1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 14
[ Page 7789 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
G. Brewin: In the precinct today is a group of 26 grade 4 and 5 students from Margaret Jenkins Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. Barclay. They will be in the Legislature at some point in the course of the morning, and I would like the members of the Legislature to make them welcome.
The Speaker: I have the honour to present to the House the annual report of the commissioner of conflict of interest for 1992-93.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply A to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. In the House this morning, we will do second reading of bills. I call second reading of Bill 38.
EMERGENCY PROGRAM ACT
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill replaces the existing Emergency Program Act with an entirely new statute. The existing Emergency Program Act is out of date. It was enacted during the Cold War era and deals largely with war-related concerns. This bill addresses the government's present priorities for public safety in emergencies and disasters.
Because of its topography, climate and industrial growth, British Columbia is subject to many natural and technological hazards. These hazards, combined with our growing population, result in often unavoidable risks to people and property in emergencies or disasters. Effective emergency preparedness, response and recovery measures are needed in British Columbia to deal with floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and other hazards. This new Emergency Program Act provides the legislative basis for an updated emergency management system.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
This bill requires local governments and the provincial government to provide effective emergency preparedness, response and recovery measures to the citizens of British Columbia. The new act provides the necessary authority to respond to unusual or extreme situations. It provides for liability protection, compensation for loss and disaster financial assistance. Support of local government and emergency service volunteers is continued with the provision of emergency planning grants, training courses and exercises.
The new Emergency Program Act recognizes the critical role of local government. Inevitably, local government is the first to initiate a coordinated response to emergencies and disasters. It is local government that effectively resolves the majority of emergencies. This bill gives local authorities greater ability to take effective action in emergencies or disasters.
This new act will do the following at the local government level. First, it requires that all municipalities establish an emergency management organization to develop and maintain emergency preparedness, response and recovery plans. The vast majority of municipalities already meet this public safety need. Those municipalities that are not now prepared will be required to do so. The requirement that all municipalities prepare for emergencies will provide for the greater safety of all potential disaster victims.
Second, this new act gives local government additional powers and authority to quickly and effectively respond to major emergencies or disasters such as floods or earthquakes. These powers, which are only available in a declared state of emergency, include the ability to order evacuations or to seize and utilize property. These additional powers given to local government are subject to safeguards, including time limitations and the ability of the provincial government to limit or cancel the additional powers assumed by local government.
Third, this bill enables and encourages regional districts to plan and prepare for emergencies and disasters. Although not mandatory, those regional districts that establish and maintain viable emergency measures organizations will receive yearly emergency preparedness grants and training assistance. The new act provides for the training of volunteers as well as municipal and provincial government emergency workers. It enables the development of integrated plans and procedures at all three levels of government. These provisions will further enhance government's ability to ensure effective emergency response and recovery in British Columbia.
In addition to recognizing and empowering local government, this bill provides for more effective emergency preparedness at the provincial level. B.C. is considered one of Canada's most hazardous provinces. We face the possibility of major floods, earthquakes and landslides. These disasters require the province to have the plans and response capability to save lives and property. Comprehensive response and recovery plans are critical requirements at the provincial government level.
I earlier referred to the additional powers and authorities provided to municipalities. These same additional powers may be assumed by the provincial government for critical situations. Extreme situations that threaten life or that have caused widespread destruction may require special measures to resolve them. These extraordinary measures, such as causing evacuations, may be necessary to ensure the safety of British Columbians. These extraordinary powers are only available when the mayor or a municipal council have declared a state of local emergency or when the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council have declared a state of emergency at the provincial level. Declarations would be used only in the most extreme situations. There has not been a declaration of emergency in the 40-year history of the current act.
[ Page 7790 ]
In the unlikely event of a declaration, there are safeguards in the new legislation. For example, the legislation requires that any declaration must identify the nature of the emergency and the area affected and must ensure these details are communicated to the affected people as soon as possible. A state of emergency at the municipal level automatically expires after seven days and a declaration at the provincial level after 14 days. In addition, the provincial government may at any time cancel all or any part of the orders issued under a declared state of emergency.
This bill verifies the government's determination to provide protection and ensure fair treatment to everyone in emergencies and disasters. It provides liability protection for emergency service volunteers and government employees. Compensation for loss is required if a person's property is acquired or used in local or provincial government emergency response or recovery operations. Disaster financial assistance is currently available to flood victims but not to victims of other disasters. This bill enables disaster financial assistance for non-insurable losses in all disasters. Individuals and families, small businesses and farmers who suffer loss in disasters will all benefit from this more comprehensive disaster financial assistance provision.
This bill was developed in consultation with local governments through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. It is similar in many respects to the provisions in the emergency legislation of most other provinces that have updated their emergency statutes.
[10:15]
This bill enables improved support to local government and truly outstanding emergency service volunteer groups involved in emergency programs. Emergency preparedness grants to local government, including regional districts that opt in, will continue. This bill ensures the provision of specialized emergency training courses both at the provincial emergency program training academy and at the local government level throughout the province. This new act provides for all functions required in a comprehensive emergency management system. Support and improvement of emergency response capabilities by local government are emphasized. Coordinated response by the provincial government is assured, and the provision of training and emergency preparedness grants is enabled. This new act will improve emergency and disaster response and recovery in British Columbia.
A. Warnke: In response to the proposed bill before us, I would like, first of all, to preface my remarks by saying that of all the bills that have been shuffled around, at least Bill 38 is one I have a preference for discussing this morning. But I have to say at the outset that I am somewhat surprised and extremely bothered by the organization and presentation of bills and by the consultation that has taken place. I'd have to say that not even 24 hours ago, but since 5:30 last night.... I find it abominable how the bills have been presented before this side and especially before the House Leader. I really think that has to be mentioned at the outset.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I think the member appreciates that we are on second reading of the bill before us. That matter can be considered at another time.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I appreciate the remarks. I really wanted to make that point. I will not elaborate beyond that.
As for the bill before us, the Emergency Program Act, it might be said at the outset that many communities throughout British Columbia -- and I guess throughout Canada as well -- are more sensitive toward the prospect of emergencies and crises that can occur in their neighbourhoods. Fortunately it's not due to war or anything like that. This is an era when there are chemical and oil spills caused by humans; floods, which may not be due to natural causes but may be a result of human actions; and natural disasters, such as earthquakes. We realize that tankers going up and down the west coast are at the peril of nature, and they operate in a situation where anything could occur at any time. Nonetheless, sometimes the cargo they carry and that some ships and tankers carry, such as oil and so forth, may inflict a permanent disaster on the coast which, of course, elicits a response from us. We have to respond immediately and we have to respond as exhaustively as possible. For example, oil spills, if allowed to have some effect, can be disastrous and really permanent, not just for a generation but for many generations. So it is commendable that several municipalities and city governments are sensitive toward the problem of disasters and have moved voluntarily to implementing some sort of plan in the face of disaster.
I know in my own community of Richmond that the local council has done quite a bit to sensitize themselves toward the prospects of emergencies, disasters and so forth. What is really commendable in my own community of Richmond is the effort by many individuals to establish some sort of a plan on a voluntary basis. Indeed, I know of one group that has even gone out of their way to purchase a truck, which is equipped as best as possible with the funds that they can afford, to be used in a local emergency. The funds do not come from any government source. They are solely raised on a voluntary basis, yet they've managed to purchase a vehicle that is fully equipped and ready for an emergency. This would include, of course, radios. Incidentally, I think all political officials must be sensitive to this, because in the case of an emergency -- let's say an earthquake were to occur in Richmond; hopefully it won't happen, but it's not entirely hypothetical -- it's extremely important that MLAs, MPs and local officials respond by getting in touch with radio services established by such an emergency team to communicate, not only to people affected by the disaster but also to those outside the disaster or emergency area, as to what the nature of the problem is and what is immediately required in terms of materiel and personnel, if possible. It is an example of an initiative with many individuals coming together, recognizing that there is the possibility of a disaster and emergency and trying to establish some means to respond to such emergencies and disasters. This is
[ Page 7791 ]
commendable insofar as individual citizens take such initiatives without having to be directed by government.
As I mentioned a moment ago, several municipalities and local governments have been sensitized -- increasingly, all of us are becoming sensitized -- to the prospect that disasters can occur in our back yard. This is indeed an advantage, I suppose, over a generation ago, when many people thought disasters occurred in other parts of the world, but somehow it wouldn't affect them. People are not complacent anymore. They are not apathetic to the prospects of emergencies, disasters and problems that can occur in their own back yard, quite literally, in their own neighbourhood, whether it's a natural disaster or whether the cause is human. Indeed, on the latter we are becoming even more sensitized to the fact that human disasters can occur. I recall what happened to one neighbourhood in New Westminster not long ago, where a person's back yard literally disappeared due to sudden flooding and erosion. The source of that problem was human. That individual, I'm sure, felt there would be no problem with his own back yard, and suddenly it disappeared on him. We're becoming more sensitized to that. The media has played a role in communicating the fact that disasters can occur at any time, in any place, and they can affect ourselves.
So the need for the emergency program and for emergency preparedness certainly exists. Therefore emergency preparedness must be reorganized. We must establish procedures and not just organize some contingency plan but have a long-range plan in place as well. This particular bill outlines the responsibilities of the province and local governments. The province has all the essential features of emergency response in place, and the province is clearly telling local governments to have an emergency response in place. Therefore there is an incentive; it's almost a carrot-and-stick situation. There is an incentive, but there is also a penalty if local governments do not respond.
Fortunately, most local governments -- over 80 percent, I am advised, and maybe closer to 90 percent, of the communities and local governments in British Columbia -- already have some emergency plan in place for a local emergency and are fairly well prepared. Fortunately for the provincial government, the local governments that do not have an emergency preparedness program are very few. So we do not have to go far to make sure that emergency preparedness will be met in all parts of the province. Nonetheless, I can also sympathize with some of those communities. I imagine some of them are large enough that they go over many communities, and it's very difficult to plan and organize an exhaustive emergency preparedness.
This bill allows the local government to have the authority to declare....
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke rises on what matter?
J. Doyle: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair would suggest that it would be inappropriate to make such a request in the middle of a person's speech. However, I will put the question. Shall leave be granted? Hearing no noes, would the hon. member please proceed.
J. Doyle: I had asked the member who was speaking, and I thank him. A constituent of mine from Revelstoke is in the galleries today. Lloyd Good is all the way down from Revelstoke. It's not very often I have someone from the riding. Lloyd is the chairman in the Big Eddy water district and he's down here meeting with Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment officials. I thank the House and the member for Richmond-Steveston for this chance to introduce this gentlemen while he is in the galleries.
