home; and $2,500 for manufactured home owners whose pad rental agreement is terminated for reasonable cause.

In today's dollars, inflating the figures by the consumer price index, these amounts would be $3,127, $1,251 and $3,127. The Mobile Home Task Force recommended $3,000 expenses minimum and recognized that actual expenses up to $10,000 were not unknown.

This section would provide, depending on the pad rental, as little as $1,200 expenses for moving a manufactured home, something that puts many of these people who are on fixed incomes into an absolutely untenable situation. Our recommendation is that there be actual expenses of up to $10,000, plus compensation for stress and inconvenience. I wanted to get our position on that on the record. We feel it's inadequate, unfair and discriminatory.

[9:30]

The minister knows that the cost of moving a manufactured home would be the same regardless of how much pad rent you are paying. If one owner pays $250 per month pad rental and another pays $450, presuming they have identical homes, one would receive $1,500 for moving expenses while the other would receive $2,700. This is neither reasonable nor fair.

Task force recommendation No. 3 was for $3,000. That is not enough, especially for double-wides, which are more expensive to move. I'd be interested in the minister's comments on that.

[ Page 11241 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: My comment, first of all, is that you certainly are very generous. I think we all want to be fair, but we also have to be responsible and fair to both parties. The amounts that you are describing are a bit high; but, anyway, you support whatever amount you think is appropriate. In this particular case, I think we can find instances where this might get close to the $3,000 that you talked about, because I've been told that there are places where the rent is close to $500 per month on a rental home. That would be $3,000 in those cases. But in other cases, of course, it would be substantially less.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a similar point with regard to the removal expenses for tenants. In this case, even less money is allowed; it's one month's rent. In many cases, this is not going to be anywhere near what it's going to cost for a tenant to relocate.

Relocation expenses are going to be well in excess of one month's rent in almost all cases. The tenant is also going to be suffering — as well as the additional expense and on top of that — the stress and inconvenience of having to relocate not at his or her choice.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'm not sure that those assumptions are correct. May I just remind the member that this particular clause you're reading and criticizing is new. Previously, there was no amount allowed for that.

We are now saying that they would be entitled to the equivalent of one month's rent. That, in some cases, may cover their costs. I guess it depends on where they're moving, how far they're moving, etc. Certainly it will be a substantial help to the people who are moving. We think it's appropriate, and therefore that's the amount we're recommending in the bill.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MS. CULL: This is where we come back to the discrimination section — preventing discrimination against families. Again, we have a basic philosophical problem with this section.

For the first time, the Council of Human Rights is going to be charged with punishing the respondent, rather than compensating the victim of discrimination. This is different from all other cases that go to the council, as I understand it.

Generally, if a case is found that someone has been discriminated against, the victim receives the compensation. In this case, the landlord is going to be fined. I don't understand why this particular form of discrimination is going to be treated differently from all other forms of discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the member has the correct facts. My understanding is that that's not the way the Human Rights Act works at all. We are not proposing a fine or a penalty for the purpose of rewarding anybody; we're proposing one as a deterrent so that we avoid discrimination. We're not trying to create a reward for discrimination; we're trying to provide a penalty so that people will not discriminate. Your assumption on how the Human Rights Act works is not correct in this case.

MS. CULL: I wasn't suggesting an award for discrimination. I was saying that if a case of discrimination is found, the victim is compensated for the discrimination. Is that not the case?

If that's true, and if my understanding is correct that in other cases of discrimination the victim receives compensation for having been discriminated against — if it's not, I'd be happy to hear about it — it's curious why in this instance the victim is not compensated; rather, the landlord is fined. I understand that would be a deterrent to the landlord, but why is there a different system?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The fact is that there is a fine provision here for the landlord if he, she or they are charged with discrimination. That does not preclude the Council of Human Rights from ordering compensation to the victim; it does not eliminate that. If the council wishes to do that, it has the rights and the powers under this legislation to do it as well.

MS. CULL: Maybe I'll jump ahead to that, because that's another thing I find interesting. I was wondering whether this section actually amends the Human Rights Act. Does it have the effect of creating family status under the Human Rights Act, which can't be used as a basis of discrimination? Is that what you're saying here — that in this case somebody could bring something before the Council of Human Rights?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This does not amend the Human Rights Act.

MS. CULL: Mr. Minister, a number of groups that have reviewed your legislation — the Tenants' Rights Coalition and the B.C. Council of Human Rights — have commented on this fact and found it rather strange. Their concern is that it would allow a landlord's lawyer to argue that the Council of Human Rights has no jurisdiction over discrimination on the basis of family status, because family status isn't covered under their act and it will, in fact, be toothless. They will not be able to deal with this fact. I think you've just confirmed that by saying that it doesn't amend the Human Rights Act. So I'm not sure under what basis the B.C. Council of Human Rights would have the jurisdiction to act if this particular legislation doesn't expand their authority.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This legislation gives the Council of Human Rights the jurisdiction to act.