Deputy Speaker: It would have assisted the Chair had the Chair also been advised, hon. member. I apologize, because had you said something, I would have understood. Would the hon. member please proceed.
A. Warnke: I have tremendous sympathy for the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke, who was put in an awkward position. I do not mind allowing him to introduce a guest; that's quite appropriate.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I think you can appreciate, however, that there are practices of courtesy, and in the future the Chair should be advised of any such interruptions.
A. Warnke: Under this legislation, the local government has the authority to declare a state of local emergency. There is some difficulty with this bill.... At committee stage we will no doubt pursue the problem of a time frame. Given the complexity of emergencies these days, the time frame for certain kinds of emergencies could perhaps be re-examined. One aspect that I would certainly like to pursue, and pursue rigorously, at the committee stage -- maybe we'll put forward an amendment; I believe I would like to put forward an amendment -- is that an appeal is possible only within a certain short time frame, which I think is difficult. This applies to individuals, and I'll elaborate on it in a moment. We propose a longer time frame. Similarly, I think there is a time frame problem with regard to local governments.
[10:30]
We have to develop emergency preparedness programs, as I suggested a few moments ago. I'm pleased that the government is encouraging all communities throughout B.C. to put forward a local emergency preparedness program. At the same time, we have to ask: at whose expense? We have some concern that having the province pay for the emergency and encouraging communities to establish emergency preparedness programs may, in effect, download some of the costs of implementation. We want to take a look at that. When a disaster occurs, there is the prospect of moneys being paid out of a consolidated revenue fund, provided that the declaration of emergency is made by
[ Page 7792 ]
the provincial government; otherwise, as the bill reads now -- and this is where some clarification is needed -- downloading can occur where the local authorities can borrow money for a locally declared emergency. This is a concern that we want to pursue at committee stage. What I'm afraid of -- and it's just a minor fear -- is that this is perhaps an example of the province shifting some of the financial burden to the local community. If it's a genuine and very profound and serious disaster, the community may have extreme difficulty recovering. In hypothetical terms, one can imagine certain communities suffering a very severe disaster and never fully recovering from that simply because they've borrowed money for a locally declared emergency instead of being helped out through grants and so forth.
I'm also quite interested in how this proposed legislation would affect individuals. I'm pleased to see that individuals who are required to assist in an emergency cannot lose their jobs. I think that's extremely important.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: It's not hypothetical. Many cases have occurred, not only with British Columbians but also with other Canadians travelling through our province, in the case of a forest fire, or whatever, where the assistance of personnel is badly needed in an emergency situation. They are often forced to compromise their job and compromise themselves in a legal context as well. Under the present act people may be fined between $25 and $100, and some people might calculate that and say: "Heck, I'm willing to pay $100 a day, because I have employment elsewhere." We certainly do not want to encourage that; we want to encourage people who will be required to assist in an emergency to be part of that emergency. If the individual is protected from losing their job, that certainly is a progressive step.
Mind you, there is a loose end here that needs to be addressed. While the person may have their job protected, do they still necessarily lose their income? That's not altogether clear, and perhaps we could pursue that at a later stage. After all, those whose assistance is required in an emergency -- and it's good to see volunteers.... Actually, something about human beings is that they do respond to natural emergencies and to all kinds of emergencies -- whether it's local and whether it's small or huge -- and they do remarkably well at them. But at the same time, when we require assistance from people during an emergency, we have to try as much as possible to take the cost into consideration.
When an individual has been severely affected by a disaster and the compensation that is given to that individual is small or non-existent, yet the effect of the emergency is profound, the proposed legislation states that the person has only 30 days to appeal in writing. Imagine an individual who has been affected by a disaster or an emergency. They've gone through a tremendous event, and many are traumatized by that, yet they have to have their full mental facilities, and it's pretty difficult in a genuine emergency or a disaster to keep their facilities fully intact. Perhaps that means soliciting a lawyer to appeal in writing the decision that is being made for compensation. That appeal must be presented to the proper authorities within the 30 days. I would suggest -- and anyone who has gone through a disaster certainly would suggest -- that under those conditions, 30 days is a very short period of time. It may seem like a long period for many people, particularly MLAs, but it is not when one has gone through a traumatic event. Therefore I would propose that at least 60 days, a doubling of the period, is most appropriate.
I will be taking up section 23 at committee stage, simply because there may be a perception of some possibilities of political tampering. We'll get into the details of that at committee stage, but I just alert all of us to re-examine section 23.
I understand the nature of the bill, and the original 1951 Emergency Program Act is outdated. It's not outdated simply because the Red threat or something like that no longer exists. I see civil defence, which was an integral part of the 1951 Emergency Program Act, as still being a part of this proposed legislation. Actually, I would not want to see any suspension of civil defence -- not because we don't have any enemies or anything like that. We may not be living in the Cold War, but the fact is that national security is a core policy required of each nation-state to contribute to the maintenance of peace in the world. But in very concrete practical terms, it is to protect the nation-state against any potential, as well as real, adversaries that may exist. Fortunately, this country is in a state of peace, relative to any neighbours -- certainly those on the entire Pacific Rim. But of course, no one knows; this may not be permanent. Indeed, in the area of international politics, problems can change very radically in a very short period of time. For that reason, civil defence of some sort cannot be fully suspended. But clearly, this proposed legislation recognizes that the purpose and intent of the original 1951 Emergency Program Act is outdated and therefore needs to be re-examined.
Taking a look at emergency preparedness in the context of what we'd do if faced with disasters and genuine emergencies -- earthquakes, floods, oil spills and so forth -- is a move that I think is extremely positive. On this side, we certainly acknowledge that. But there are still a number of questions that need to be pursued in detail at the committee stage, and this is essentially what we will be doing. We will attempt to clarify the role of the local authority in terms of their ability to declare a state of emergency for seven days in their own community, and under what conditions they can declare a state of emergency. We will clarify the need to discuss what constitutes a state of emergency, as well as the conditions upon which the province provides an incentive for communities to establish an emergency preparedness program what financial and other resources it can extend to local authorities to ensure that that is put into place. I do not want to see a situation where the province can say that communities who have still not established such an emergency preparedness program have to do it or pay a penalty. Local authorities may find themselves in the extreme bind of how they put such a program in place.
[ Page 7793 ]
Therefore what I would like to explore at the committee stage is how the province can contribute in a positive manner to ensure that these programs are put into place.
I see my time is running out. I could go on, but those are some of the highlights.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise this morning and discuss the Emergency Program Act. I think the updating of the act is long overdue. The current act has been on the books for many years. My experience in my own constituency over a couple of flood disasters has been that the act was inadequate. In the middle of that kind of situation, one finds oneself simply trying to deal with the legislation that's in place and working to provide the best possible coverage to the people affected. So I want to start by saying that I certainly support the notion that the act should be revised and updated.
I think that the broadening of the definition of items covered beyond flood damage is also important. The focus of the bill on domestic emergencies and disasters is particularly appropriate as well. As I look at the bill, I find myself supporting many of the changes. I also find myself in a position of opposition, looking for those areas in the legislation that I think are less than adequate.
[10:45]
I am somewhat concerned about the powers for municipal government. I am not at all suggesting that there shouldn't be a local or municipal response. I think the difference between the response that might be made by the mayor of a municipality versus the decisions that might be made by the minister are, in part, the fact that the mayor or the local official will be so close to the emergency that the events themselves may trigger some decisions that wouldn't be made from 100 or 500 miles away. Again, I know from personal experiences that when you are caught up in those kinds of events, there is sometimes the possibility that someone will overreact. Someone will look at a series of events and come, perhaps prematurely, to the conclusion that a disaster or an emergency exists or is developing.
When I compare the kinds of responses and decisions that a minister might make with the response that a locally elected or designated official might make, I doubt very much that ministers would declare an emergency or the fact that a disaster has occurred simply on their own information. Normally the minister would have the benefit of some advice and have an opportunity to consult perhaps with senior people in the ministry, perhaps with people in the community, whereas the local officials may well find themselves right in the centre of that event and being called upon.... There may well be an expectation that that person would make an immediate decision and simply make a call from the site. I think that may not always work well. As I said before, I think there may be a temptation to overreact.
I would be happier to see a requirement in the legislation that the municipal officer at least call together councillors or others, and by bylaw or by decision of a majority, even of the people who were available at that time.... I'm thinking of a weekend, for example. If there were even less than a quorum of councillors available, the municipal officer should still be required to call together those elected and senior people within the municipality and make a decision in that way. Certainly we are at least going to consider some of the changes that might be made in that respect.
Again, it is important that there be both a provincial plan and some local response mechanism. I am extremely uncomfortable with the response mechanism that could exist locally. I see too many circumstances that could develop that would put unreasonable pressures on an individual who is designated. I see that person being pressured by people whose property is in danger and by those who might feel there is a risk to the community. I see that person rushing into making decisions that, on reflection, may not be appropriate. I want to be sure that everyone understands that's no reflection on the people who are in the communities or on the abilities of a mayor versus a cabinet minister to make a decision. The point is simply the circumstances in which those decisions might be made.
In a number of areas I am concerned about the possibility of a shift of responsibilities from the province to municipalities. We hear a great deal from the government about its unhappiness with the downloading that it sees from Ottawa. I want to be sure that here we are not simply shifting a provincial responsibility down to the municipality without the transfer of funds that should go with it.
I was completely in agreement with the comments about appeal made by the member for Richmond-Steveston. The damage flowing from a disaster or emergency is indeed traumatic for the people who suffer from it. It is most often individuals. In my experience, it is sometimes people who are not used to coping with those kinds of situations. It often affects people who don't even understand the availability of the support that's there. They find themselves being left out of the process, or if they make a claim and it is not dealt with in an appropriate way, many of them don't really understand the system. I think that 30 days is a very short period of time. Again, in my own personal experiences with flood damage in the Peace, people were coming to my office three and four months afterward and they were concerned because they had discovered damage to an extent beyond what they originally thought, or they were unhappy with the response they had from the people who were adjudicating assistance.
Those are the primary shortcomings that I see. I am impressed with the need to update the legislation. It's important that we have current legislation that deals with these situations. I'm not as sure about how an emergency, in contrast to a disaster, is defined. Reading through the legislation and the definitions, one would get the impression that a disaster and an emergency are very similar events. I suspect that they aren't, and that there can be disasters which aren't necessarily emergencies. It seems to me to apply the same regulations. As I read the legislation, I get the sense that
[ Page 7794 ]
emergency and disaster are considered one and the same, and then the legislation goes on to speak about emergencies. There should be a clearer definition of the responsibilities and powers, both for the minister and for the local officials, to declare an emergency, because I'm not sure that in the event of a disaster one wants to respond in the same way that one might to an emergency. To me, an emergency is something that happens very quickly; one has to move very quickly in order to control the damage and protect property and, more importantly, people's lives and safety. I look at the legislation and wonder whether or not a proper definition of those two has been developed.
Those are my few thoughts on this legislation. I know that our critic has a great deal more to say about this particular piece of legislation. With that, I will take my place and listen with some interest to the debate.
J. Tyabji: I want to preface my speech by saying that Bill 38, as it relates to natural disasters, the response to natural disasters and the allocation of much of the authority for that response to local governments, is a very good thing. I want to make it very clear from the outset that my speech is not going to be dealing with that aspect of the bill. I will be dealing with the definition of emergency and the power that has been given to local governments to deal with what can be deemed an emergency.
I want to start off by saying I'm extremely angry with this bill; and not just this bill, but the fact that when we take Bills 38, 44 and 47 and put them together.... Let's take a selection of events -- the so-called Penticton riots, the so-called Kelowna riots, the Surrey sandcastle event, the Clayoquot Sound demonstration....
The Attorney General is shaking his head. But I would like to point to a couple of things in this bill. First of all, we're dealing with a local authority. It could be a mayor, a member of council or someone who is deemed by the Attorney General to be a local authority. That person can arbitrarily designate an event or imminent event, as perceived by that person, to be an emergency, and therefore, under section 12, exercise sweeping powers to abrogate the rights of people in that community.
For example, I get really upset about what happened in the Okanagan last summer and the summer before with the rights that were given to the local government. This is going to increase the powers of the people who at that time were able to set up blockades and expropriate property from the private vehicles of individuals going into and out of Penticton. They had the power to do that at that time. It was then warehoused. In this case, I'm talking about people driving from point A to point B who happened to have some alcohol in the car. Whether it was for consumption or being transported, it was taken and warehoused, and now we know that under Bill 47 the government can sell it.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General is saying no. I happen to know this. I live in the area and know that that was happening.
For example, we could have a mayor declaring a state of emergency and taking away the rights of individuals in that area because an imminent event is perceived.... If the mayor, a local authority in Victoria or a member of the cabinet decided that an imminent event included a protest on the steps of the Legislature, that could then be ruled an imminent emergency. As we saw with the government's response to the demonstration at the opening of the Legislature, if the potential of something like that happening was perceived, the rights of people to protest might be taken away by this bill.
In the Okanagan there is a lot of fear and concern about what might happen if the youth get together in the summer around any one event. According to the definition in this bill, that could be a perceived emergency. Therefore, rather than try to deal with the source of the problem, now we have the ability to clobber people who are going to get together -- if we perceive that that getting together could be a problem. When we take this bill in conjunction with the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, we know that there's going to be a perception of an emergency where liquor may come into play. In that case, sweeping powers are given not only to the local government but to the local liquor inspector. That also is being increased.
I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate cases where there has to be authority exercised, but it was already there. It was very clearly already there, because we've seen it happen in those situations in the past. So to be giving arbitrary authority to local governments in the Emergency Program Act is regrettable. On the one hand, we need local autonomy to respond to natural disasters; but to give such decision-making authority and such arbitrary designation to people....
We know that the Attorney General has the ability to eventually overrule decisions of local government, although there's time involved in that. But we could easily see a situation where friends of the government happen to be in local government. For example, an NDP mayor somewhere says: "You know there's this potentially embarrassing situation that could come up, and I perceive it might be an imminent event." That "imminent event" can be arbitrarily designated an emergency by local government -- and if it's a friend of this government that happens to be in power, I just can't see this government overruling that friend. I just can't see the government saying: "Well, no, Mr. Mayor, or Ms. Mayor, we're not going to overrule your perceived imminent event."
[11:00]
In fact, I can see quite the contrary happening. A big public relations exercise would come out of it, and they would somehow paint that group as enemies of the government. That has been a standard ploy of government after government, whether it be the NDP or previous governments, federally or provincially. We've seen that happen where a group of people want to get together for whatever reason, and even though we have
[ Page 7795 ]
incidents of it getting out of hand, in large part they don't.
As somebody who represents a younger perspective in the Legislature, I can tell this government that the problem with youth is not in their assembling, it's in the despair that they're facing because of the lack of employment opportunities out there in the economy. Sometimes when they get together that's manifested in behaviour that's not acceptable to people who don't understand where they're coming from. The solution to that is not to legislate against an imminent event that is perceived to be a threat by a level of government; the solution is to get to the source of the problem.
The Attorney General is shaking his head. Maybe the Attorney General should spend some time in the definitions section of this bill. I really wonder why there is such an open-ended definition of emergency. An emergency is not a trivial thing that we can say is an imminent event that can be arbitrarily constituted as an emergency. Where is the protection for the individual in this bill? When we get to other bills, like Bill 44, we see that there's no protection at all. We can have all kinds of arbitrary designation of things. There's no protection for the individual. What happens to the person who stands up and says: "Wait a minute. That wasn't an emergency at all. That was a group we were getting together." What mechanism or avenue do they have for this? Well, they have the government. If the government is friendly with the person who has declared an emergency, what's the likelihood that the government is going to take issue with the designation of emergency and roll back the momentum and say: "No, actually in this case these people were getting together. There is absolutely no sign at all that an emergency was on the horizon." This gives an arbitrariness to the abrogation of individual rights that is totally unacceptable, with no avenue of appeal for the individual. The only avenue for appeal is if the government decides they're going to take action.
On the flip side of things, let's assume that the mayor or the local government that was designating it as an emergency happens to be someone who's not on the political side of the government. Let's say it was a Liberal or Social Credit mayor, or someone who isn't on the political side of the government, and let's say the government happens to be in some kind of frictional relationship with this person. It's an easy avenue for the government to try to embarrass that person by ruling against it. Then we see that under Bill 54 we're not going to have an Attorney General's office any more; there will be a Minister of Justice that is not at arm's length from the cabinet. So we find that we have political decision-making infiltrating the highest law office in the land and that this is open to partisan politics.
Perhaps the Attorney General needs to spend more time considering this piece of legislation and how it relates to other pieces of legislation. He may well shake his head, because the direction that this government is taking, with the kinds of laws it is passing and the lack of individual rights being written into the laws, is truly regrettable. And the only avenue for appeal is through cabinet, and cabinet is hardly going to overrule a mayor or local government that might be overstating the case. That's basically what we see open for abuse in this.
The potential for abuse is wide open. That's the real problem. Addressing local autonomy for national disasters is a good thing, but not the fact that it's been left wide open. In typical fashion of this government they just assume that because they're in government and in control of the situation, they will take care of everyone and this government's final decision is good enough. It's not. What we need are laws that are not arbitrary. What we need is decision-making that can be independent of the cabinet and will allow for the rights of the individual, and not decision-making that will allow an imminent event to be deemed a potential emergency by someone in local government. That's not an emergency.
A mayor or council might say: "We're in the midst of an emergency, and therefore we declare an emergency." Who decides that an imminent event is an emergency? What is the basis for that decision? It doesn't say; it's wide open. So what is the avenue for appeal? The cabinet. Well, what basis of decision is the cabinet looking at? Are they looking at independent ideas? Are there criteria for an imminent event being deemed an emergency? I don't see it. It doesn't seem to be there at all. If we're allowing wide-open, arbitrary decision-making, shouldn't there be an independent body to say yes or no? Or are we going to allow this to be a political tool? That's what I see happening.
Let's imagine that this government isn't the government in power. Let's assume that it's another one. In their partisan ways and their world view this government is fairly gridlocked in what they're trying to do, but it can admit that there are other partisan interests not consistent with its own. Let's assume for a second that we're back two years -- Social Credit mayor, Social Credit government. The Social Credit mayor sees an imminent event. Just to illustrate this for the Attorney General's purposes, let's say it happens to be a group of NDP protesters. The Social Credit mayor says: "Let's embarrass this group, even though they're going to...."
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The remnant of the Social Credit Party here says that they would throw them in jail. That's basically what I'm saying. Let's say it was an NDP event. We've all read The Handmaid's Tale.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, the remnants of Social Credit have not read it. I would encourage them to read it. I'm sure the Attorney General has read it, and that's the point I'm trying to make.
If we go back two and a half years, I can't imagine for a second that this Attorney General would agree with this bill, and with a Social Credit local government and Social Credit cabinet.... There's no way that this Attorney General would stand up and support the legislation. He would say: "Wait a minute. What about if some of my NDP buddies want to get up and
[ Page 7796 ]
demonstrate?" If that demonstration were perceived as an imminent event that might threaten the Social Credit mayor, that mayor could declare a state of emergency, which the Social Credit cabinet would support, and the rights of all of the Attorney General's buddies would be gone -- absolutely gone. From that partisan perspective I'm sure the Attorney General can see there's a problem.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: He says there isn't a problem. That's interesting.
In the committee stage of the bill I want to see some more specific answers. If this bill, in conjunction with Bills 44, 47 and 54, is going to lead us in the direction that it seems to be leading us, then based on historical precedents, based on the research that I've been doing and based on events as I've witnessed them in that area, we are strengthening the ability to remove individual rights with greater arbitrary decision-making for local government. That's significant, and it's something I can't support. It's something that unfortunately flavours this bill.
If this bill dealt only with greater local autonomy in response to natural disasters, that would be great. It would be wonderful. But it doesn't. It introduces an insidious arbitrariness that from my perspective isn't justifiable, given the amount of authority and power that's already accorded through existing legislation. Having read The Handmaid's Tale, having read what has happened in other jurisdictions in real life and not just in fiction, when the state has the ability to remove individual rights because of a perceived threat, which can be defined as an imminent event.... An imminent event is an emergency?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I've read it. That is what it says.
It is this kind of open-endedness that we will have to address. I hope it will be addressed through an amendment, but if nothing else, I hope we will get a commitment from the Attorney General that nothing out of this bill will be used as a political tool. That is a serious concern.
G. Wilson: As the designated speaker on this bill I'll try to keep my remarks directed toward two principal aspects. The first is the section on natural disaster, and the second is the question of emergency. There are two areas of that which need to be looked at.
The bill itself, the Emergency Program Act, and what is being put forward here, is one that I think the people of British Columbia will take some comfort in, on the question of a natural disaster and the requirement for a municipal plan to be put in place for disaster response. In those instances, we know that most municipalities have been working for some time on disaster response plans and emergency plans that will allow the municipality an opportunity to deal with forces of nature that result in serious harm or destruction of property and where there may in fact be widespread damage within a region. That's one thing I'll talk about regarding this bill. I think there are some interesting aspects with regard to trying to attack that. The second matter is with respect to the question of what is essentially perceived as an emergency.