[ Page 11242 ]

There may be opinions on that, but we have, I think, been quite thorough in preparing the legislation, and the legislation is not flawed at all in the way the member is suggesting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, members. The Chair has found a bug on his desk. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please come and remove this bug from the chamber so conversations will not be recorded.

One moment, hon. members, until the bug is removed from the chamber.

MS. CULL: It's enough to make me lose my train of thought.

I guess we're going to have wait and see what happens as these cases come up, to see whether these other organizations that have looked at this legislation do in fact have a case about the jurisdiction of the B.C. Council of Human Rights.

I think, though, that it's worth stating for the record that if the government had been really serious about providing meaningful protection for families and children, it could have amended the Human Rights Act and given that protection to families and children through the Human Rights Act, as has been done in the cases of Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Quebec, Ontario and Yukon, and that would clarify this. We wouldn't have this conundrum and we wouldn't be wondering what was going to be happening somewhere down the line when the tenants actually try to use the legislation.

I want to go on and ask a number of specific questions in regard to this section. One of the provisions allows seniors' buildings to be excluded, and the act designates people over 55 years of age as being seniors. In Vancouver, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association has seniors' buildings for people over 45 years of age, by special agreement with the B.C. Housing Management Commission. What will be the status of these people? Will the minister be preparing an order-in-council to cover this point? Will they be exempted by regulation?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to refute the statement made by the member that started off with "if we'd been serious." Let me tell you that the government is very serious about protecting the rights of families. We have prepared this legislation and are bringing it forward at this time for that very reason: we are concerned and we are serious about protecting the rights of families.

I suppose the legislation could have been prepared in a couple of different ways. It could have been through the Human Rights Act, or it could have been through the Residential Tenancy Act, which we are dealing with here.

One of the things we were interested in doing was to end discrimination against families while at the same time providing for the rights of seniors and the disabled. We have managed to do that by the way this legislation has been processed and handled.

As for your suggestion about buildings that have people in them who are 45 years old and who are classified in the city of Vancouver as seniors or elderly people, our legislation says 55, so 55 will be the number that will be used for determining whether that is a seniors' building or not.

MS. CULL: The minister said that the legislation could have been prepared in a number of different ways, and I certainly agree. I think one of the ways it could have been prepared that would have improved it is through wider consultation with tenants' and landlords' groups in the province. That would have indicated some serious intent.

I don't think that's a satisfactory answer to the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, which has gone to considerable lengths to develop these projects for people over 45 years of age, with the assistance of your government through the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Let me ask another question here. What happens in the case of a disabled person who has a child? Does this legislation allow the landlord of a designated handicapped unit to discriminate against a disabled person who may have a child?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: In that particular case, the legislation is very clear. The disabled units are to be used for disabled people, and if there is a disabled member within the family, they're entitled to have access to that accommodation. Whether they have a child or not is not the issue. The issue is whether there is someone in the family that's disabled. That's what deals with the disabled units.

MS. CULL: There's also a section in here which allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exclude classes of residential buildings from the protection of this clause. I'd like to ask the minister how he envisions that section being used.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, we don't at this particular time necessarily even envision that section being used. But if there is a requirement, if a situation develops that we do not foresee at this particular time, then the opportunity is within the legislation to be able to deal with it. That's the purpose of it. There's no particular situation in mind at this particular time.

[9:45]

I want to go back to the comment that you made in your previous question that we should have had more consultation with families and with landlords. Believe me, we had a lot of consultation with both parties. We know exactly what their feelings were. You may be confusing consultation with agreement. It's not necessarily that we would get agreement with everybody, but we had enough consultation to know what the concerns were and what the problem was, and we have dealt with that.

MS. CULL: I'm just introducing into the record letters that we've received to the contrary, saying that significant groups concerned about this issue haven't been consulted on it. If the reaction of tenants and

[ Page 11243 ]

landlords is anything to go by, it looks like there should have been a bit more consultation, perhaps coming up with something that would have been more satisfactory.

I want to ask one final question on the exemption. The minister said that someone could come forward and request an exception under that section of the act. What process would the minister see going through? What safeguards would there be that you can offer us tonight to ensure that just any landlord can't come and say: "We'd like our building exempted"?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The assurance I can give you to do what you are suggesting would be contrary to the intent of this legislation. I am not suggesting that someone is going to come forward and use this section to have their particular building exempted. That is not what it is intended for, and it will not be used for that. But if a situation develops sometime in the future that we are not aware of this evening which needs to be dealt with and is an extraordinary situation, then we could consider it.