I will try to pick up a bit on some of the comments and directions introduced in the debate by the member for Okanagan East and talk a bit about what this bill has to say. In that section, in dealing with those kinds of aspects -- realizing of course that it is unusual and in fact not permitted by the rules to debate more than one bill at a time -- it is important that we link the succession of powers being granted with respect to Bills 38, 44 and 47. I think those are connected, and we can't look at them on their own. Ultimately we have to look at what the response of this government will be to that aspect.
In that particular section, we say that this bill might actually be better entitled the Penticton riot act, because I think there is a need to designate that in terms of an emergency response. Interestingly enough, if you go back and look at some of the newspaper clippings and the recommendations that were made because of problems that resulted with respect to what were perceived as emergencies because youth were out of control and because of the establishment of essentially the riot act, you can recognize that when you have these kinds of problems -- and they do exist -- municipal and local governments obviously want to have some power and authority to be able to deal with them. The question is how much power, and to what extent do we look at the extinguishment of rights when looking after and addressing those kinds of emergencies. So there are two sides to the bill. There is the question of the natural disaster, the natural forces of nature; and the second is the rather broader definition of what constitutes an emergency and how we deal with that.
On the first section, then, let me start by saying that we welcomed -- in fact, I for one, and I'm sure the Liberal Party, celebrated -- the long overdue entry into the national emergency preparedness program, something we had looked forward to this province getting into. In the dying days of the former government, they finally decided that there were federal dollars available and that we ought to be tapping into those much more directly, so that we could have those dollars distributed to the local communities and municipalities in the province. In fact, if we look at it historically, British Columbia has not really received its fair share from the federal government over the years. Now that we have recognized that emergency and disaster planning is important and necessary, I'm pleased that we finally do have a source of some federal dollars, which I hope this government will be aggressive in attacking so that we can in fact get our fair share.
If we look to see what the local authority is in terms of the organizational requirement, we recognize that most municipalities and local authorities today would certainly be very pleased to be able to engage themselves in looking after the natural disaster response that they would be charged with under this act. In looking at their obligations and responsibilities, we also have to dovetail with it the obligations and
[ Page 7797 ]
duties of municipal officials elected under the Municipal Act in terms of their role in the response to natural disasters that may occur in their communities.
It's all very well to say that you are going to require that a local authority prepare an emergency plan, but the plan itself is not the only thing we should be concerning ourselves with. Plans will require action. Actions will take some kind of response team. Response teams need to be trained, and dollars need to be available for that training to be put in place. Dollars also need to be available for action taken when natural disasters occur.
[11:15]
It is a statistical certainty that there will be a major earthquake in British Columbia at some time in the next number of years -- possibly decades; we don't know. Similarly, by nature of our geology and geography and the fact that we are a coastal community and are on one of the largest active fault lines in North America, we know that when an earthquake of significant magnitude does occur it may cause significant and extreme damage in some communities. We can mitigate such damage in those communities where a preparedness plan and an action plan have been put in place.
The recent earthquake in San Francisco is proof positive that if you plan ahead and start to put in place building codes and a natural disaster response team, and if you effect proper and sensible management plans and put some resources into those plans, you can mitigate the loss of life. You can also provide an orderly response to the kinds of problems that result from such a natural disaster: such as a BLEVE -- boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion -- from ruptured gas lines; problems that may result from tsunami action, such as tidal waves and flooding; problems that may occur because of ruptured water lines that may cause flooding; and problems that will result because of broken power lines that may cause fire and, as a result, much greater potential for loss of life and hazard to property. The San Francisco earthquake is a clear and obvious example that you can mitigate the loss of life. If there was a story out of that San Francisco earthquake, it wasn't the significant property damage -- and there was significant property damage in some areas that were near the epicentre of that quake -- but the fact that there was virtually no loss of life; human injury was minimized. Also, there had been a significant response and ability to respond to that natural disaster in a manner that allowed for evacuation of certain sections of the city and for an orderly progression of workers to come in and take care of it.
I don't think that we can take that much comfort in British Columbia that we have effectively put in place such an emergency response. I don't say that as a condemnation of those who are actively involved in the planning; the problem is that for many years we have not taken this kind of planning seriously. If we look at the centres that are designated for response in some municipalities -- and I don't necessarily want to name them, because I don't wish to embarrass those municipalities that are affected -- the heart from which the response team is going to be directed is often in a place likely to be most affected. I can think of one that I am very familiar with, where the centre for emergency response is essentially built on a landfill and is right next to two major bodies of water. As somebody who is involved in geography and geology and understands the effects of earthquakes, I can tell you that if there was an earthquake, that area would likely be one of the first to sink and be made unusable as a result of such land action. We also know that placing these emergency response centres in lowland regions and regions that are or may be subjected to flooding would also render them useless in the event that dikes break in the Fraser Valley and there is significant flooding. That flooding will take the very response heart that you want to have acting with you out of play.
[C. Serwa in the chair.]
It isn't enough to simply say that we're going to cause the preparation of a local emergency plan to prepare for response and recovery from emergencies and disaster, as it suggests under section 6 of this bill. There has to be much more than that. There has to be an honest and real commitment by government not only to provide local authority with the necessary resources to put the plan in place but also to take some realistic action that will allow those municipalities to act on it.
Similarly, it is important for us to understand that in the preparation of these plans, we have to recognize that communication and transportation are two of the most critical elements in an emergency response. If you can't get response people to the site, then clearly your ability to respond and deal effectively with an issue is lessened. If your communication is immediately disrupted as a result of a natural disaster, then your ability to even understand the complexities of what has occurred and therefore put an action plan in place is going to be less. We need to recognize that in terms of emergency response and natural disasters, there has to be a greater commitment to a provincewide network of communications systems that will allow municipalities to link into that network and allow us an opportunity to get by local communications networks that could quite easily be taken out of service.
I can tell you of a personal example, when a boat overturned on the Sunshine Coast. There was a potential drowning. Local respondents went out and managed to bring the people to shore. They needed emergency response and phoned 9-1-1. It was answered, I believe, somewhere in the lower mainland or possibly over on Vancouver Island or in Prince George. I'm not sure where the dispatcher was who picked it up. They didn't have a clue where the Sunshine Coast was, didn't know where Halfmoon Bay was, and had no knowledge at all of the local geography. As a result, we had a very difficult time getting any response to that person through the 9-1-1 service. Eventually, the local fire department came out and dealt with it. That was because somebody knew Joe, who lived down the street next to Sam; Sam got a truck and went out and got the local fire department; and the next thing you knew, this person was looked after.
[ Page 7798 ]
In a natural disaster, Joe and Sam may not be around to help...
J. Tyabji: Or Betty.
G. Wilson: ...or, as the member for Okanagan East reminds me, possibly Betty or Jill. We have to keep this gender-equal.
British Columbia needs a provincewide network that is secure and can lock in to an emergency situation, so that we have an effective way of communicating. Also, the people involved need to have or be able to immediately access some reasonable knowledge of the areas that may be affected by the emergency. It isn't enough to simply say it's up to the local authority to deal with that, because local authorities may very quickly be beyond their capacity to respond.
Let me point out another instance in an isolated, single-industry town. While not wanting to promote my constituency too much or to alarm those that live there that there may be problems, let me use Powell River as an example. Powell River is an area that is isolated, in the sense that you need one of two major ferries to get there. The area has a major industrial centre that is serviced by a rather large reservoir in an area of land above the mill. If there were a major earthquake -- 6, 7 or greater -- I can tell you that most of the facilities, including the old hospital, would not be there. Hopefully the new hospital is built to earthquake standards, but most of those facilities would unlikely remain in their natural state.
How do we get to and access that community? If we needed to evacuate as a result of whatever hazard may have occurred, how would we possibly deal with that? You couldn't rely on the B.C. ferry service, that's for sure. You certainly couldn't evacuate by helicopter, because the numbers would be far too great. The airport would have a limited capacity; because of the shortness of the runway you could only bring in aircraft of a limited size. How do you deal with those communities? You could apply the Powell River natural disaster example to many communities. I don't want to put numbers on it because I don't know, but you could use that example in many cases throughout the province where we understand that the plan is not the end. We have to have a realistic response potential. In order to have that, the government cannot try to remove the responsibility that lies with the provincial government to provide a provincewide system of response.
A concern that I have with this bill is that we're essentially attempting to push down to local government the responsibility for initial response and for the establishment and implementation of such a plan. We are removing the clear obligation and responsibility from the province to have a broader strategy that looks at the province. We need to have a secured provincewide communications system network, which is difficult because we live in a mountainous province. We live in an area where even modern satellite technology has difficulty making those communications systems work, but that provincewide system needs to be secure. Furthermore, we need the implementation not only of local plans, which this bill calls for, but of an overall provincial strategy so that in the event of a natural disaster, resources are made available. Those resources are going to effectively allow for the easy and quick dispatch of personnel to deal with the emergency.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
It occurs to me also that part of our problem with this bill is that there is a cost involved in the opportunities for local municipalities to put these plans in place. In looking at those costs, one of the areas that seems to be omitted from this bill is a clear definition as to how (a) the money is to be obtained -- where we get it from -- and (b) that money is going to be allocated -- how we can fairly and equitably apply those funds to each of the municipalities.
As an elected member of a local government, I was involved in the establishment of the provincial emergency program in that area. Fortunately we had a retired navy commander who was an excellent person to head up this authority, and the cooperation of the local RCMP, ambulance service, fire departments, various unions, union reps who were involved in mills and so on and safety personnel who were there. The community came together and worked out an excellent plan. But the difficulty was that in order for that plan to be effective, we needed to have certain technical materials and instruments for communication. We needed something more sophisticated than a telephone, because in an earthquake one of the first things that goes is your telephone line -- the telephone lines are all down, so a telephone is rendered useless. A radiophone is often not useful. As I said, we live in a mountainous community, and there are many areas where a radiophone is not going to work. We have to have a system that provides you with broadcast-quality facilities, because not only do you need communication between safety workers, rescue workers and other such people, but you also have to have a means of communicating to the public in order to stop widespread panic and inform them as to what is going on. The public has to know what the nature of the disaster is and what we are going to do.
[11:30]
In an earthquake, I think most people would figure out what has happened. But what happens if hazardous chemicals are trucked through a community and there is a chemical spill and noxious gases are released? That happens on a reasonably frequent basis. There has to be a plan, and most communities have a plan in place now. But when you have that response, there is a dollar figure attached to it. The communication that is necessary through public broadcasting services is available, but you have to have some dollars for the cleanup, the response and any mitigating effects. The Attorney General, in putting this together, suggests that there are all kinds of ways in which you can push the authority for a natural disaster down to the municipalities and communities. But it doesn't say here that there's going to be a proper system put in place for financing of such a plan. It's not cheap, and we all know that the taxpayers don't need an additional burden.
[ Page 7799 ]
This province needs to start now to annually designate a certain levy to be put into an emergency preparedness program so that those dollars are available, accruing interest and growing. I don't wish to be an alarmist and I'm not necessarily a fatalist -- I think that we can often decide our fates and fortunes by what we do and say -- but one thing is statistically certain: there will be a major earthquake in this province sometime because we live on a very active fault line. That major earthquake is going to happen. We need to have our plans in place. We need to know which areas are most likely to be affected, and we need to have that fund levied in order to be able to have those areas prepared.
Let me point out another example, to do with the oil spill off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Here we were in a province that had a major oil spill and a major natural disaster on our hands. At that time we had absolutely no adequate response available to us. Even though we had the very competent and capable Coast Guard, and even though we did have provincial emergency programs with people who were very capable and prepared, we didn't have an action plan tailored to any kind of real team that was going to go in there and deal with the problem. In fact, we had a difficult time even sorting out what the magnitude of that problem was until it started to hit the beaches of Vancouver Island.
We learned a little bit from that lesson. We not only need preparedness in terms of what we're acting with in the province of B.C, but we need to start to talk to our neighbours to the south. We need to talk about a strategy to the people and residents of the area in the Georgia basin, generally. Most of the time such a natural disaster will not fall only within the boundaries of B.C. Indeed, municipalities need to talk to each other because the strict lines between municipal jurisdictions will not be regarded by any natural disaster.
In this provision I don't see where the province is assuming the kind of obligation and responsibility that it requires. There's an awful lot of downloading to the municipal governments in terms of what they're looking at. Let me be very clear that the municipalities want that, as the member from Prince George pointed out. I know, because I was trying to build one in my own community on the Sunshine Coast. I was tremendously frustrated by the fact that at that time we were not even linked into the federal program -- which this province should have been -- and it made it very difficult to get it. So they have been requesting that. In providing them with those services, we have to make sure that we don't simply say: "Okay, by legislation, we have now required this of you." We recognize the difficulties and how complicated it's going to be to put that in place.
We have to make sure that by doing that we don't obfuscate the responsibility of the province with respect to three things. One, it's absolutely essential that we assist in the overall coordination, planning and communication. Secondly, we must provide some kind of annual levy. It doesn't have to be onerous or large; in fact, it can come from a proportional amount of general revenue that goes into an accruing fund to be able to meet natural disaster costs when they occur. That's something that should be done. Thirdly, there has to be a provision that brings the municipal plans together so there's an integrated and coordinated response and so we don't have to try to deal with that coordination problem when the disaster occurs. That's a role this government could and should play, and that's a role that clearly is not spelled out anywhere in the detail of this bill.
In the first area, there are some things in here that we think are good. It says clearly, as I say, that they're responding to requests by the municipalities. In that first area, there are some interesting emergency response sections that we could look at.
The second area is perhaps is bit more sensitive and needs to have a bit more care. It isn't spelled out in a manner that would be obvious on first reading. But as we start to look at it, we can see that there are areas here that this minister needs to address in order to alleviate some fears and concerns. The second area is this whole question of the definition of emergency. I'd like to read it into the record, because the minister was saying a few minutes ago that it doesn't say that; in fact, it does say that. It states: "'Emergency' means a present or imminent event that requires prompt coordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to protect the safety, health or welfare of people or to limit damage to property...." That can be read in many ways. If the minister is saying that he's talking about trying to prepare for a flood, fair enough. There are regulations in here that say the government can access private property and do whatever it wants in the event that it is trying to prepare for an imminent emergency. Section 10(1)(i) says that the bill will "authorize the entry into any building or on any land, without warrant, by any person in the course of implementing an emergency plan or program or if otherwise considered by the minister to be necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency or disaster...." If you read that in conjunction with the other two, that's where that principle comes in. We're talking about prevention here. Again, in the definitions, which I think are important, the bill says that a local emergency plan means "an emergency plan prepared under section 6(2)." So what I've just been talking about for the last little while is covered under section 6(2).
The conjunctions "and" and "or" are important when we start to talk about disaster and emergency in section 12 under "Declaration of state of local emergency." This causes us concern, and it's something that I think the minister needs to address Subsection (1) says:
"...if a local authority consists of more than one person, the head of the local authority, may, at any time that the local authority or the head of the local authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that an emergency exists or is imminent in the jurisdictional area for which the local authority has responsibility, declare a state of local emergency relating to all or any part of the jurisdictional area."
The local authority is the municipality, the regional district or whatever. So if the head of that authority -- i.e., the mayor -- thinks that there is an imminent emergency, the state of emergency can then be brought
[ Page 7800 ]
to bear by that local authority. That increased power is currently not there, and we need to look at what the consequence of that might be. It says: "a declaration of a state of local emergency under subsection (1) must identify the nature of the emergency and the part of the jurisdictional area in which there exists or is imminent...." The declaration must be by bylaw or resolution, and so on.
I would like to spell out the reason for our concern so that in his closing statements the minister has an opportunity to alleviate our fears, if they are unfounded. I would be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can prove these fears to be unfounded, because at the moment it looks fairly straightforward. When we look back at the clippings from the concerns that existed as a result of so-called riots during the Penticton Peach Festival, when we start to look at the problems associated with some unruliness that happened in Kelowna.... I have had delivered to me some of the clippings we were reading with respect to White Rock and the sandcastles, and I just wanted to bring this point into play. The headline in one article was "Booze Washes Sandcastles Away." Alcohol and alcohol-related activity and the riots and disorderly function of people are of concern.
As I said at the beginning -- even though it's not traditional and the rules prohibit us from dealing with various bills at the same time -- if you read Bill 38, then you look at Bill 44, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, and the powers given to the regional manager, you understand that goods expropriated can be sold by the government. We know that in Penticton, roadblocks were set up. We know that alcohol was confiscated from people who were transporting it, even though some of them were transporting it for distribution to restaurants. We're not talking about people drinking and driving, and we're not talking about people drinking opened bottles of alcohol in a car; we're talking about people who were delivering cases of wine and beer. They were stopped in a roadblock, that material was confiscated, and there has been no compensation. This dates some years back, obviously, but I think it's an interesting concern. The organizer of this event said -- and I'm assuming the paper quoted correctly:
"We feel that there would be a risk of injury or even more serious actions if we allow the competition to continue with beer parlours open on Sundays.... When you have 120,000 people in an area like this, you need an ideal situation. We've had minor problems come along over the years -- gradually the party animals have felt it is their turf -- and we're not prepared to run the risk of this year being a bad one."
If you have a festival or an activity, and if you bring in.... What is it? Ice. I guess I should, but I can't keep up with all these rock stars. If you bring in a group of performers and have a large public assembly -- a summer festival such as you might have in Penticton -- is this bill likely to provide municipal government the opportunity to recognize when that assembly starts to get out of hand? Under this bill, the mayor may have the power to say: "Look, we're now on a Saturday evening, and things are getting out of hand. There is a riotous situation here, an imminent emergency. We are going to invoke this bill. Through this bill, we no longer have to get the traditional declaration that we local authorities can in fact act." If that's the way to read that -- and certainly one can read it that way -- then we have to ask why we're providing that kind of authority and power to local government without some procedure for the provincial authority to maintain policing and law enforcement on a larger level.
[11:45]
None of us on this side of the House are advocates of civil disobedience or riots that create the kinds of difficulties we have seen in either of these two examples. But if we move the authority with respect to what constitutes emergencies, we have to recognize that the declaration of a local emergency -- and the powers of the authorities in the local emergencies -- provides a certain number of restrictions of civil liberties. The minister may very well come back and say: "Look, this all has to be done with respect to an emergency response plan." But under section 13 it also says that such a local authority may "implement...any local emergency measures."
There isn't a Canadian who doesn't remember the War Measures Act and what power is constituted in the state in the implementation of that. I'm not suggesting that this bill does that necessarily, but I think we have to be very careful. When any legislation comes before this House that removes civil liberties and freedom of movement and provides the state with the power to simply go in and confiscate private property, which this bill does, that is a pretty serious matter. The public in British Columbia want to know what the declaratory powers are in a local emergency that provide a local authority with the power to restrict my freedom to move, to enter my property without warrant and to confiscate that property, if it's deemed that, in the public interest, they are avoiding what may be seen as a local or an "imminent" emergency. I think that's the key word. It's not when the riot is in place; it's when you think it's going to happen.
In looking at that, we really have to weigh fairly carefully whether or not this bill goes a little further down the road than we first understood it could or would. The section that I think is interesting to look at deals with the powers granted to local authorities -- municipalities, electoral areas and so on. In the event that such action is taken, the local authorities have significant powers granted to them that they ordinarily would not have. It is in the provision of those powers that we really have to ask ourselves some questions. For example, you can "acquire or use any real or personal property considered necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects...." I emphasize "acquire." It says you can "control or prohibit travel." That's a restriction of movement. It says you can "authorize the entry into any building or land, without warrant...cause the demolition or removal of any trees." You can involve all kinds of powers under declaration, which means that you can start to change the nature of various public facilities with respect to this act.
It's not that we are opposed to having the provisions of local government to deal with an emergency. We
[ Page 7801 ]
want to know what the definition of an emergency is. We want to know what the minister means when he talks about "imminent." We want to know whether or not there is -- and we suspect there is -- a direction relationship between the introduction of Bill 38 and the introduction of Bill 44, which allows a manager to terminate a liquor licence on the basis of drunken behaviour. This is exactly what we were talking about with this article, "Booze Washes Sandcastles Away," or this article from Penticton that says: "Tougher Rules Against Alcohol to Curb the Revellers." We'll get into some of this as we start to look at Bill 44.
As we look at Bill 47, it says that once you've confiscated these assets from private citizens, the Crown now has the right to sell them. So not only do you have the question of assets being confiscated without compensation, but the Crown gets to sell them.
Just by way of an aside, I'd be interested to know what happened to the volumes of unopened alcohol -- some of it in bulk being delivered to various restaurants -- that were confiscated in the Penticton situation. Where is that and what has happened to it? That's by way of an aside, and I realize that we need to get back on to the bill.
So let's take a look at the next and last major area of the bill that I wanted to talk about. It has to do with compensation for loss, and what happens to a person's real property. Again, I want to come back to the disaster side of this bill, recognizing there are two sides to it. With your indulgence, hon. Speaker, I need to read this section, because I think it's important for us to understand it. Section 18 is the exemption from civil liability, which says essentially that no person, including, without limitation, the minister or the other members of the executive council, is liable because of their requirement to carry out measures relating to emergencies or disasters. Section 18 exempts from liability for any loss, cost, expense, damage or injury to person or property that results.