MS. CULL: I appreciate the intent the minister describes, but it seems to me that the legislation allows the situation I described. Again we're getting: "Trust us. We won't abuse it. We won't misuse it." But we're getting pretty short on trust.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's the government that's putting out the legislation. If the government did not wish to deal with this situation, we wouldn't have to. But we feel that it is appropriate and needs to be dealt with, so we're bringing this legislation forward. It doesn't make very much sense to me that we would circumvent our own legislation. That is certainly not our intention.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

Schedule I approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 51, Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction? I think it's important that all of us understand that the people of British Columbia are intent on everything that happens in this House, regardless of whether it is 10 o'clock in the morning or 10 o'clock in the evening. Tonight I have pulled people — knowing that there is an historical piece of legislation coming before this House — from the beaches, the swimming pools and the golf courses to be here to share with us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to very quickly introduce a few people from Cowichan-Malahat.... Of course, you know my father, Dad. You also know my mother-in-law, Oma; my sister, Bev; a good friend, Neal Burmeister; my brother-in-law, Rijk Visscher; John and Cathy Visscher, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law; good friends Jim and Maureen Dias, other good friends Craig and Alison Meredith and other good friends Renée Letelier and her daughter Kelly. They've all come down here not only because of this historic time, but it's also my wife's birthday — Anneke. Would you please wish her a happy birthday.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's normal under circumstances like this to ask for unanimous leave. I believe you had unanimous rejection.

Introduction of Bills

SENATORIAL SELECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Dirks presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Senatorial Selection Act.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce for the first reading today the Senatorial Selection Act. Major senate reform has always been the priority of the government of British Columbia. Under the present Canadian constitution, Senate appointments are made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada. Under the provisions of Meech Lake, which of course is now dead, the Prime Minister would have been required to choose Senators from lists provided by the appropriate provinces. This bill proposes that at the next provincial election there also be an election to fill any Senate seats from this province that may be vacant at that time.

It should be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that although the successful candidate would not automatically become a Senator, the expression of public will of British Columbians would make it clear to the Prime Minister who should be appointed. This bill should be viewed as an incremental step toward major Senate reform. It is not designed to replace major Senate reform; it is one step in the direction of an elected Senate.

[ Page 11244 ]

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill, I would request leave to read into the record and table in this House a letter from the Premier of the province to the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DIRKS:

The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, PC, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario

My dear Prime Minister:

I am pleased to advise you that the government of British Columbia introduced into the Legislature this evening a bill intituled the Senatorial Selection Act.

You will note from the bill, a copy of which I am forwarding herewith, that the people of British Columbia will be asked, by popular election coinciding with the next provincial election, to choose a person to be appointed to the Senate of Canada to fill the vacancy caused by the recent passing away of Senator Nancy Bell.

As you know, major Senate reform has been British Columbia's number one priority in the area of constitutional reform since at least 1976. I look forward to the day when sufficient support from the people of Canada and their governments will be forthcoming to restructure the Senate along the lines of the triple-E model.

In the meantime, I think it is most essential that whatever democratic elements can be grafted onto the existing institution be taken. Accordingly, I solicit your full support for this British Columbia initiative at this time, and would advise that it is likely that the bill will become law within ten days.

Sincerely yours,
William N. Vander Zalm,
Premier

MR. ROSE: I rise to respond to a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: It was not a ministerial statement. Leave was asked to read a letter into the record, and leave was granted. Leave would be required for you to make a statement.

MR. ROSE: I seek leave of the hon. House to respond to the letter addressed to the Prime Minister

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Campaigning would not be in order at this time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House for its indulgence, and I'm pleased to ignore the gratuitous advice of the Chair.

I would like to say that our party over the years has been opposed to the Senate as presently constructed.

In case any of the members opposite thought that I was looking at the press gallery, I was merely seeking divine guidance before I proceed with the rest of my speech.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I don't have the same fetishes as the government House Leader.

If we have to have a Senate, our position has always been that we prefer to have an elected Senate. The last thing I think we need is a continuation of what we've had over the past century; that is, the Senate as a repository of political has-beens, bagmen, and never-wases. It's time to change that; we agree with that; therefore, that's why my leader put in a bill the other day for an elected Senate, and I'm glad the government has followed his advice.

I'm not certain that I agree with the name of the bill. Instead of the elected Senate bill — or whatever its title is; I haven't seen the bill....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: How do you know you don't like the title when you don't know what it is?

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for her insightful comments, but the problem is that it isn't just an elected senate bill here, it's a "beat the Reform Party" bill. That's what we've got here tonight. What we need in British Columbia, perhaps more than anything else, is somebody to run for Senate who has a tremendous reputation and who can bring credit upon this province. I've decided, though, not to offer my name at this time.

As we welcome this bill, I leave with the plea: "Stan Waters, where are you when we really need you?"

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's nice to see the members opposite support the bill and the wine industry of British Columbia. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that we sit tomorrow from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. I wish everyone a pleasant good evening and move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:59 p.m.