Notwithstanding section 18, section 19(1) says:
"Despite section 18, if as a result of the acquisition or use of a person's real or personal property under section 10(1)(d) or 13(1)(b) or (c), the person suffers a loss of or to that property, the government or the local authority that acquired or used or directed or authorized the acquisition or use of the property must compensate the person for the loss in accordance with the regulations."
That's interesting, because it relates directly to what I was just talking about a few minutes ago with respect to the ability to enter into, use and acquire private property. Section 19(2) says: "Despite section 18, if a person suffers any loss of or to any real or personal property as a result of any other action taken...the government or the local authority, as the case may be, that took or authorized or directed the taking of the action may compensate the person for the loss in accordance with the regulations."
This is a critical section, because it would be the only section that we would address or look to in terms of compensation for property loss. The area that we have some concerns about is with respect to the power of the state or the local municipality to enter into and essentially abrogate loss. That's interesting, and it's something that we are going to raise in committee stage and will want some definition on, and I flag this for the minister to make note of.
I understand that we're talking in principle on this bill, and I don't want to get into too much of the detail, because there is a principle behind what I am about to say. I'll be brief, because I see the hour is getting close to noon. Section 19(3) -- we're obviously talking about real property here, and we're going to go after this section -- says: "If any dispute arises concerning the amount of compensation payable under this section, the matter must be submitted for determination by one arbitrator or 3 arbitrators appointed under the Commercial Arbitration Act...." The dispute over compensation is going to be a big issue here, because we have seen in the past -- and I can go back to the difficulties with the floods in the Squamish floodplain area, the problems in the Fraser Valley with property losses as a result of natural disaster and flood, the difficulties on Vancouver Island with damage and loss as a result of natural disaster and so on.... Governments traditionally have been loath to come up with any compensation. Provided we acknowledge and accept that there is a buyer-beware concept, people who live on floodplains can expect that at some time that plain will flood; that's why it's called a floodplain. I don't mean to be facetious about that, but that's a fact. If you live on a floodplain, you can expect....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, I really don't mean that facetiously. There are three-year, five-year, ten-year, 15-year, 20-year, 30-year and 50-year floodplains. And you can expect that they're going to get flooded. That's why they're called floodplains. So if you live on a floodplain, expect to get wet.
The second thing is if you live in an area where there is obviously unstable terrain. Most municipalities and local authorities today are putting areas that they say are geologically or geotechnically unsound for construction in their land use plans and flagging them within the building codes. They are designating in their plans those sections of land which are clearly hazardous. Most municipalities that I'm aware of will put in a clause that will protect them against further damages. They usually do it with a save harmless clause, but it could be something else.
It seems to me that there needs to be something in this act that makes it very clear that if we're to look after the compensation program for the taxpayers, those people who buy, and in particular those developers who choose to develop, land that is going to be subject to land slip, flood or some natural disaster that is determined and defined within a community plan or a land use plan should hold some liability. You can't expect the fifth buyer down the road who buys in faith, thinking that this is an area that obviously has gone through the normal zoning, planning and what have you.... There has to be some actionable recourse for people who have bought into what is clearly an unsafe development. We're not always as rigorous as we should be in maintaining and protecting what we might
[ Page 7802 ]
call protected areas or areas that are potentially subject to natural hazards or disasters.
Hon. Speaker, I see that the hour is almost noon. Therefore I would seek leave to adjourn debate and recommence after 2 o'clock.
G. Wilson moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:14 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued)
K. Jones: I'd like to start with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and then go on to B.C. Systems and the Lottery Corporation.
Starting with the B.C. Building Corporation, it appears that the fair wage program instituted by the Ministry of Labour has been a considerable failure. It has not accomplished even the most partisan of objectives set by the government. That being said, we in the opposition are quite concerned about the impact of the fair wage program on the projects built by B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could the minister provide the committee with all tenders and final accepted bids for projects of the B.C. Building Corporation for the last year after the fixed wage program was implemented?
[10:15]
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
The Chair: The hon. minister, on those aspects of the question which fall within her ministerial responsibility.
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have a fixed-wage program; we have a fair wage policy. I can't give you that information right now. If you want that information, we can supply it to you at a later date, but I think it would not be in the committee's best interests to go through all of those tenders at this point.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister would be able to elaborate on what the facts are with regard to those contracts, as to the effectiveness of the fair wage policy.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know of all the projects that were under the fair wage policy. As you know, it was only those that were over $1.5 million. As I said, we'll have to get that information for you.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a rundown on the status of the Jack Davis Building?
Hon. L. Boone: From what I understand, it is almost complete. It is due to open very shortly, and ministry staff are currently making arrangements to move their offices over there in the next couple of weeks.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the financial status of the project? What was the actual cost of construction, and how does that differ from the estimated cost?
Hon. L. Boone: In 1991 BCBC entered into a contract with Sandbar Construction to construct the building for $18,554,300. As it is not complete, we don't have the final figures. We can get those to you when it is completed.
K. Jones: There must be a running total kept on the costs, and the status must be kept by the project manager. Could the minister tell us how far off budget the project is at the present time? What percentage of completion has been reached?
Hon. L. Boone: From what I understand, it is close to being on-budget, but I will get that information for you.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if there are any complications with the project? Maybe she would like to elaborate on what complications may be involved.
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, BCBC has filed a statement of claim against the firms of Lafin Holdings Ltd., Kasian Kennedy Architecture Interior Design and Planning Inc., and Choukalos Woodburn McKenzie Maranda Ltd., alleging negligence and breach of agreements. That is in the courts and I'm not able to comment any further on that situation.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of the scope of that action, as to....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The rules of debate clearly preclude matters that are before the courts. I would request that the hon. member pursue a different line of questioning.
[ Page 7803 ]
K. Jones: I feel that knowing something about this will allow me to relate directly to the ability of the ministry or the corporation to be on budget with this. Therefore I think it is very important to have a measure of the scope of the claims involved. It is not a matter of going into the legal action or anything to do with that; it is a matter of the order of the claim so that we know what potential is involved.
Hon. L. Boone: As the Chair stated, it is before the courts, and I am not willing to talk about it.
K. Jones: Since there was a statement, which is a public record, filed in court, could the minister tell us what that statement is? You can't be hiding behind the court when there is something public that has been established there, hon. minister. You have a responsibility to know and to bring forward the facts to this committee -- not the facts involving the case but the facts as presented in public.
Hon. L. Boone: If you had listened, I did answer all of that earlier. I told you who the claim was against. The corporation alleges that the architect and engineer were negligent and did not exercise reasonable care, skill, diligence and competence. As a result, the corporation has incurred significant additional costs and is claiming recovery from the architects. That is the limit of what I know with regards to the litigation that is before the courts, and at this point I cannot go into any further explanation.
K. Jones: I have a great deal of patience with the minister, but I think the minister is going a little beyond reason in not stating the public information that was presented.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair does not have a great deal of patience. The Chair has instructed that matters before the court are improper for debate. Would the member please pursue a different line of questioning.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what BCBC's plans are for establishing a regional Forests office in Nanaimo?
Hon. L. Boone: We're currently working with the Ministry of Forests to establish their requirements in Nanaimo. The decision to place a building in Nanaimo is not BCBC's decision. That decision would come from the Ministry of Forests. We, as usual, merely respond to our client's requests.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly how many square feet are being requested for that site?
Hon. L. Boone: Fifty-five thousand square feet.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of the cost estimates for that type of office space, and whether it's intended to be leased or built?
Hon. L. Boone: We are really at the preliminary stages with regard to an estimate, and it is intended that the corporation would be building the building.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of the schedule for completion of that building?
Hon. L. Boone: We hope to have the building completed by the end of next year.
K. Jones: Is December '94 correct? For the record, the minister nods yes.
Could the minister give us an indication of what is involved for the downtown core of Victoria, with regard to new office space and auxiliary facilities that would be required? Are B.C. Buildings or the ministry involved in the ferry terminal proposal on the harbour here?
Hon. L. Boone: We are involved in the ferry terminal proposal.
We are very much involved in the Victoria accord. The Victoria accord and strategic plan will take three to seven years. It's a large plan. It incorporates a lot of land currently owned by BCBC and some owned by the Capital Regional District. BCBC is working very hard with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Capital Regional District capital planning, the mayor and council, citizens' and community groups and everybody around to try to make sure that what is decided with regard to the space plan and the Victoria accord meets the requirements of governments for their needs and office space but also recognizes the heritage values very dear to the hearts of many in this area and the neighbourhood values as well. The James Bay area is very sensitive to what goes up and how the space around the buildings is developed. We're determined to take into consideration the concerns of all the individuals and groups there, to make sure that what does take place is acceptable to everybody and meets the needs of the province.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what's planned for this year for government buildings in connection with the Victoria accord?
Hon. L. Boone: There will be no construction this year, but we are still in the planning process. As I said, a very extensive process is involved when you try to involve communities, and to take into consideration the requirements of a city and all the people there. What we are looking for is rezoning for the Y lot and precincts.
[10:30]
K. Jones: With regard to the Victoria accord liaison and planning processes, how much money is allocated from the B.C. Buildings Corporation to facilitate that planning? How much manpower, or womanpower, or personpower is assigned to that? Or how many FTEs is the ministry or the corporation using?
Hon. L. Boone: About $1 million from BCBC and about half a dozen people.
[ Page 7804 ]
K. Jones: Six people and $1 million for planning the process. Is that for one building, the Y lot? Or does that include provisions for additional buildings for Government Services to move into? Does that include the St. Ann's Academy planning or other alterations?
Hon. L. Boone: It includes planning for everything in the accord, including the costs of consultants.
K. Jones: Is the situation, then, that BCBC is providing all of the planning costs for the accord committee, or are some others contributing to that?
Hon. L. Boone: Other Crown corporations are contributing, but I'm not sure how much. You'd have to ask B.C. Transit, for example.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us who else, other than B.C. Transit, is contributing to the planning process? And what is the total planning budget for the accord?
Hon. L. Boone: I know the Crown corporations secretariat is involved, and I believe that that's probably all the Crown corporations. I'm not sure if B.C. Systems is involved or not; I don't think so. The city of Victoria is also involved. We will have to get back to you on the whole budget, though.
K. Jones: Since the minister has brought up the item of the Crown corporations secretariat, could the minister tell us how much funding is going from B.C. Buildings Corporation to the secretariat for its operations? Could she also indicate the types of projects that are being used to justify that expenditure of money? What work is the secretariat doing for B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: We would have to get back to you on the amount. Each of the Crowns are charged a portion to support the secretariat's office. The secretariat has done a lot in terms of coordinating efforts -- pulling some of the Crowns together. They have worked with the Crowns on some purchasing issues and have been very instrumental in pulling together the various partners to work on the Victoria accord. There are a number of different issues where they in fact go in and help do some training for the board members. When new board members come on, the Crown corporations secretariat has gone over and helped to take them through how a board works, how a board functions and what the roles are for board members. There are a number of different things that the Crown corporations secretariat does on behalf of all Crowns.
K. Jones: It's interesting that the role described for the Crown corporations secretariat is one that is normally done by the senior officer of the corporation or other board members who would guide the way. It's very unusual to have to bring in an outside agency that has been created by this government in order to give fundamental board operation training. I find it very hard to believe that that is the sole role that they have. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they even have that role, because the qualifications that the people have for the Crown corporations secretariat really aren't in that line. Could the minister tell us more specifically what project work the Crown corporations secretariat is doing for B.C. Buildings Corporation and how much money is going to the secretariat from B.C Buildings. I'm sure the minister knows how much is going out from each of her Crowns and her ministry to fund outside agencies, particularly when it's the nature of this one.
Hon. L. Boone: I already told you I would get that information for you. As we did this last year, I thought you'd grasped the fact that I don't have anything to do with the budgets of the Crown corporations. That has to do with the boards.
For the first time ever, the Crown corporations secretariat is making an effort to coordinate the Crowns. There is some recognition that the government has a role in determining how Crowns function and that it is responsible for some of the actions of the Crowns. I think it is fair to say that when we inherited the Crown corporations, those that actually come under my jurisdiction were well run and under control. In the review process undertaken by the Crown corporations secretariat, there were no major problems with any of the Crowns that I currently handle.
In a number of the Crowns, however, there were significant problems in terms of management, handling of cash and the work they were doing. This came out in the media. The Crown corporations secretariat made sure that those operations came under review.
Significant changes have taken place as a result of that. Some of those corporations' dollars have been reduced significantly. You will have to ask the other Crowns what they have done in those areas. They are a major player in the Victoria accord, a major government project. Working with BCBC on that issue is a significant part of the work they are doing.
K. Jones: This is interesting. Could the minister tell us why the Crown corporations secretariat is a major player in the Victoria accord and what role it has? There doesn't seem to be too much involvement by Crown corporations. What's it doing? Is it doing the planning for the government, or is it controlling the various authorities that are involved? Is it telling the city of Victoria how it should be doing its planning? Is it telling the Provincial Capital Commission how it should operate and the Capital Regional District how they should do their thing? Is it that powerful?
The Chair: The hon. minister, on those matters that fall within her ministerial responsibilities.
Hon. L. Boone: Much as you would like to think of it as powerful, coordination does not mean telling people what to do, hon. member. Coordination means getting the various players to the table and assisting people in pulling things together. That's what coordination is. That's a very worthwhile job, and that's
[ Page 7805 ]
what the Crown corporations secretariat does in the Victoria accord effort.
K. Jones: Do we have to bring in the Crown corporations secretariat because the B.C. Buildings Corporation isn't able to do that type of coordination? Are they incapable of doing it? Is that why they have the secretariat there to do it?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC is not in there to control anything. They are there to act as a function and to do their job, which is to develop building projects on behalf of the government. The Victoria accord goes beyond that. It is working with the city of Victoria and with B.C. Transit. It is developing a whole accord there. It is pulling all of those things together. The Crown corporations secretariat plays a very useful role in pulling these various partners to the table and in working with them to help coordinate the whole project.
It would be very difficult for a project such as this to get started with BCBC, which is merely the corporation that manages buildings on behalf of the government. To extend their jurisdiction beyond that and to ask them to work with the city of Victoria or with B.C. Transit in such a way is not within their mandate. It is something that they wouldn't be considered to do. The Crown corporations secretariat has provided a very worthwhile function in making sure that information is exchanged, that the parties are there and that the whole project keeps flowing.
Keeping a project of such magnitude moving is not an easy thing, hon. member. We're talking about a lot of construction and a lot of planning. A lot of different groups of people have to be pulled together to ensure that this happens. It is not going to take place overnight. As I told you earlier, it's a seven-year project. It will be pulled together, and it's going to come about with the cooperation of all the groups in the area. The Crown corporations secretariat has a very useful role to play there. To insinuate that they are driving this or that they are telling the Crowns what to do is really not valuable at this particular time.
K. Jones: I get the impression that the minister is saying that BCBC, which for many years has worked on major projects, is now -- since this government has taken over -- incapable of doing liaison and coordination work with the other parties that are involved, as they are in many different projects. For some reason we have to get the Crown corporations secretariat to do the job because of some incompetence or incapability or something the minister has identified; otherwise she wouldn't have involved them. I understand that the Crown corporations secretariat doesn't come into a Crown or ministerial situation unless the minister invites the agency to come in and take a part in that. Could the minister tell us whether she has invited the Crown corporations secretariat to be involved in this project of the Victoria accord?
Hon. L. Boone: I did not invite the Crown corporations secretariat. The Crown corporations secretariat provides a function; he and his office have a job to do. They were involved in this. A project of this magnitude has never taken place in this province. The BCBC staff are extremely competent, and I would defy anybody to say they can't handle everything thrown at them. But it would certainly not be up to them to initiate discussions with B.C. Transit, or with the city with regard to the harbour, to pull those people together to talk about it.
These are government initiatives. The government has pulled these people together. The Crown corporations secretariat was asked to coordinate this on behalf of the government, and they are doing so.
K. Jones: If the minister didn't invite the Crown corporations secretariat to be involved in this project, which is primarily operated by the B.C. Buildings Corporation she is responsible for, could she tell us who did invite them?
[10:45]
The Chair: Hon. members, the rules of debate provide for examining a minister on those areas for which the minister is responsible. I would remind all hon. members that the Minister of Finance is also available for those matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. The Chair recognizes the hon. minister on those matters which fall within her authority.
Hon. L. Boone: You have to understand, hon. member, that BCBC is only involved in approximately two of these things: the Y lot and the precinct. The harbour is the city's responsibility. The Capital Commission is involved.
The Crown corporations secretariat was asked by government as a whole to coordinate this for government. BCBC did not initiate this. We did not go to the Crown corporations secretariat and say: "We want to do this thing. Would you please come in on this?" This was a government-initiated project. The Crown corporations secretariat was asked to coordinate it on behalf of the government.
K. Jones: Just a little history on the Crown corporations secretariat: that came into being last year with the establishment of the government, didn't it? When was the Victoria accord established?
The Chair: The Chair is of the opinion, and stands to be advised if incorrect, that the Crown corporations secretariat reports through the Minister of Finance, and is open to estimate debate through the Minister of Finance. The Chair recognizes the minister on those matters which fall within her responsibility.
Hon. L. Boone: The accord was announced in July and signed in August.
K. Jones: August '92?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
[ Page 7806 ]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much vacant space the B.C. Buildings Corporation has at present? How much of it has been vacant for more than 30 days?
Hon. L. Boone: The vacant space is 0.5 percent throughout the province, the lowest that it's been in five years. The normal situation in the real estate industry is generally a 5 percent vacancy rate, so for BCBC to operate on an 0.5 percent is admirable and shows good management skills. Vacant space in Vancouver, for example, is 18 percent. So we are operating in a good percentage range. As to how many have been vacant for over 30 days, hon. member, I can't give you that figure at this particular time.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much vacant space there is and what locations have been vacant for over 6 months?
Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that information for you.
K. Jones: When will the minister be able to have that available to us? We'd like to explore it within these estimates. Is that possible?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly how many square feet of vacant space occur in the general business district of Victoria? What are the plans for the additional space that has been brought on line by the Jack Davis Building and other vacancies?
Hon. L. Boone: We're currently trying to find that. I can tell, you, though, that the vacant space in Victoria is extremely low. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing on the Victoria accord, because we are at a significant disadvantage; there isn't the space available for offices, and we don't have the options that are necessary to allow us to move into the space around town.
As to the space that's around here, the member will just give us some time. In Victoria, the total vacant leased office space is 8,596.
K. Jones: Square feet?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
H. De Jong: The B.C. Buildings Corporation is an area that interests me too. I have a few questions on the procedures as they apply to when a building is required. Just to give an example, if the Minister of Forests needs an office facility -- say, in Cranbrook, or wherever -- does the Minister of Forests then get the approval from cabinet to proceed to BCBC to either look for a building suitable to their needs, or to build one, or whatever? What kind of work is being done before the decision is made to proceed with the construction of a building under BCBC? Is there an opportunity given to that particular community where the building is needed -- for whatever ministry -- to say whether there is that space available? Or is there an opportunity given to the private sector to provide such a building? What would the cost of that building be per square foot on a rental basis versus the cost that would be incurred if it was built under BCBC?
Hon. L. Boone: I will try to answer your questions. There are a number of different questions in there.
If a ministry wants to move to a different office space within an area and it's within their budget -- if it is under $150,000 -- it does not have to go to Treasury Board. They would come to BCBC, which would then look within its current bank of space to see if there were something available for them and would try to fit them in there or find a space suitable for them.
If they want to construct a facility, they would have to go to Treasury Board to get planning and approval, then it goes back to BCBC. Before it's all announced, it has to go to Treasury Board again, so it does go to Treasury Board several different times to make sure the approval is there.
As to whether or not you or the private sector actually build, BCBC does all of those things. In Prince George just recently, for example, there were human resources offices built through the private sector. The private sector built them and BCBC leases the space from them, as they do in some of the other areas. They would look at it in terms of what is most cost-effective and what the long-range plans are for those areas. If they think a building is going to be required there for a long time, and that there are going to be the needs in that area and there's nothing suitable, then they will construct a new building.
But we do look around and, as I said, the private sector does build and BCBC leases. They do lease space in buildings already constructed, and they will in fact build their own buildings. So BCBC does all of the above.
H. De Jong: The minister hasn't been quite clear on whether BCBC does survey the community -- whether a 55,000-square-foot building, for instance, is needed in, let's say, Nanaimo. I have some concern in that respect, because I would like to know whether this office space is available in Nanaimo. It may not be available in one place, but it's not always essential that an office component of a ministry is all located in one building. It's nice to have it that way, but what is the vacancy rate of office space in Nanaimo at the present time? Has that been researched? Is it absolutely essential to build another new building to provide that kind and quality of space? Is the space that is available in Nanaimo inferior to the minister's needs? I would like to have some answers.
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC does do surveys to find out if there is space available. The ministries dictate what they want, and they wanted it all in one space. BCBC was unable to find the space available there.
One has to recognize that in the past couple of years BCBC has also become a lot more knowledgable about
[ Page 7807 ]
how to deal with communities. They have been working with communities on a number of different issues -- some of the places around where there is a suggestion for a youth detention centre, for example. For various reasons -- not always legitimate -- communities may not want to have a particular facility in their area. BCBC has worked with those communities. It has, in fact, changed its plans and moved to different locations. It has tried to work with the councils and the communities to make sure that what they are putting in there is not in contravention of what the communities want. We have seen considerable planning and community involvement in the Oakland area to make sure that the city of Burnaby and the community were involved. We changed some of the plans to accommodate more social housing and to make sure that the density was what the communities wanted.
BCBC's recognition of the sensitivities in communities about what is going up in their areas is commendable. I also think it is important to recognize that the chair of the Buildings Corporations recently wrote to me asking me to ask my colleagues to review their plans -- to see, in these tight economic times, if what ministries are requesting is actually required. I think that is a strong point. BCBC cannot, of course, tell ministries that they don't need this, or any of those things, but they are concerned. Dollars are tight, and they do recognize that we have to spend our dollars very wisely. I must commend the chair for taking that stride to actually ask ministries: "Do you really need this? Is this what we need to do if you are going to spend your dollars here. Is this what you want to do?" So I have asked the ministries to look at that and to advise me on what their planning processes are.
[11:00]
H. De Jong: I understand that BCBC doesn't necessarily have a construction crew; that they probably retained a contractor. Or if a project goes out on a total contract, the contractor will then be the contractor and he will sublet the other contracts within such a contract. If that same contract was put out to the private sector in total, in terms of ownership and potential re-lease by the ministry versus the process going through BCBC -- a Crown corporation owned and operated, you might say -- does the secretariat come into play there as to the evaluation of one against the other? Or is that evaluation completely done by the BCBC corporation and then forwarded to the minister with the final report on both aspects?
Hon. L. Boone: The secretariat is not involved in the everyday operation of BCBC with regard to how things take place in those areas. It would be BCBC's best business decision as to how government should function. They do base their decisions on what is best for government, on what provides the best services for us and what is the best for us economically as well. They take the long term into consideration: do we want to continue to pay rent over a long term, or do we want to purchase a piece of property that the government then owns as a valuable asset? All of these things are taken into consideration when BCBC makes its decisions.
H. De Jong: I have a last question on the Nanaimo situation. I understand it is not being built yet -- it is still in the planning or preparation stages, you might say -- but is the private sector being given the opportunity to bid on the project that BCBC is intending to build for the B.C. Forest Service?
Hon. L. Boone: The private sector will be given an opportunity to build it, but not on a build-lease effort. It will be built on behalf of BCBC. They have done the studies and they have all the necessary information, which indicates that it's to the province's best advantage to build in that particular area. So we will be building a site there that will be owned by BCBC.
H. De Jong: Does the minister not feel that this is a deterrent to private investment in British Columbia? Here we have a Crown corporation making write-offs on buildings in given years because they are not paying. Obviously that cost is added to the deficit or the accumulated deficit -- it's a cost the taxpayers will have to pick up sometime down the road. Does the minister not feel that private investors really should be given an opportunity here? And by not giving them an opportunity, would she agree that we are really not enticing private investment in British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: There are a number of different buildings that are leased, but I think one has to look at the taxpayers and the best value for the dollar, and that's the bottom line that BCBC has. Surely you're not insinuating that we should always rent, because this would mean that the government would constantly be owing money and never be owning anything outright. It's an investment for government, and that's what we have to look at: where the best dollar for the taxpayer goes.
There are cases where in fact buildings are built by a company and we do lease. In those instances, that's the best dollar for us and for the taxpayer. But where there is going to be a building of long-term duration, such as a forestry building, surely the member is not suggesting that we should be paying rent forever when in fact we could be buying that building. I far prefer to pay off a mortgage and know that I'm getting some value for my dollar than to pay rent all the time and have it go down the tube, which is exactly what we would be doing there.
H. De Jong: I have to disagree with the minister. First of all, there are a number of benefits deriving from private sector investment. I have already mentioned the lack of investors' confidence in British Columbia at present because of this government policy.
Secondly, most of those buildings are built by a corporation of some sort, so the corporate tax immediately applies. I'm not sure whether BCBC in fact pays the corporate tax to British Columbia. If they do, it comes out of one pocket of the taxpayer and is put into another, so whether they do or not really makes no
[ Page 7808 ]
difference. Those things have to be taken into consideration when a building is built by BCBC. Surely, if the public isn't even given the opportunity to make a proposal on a similar basis to BCBC's plan, I don't think that is democratic at all, even though the New Democratic Party likes to call itself that. So I have great difficulty accepting that this government has this kind of policy because, first of all, the ministers make their appeal through cabinet to BCBC, so there is really no chance for the British Columbian to make their investment available -- what they want to invest in British Columbia to provide for the services given to all British Columbians. In my opinion, to be involved is the expectation of British Columbians. British Columbians -- not governments -- have built this province, and surely we wouldn't want it any other way.
Hon. L. Boone: That's very interesting, because the Jack Davis Building -- which has just been in construction, and we just went through -- was proposed by the previous government. The tenders were put out and the decision for BCBC to build that building was made by the previous government. Buildings have been built by governments throughout.
What we need is the mix that takes into consideration the needs of the province and the taxpayer. That's what we have: a mix of buildings owned and constructed by the private sector and buildings owned and operated by the government. That is no different from the way it has been in the past. So for the member to suggest that this is a New Democratic policy, and that suddenly we are changing the way government is operating is absolute nonsense. You know better than that as well, hon. member. So I would suggest...
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. minister.
Hon. L. Boone: ...that we maintain what we're doing, which is looking after the taxpayers' dollars and providing the best business case for what we do. That is what BCBC does. If the dollars dictate that it is to the taxpayers' and the ministry's advantage to lease and put it out to the private sector, then that is what we do. If the dollars indicate that the business case is that we should be constructing a building, then that is what we will do.
In many cases communities out there are very anxious, hon. member, and see a government building coming in as showing a commitment to that community. A forestry building constructed by the government in a particularly small community in the interior or the north is seen as showing yes, government is committed and going to stay here, and this shows it. If they do not make that commitment and put it into the hands of the private sector, they can just leave, as somebody that's on a lease; the commitment is not there. Mayors and councils have talked to me about this issue. I think government has a role to play in community development and certainly in watching taxpayers' dollars. BCBC does that very well.
H. De Jong: I'm not going to elaborate on this much longer. The minister has said that at least on smaller projects they are trying to give the communities or the individual entrepreneurs the opportunity to build and lease. The minister also stated that this is still a possibility. Could the minister indicate how many projects have been built over the last couple of years in British Columbia, how many have been built within the corporation's overall mandate and how many have been built and owned by the private sector and leased to government?
Hon. L. Boone: If you're inquiring about the past couple of years, we will get that information for you. A representative of BCBC has indicated that we lease more than twice as much space on Vancouver Island than we own.
With regard to the question from the previous member, the amount that BCBC paid to the Crown corporations secretariat last year was $163,890, the B.C. Systems amount was $94,000, and the B.C. Lottery Corporation amount was $37,378. That's based on a $10 vote. They charge all the Crowns that contribute to the operations of that organization.
H. De Jong: I have another question on a slightly different matter. It also deals with the Crown corporations. I understand that in the NDP takeover of government a number of buildings were deemed not to have much of a return and were written off. This, of course, escalated the deficit substantially. Have there been any buildings written off in the last 12 months?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: We know of no buildings that have been written off. There are a number of areas where we are disposing of property. I mentioned Oaklands, formerly the Oakalla lands. We're working right now on the Colony Farm. We're developing a community process to deal with that issue. There's the Jericho lands, where we're still sort of in limbo right now. There are a number of different areas with property owned by BCBC that we're looking to sell to the private sector for development. We are working, as we did in Oaklands, with the private sector to develop those areas. But I don't know of any buildings that we have written off.
[11:15]
H. De Jong: Are the funds from the sale of those properties returning to general revenue, or are they staying within the Crown corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, we haven't actually disposed of any yet, other than Oaklands. Only a portion of that has gone up for sale. We are working to develop the package on it, and the moneys come back through BCBC and then are returned to government through dividends. As you know, the Crown corporations pay dividends -- B.C. Systems, BCBC -- to the government, so they are returned to government. But there are costs involved with that whole development process, and those costs are paid, of course, through BCBC. Then any excess would be turned over to government through dividends.
[ Page 7809 ]
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us who Sam Bawlf has a contract with?
Hon. L. Boone: He works with the Crown corporations secretariat.
C. Tanner: And didn't Sam Bawlf make the suggestion to the Crown corporations secretariat vis-�-vis the Victoria accord?
Hon. L. Boone: You'd have to talk to the Crown corporations secretariat on that. The minister responsible for that is the Minister of Finance.
C. Tanner: Did Sam Bawlf consult with the B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, Sam Bawlf has been involved with the Victoria accord and with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.
C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate who else Mr. Bawlf had contact with? Specifically, did he talk to the Provincial Capital Commission?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer on behalf of the Provincial Capital Commission, I'm sorry.
C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate to this side of the House other dealings between Sam Bawlf and the B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: The only involvement that Sam Bawlf has had with BCBC is around the Victoria accord.
C. Tanner: Does the minister see the St. Ann's Academy suggestions and proposals, including the two buildings on the Y lot, as part of BCBC's responsibility or as part of the Victoria accord and Sam Bawlf's recommendations?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC did a report on St. Ann's Academy for the Capital Commission.
C. Tanner: Perhaps the Chair understands some of the problems we're having here. The minister is bouncing us among the B.C. Buildings Corporation; Sam Bawlf, who works for the Crown corporations secretariat; the city of Victoria; and the Provincial Capital Commission -- all of whom have some responsibility. As we talk to each minister, we get told to go to another minister.
What this side of the House and the people of Victoria would like to know is exactly who is controlling and making suggestions and who has the responsibility for both the Victoria accord -- some aldermen of the city of Victoria don't understand who's running that -- and the St. Ann's Academy proposal. They are particularly concerned about a $90 million investment, which the minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission has said they're going to spend.
The other problem they have is that they're not satisfied that BCBC has done a sufficient survey on what is available here, and on the impact that those two buildings built on the Y lot would have. You are moving money from one ministry to another, and the public never has an opportunity to make any comment on it.
The Chair: I understand your comment, hon. member, but the minister is only responsible for those areas that come under the direct administration of her office. If these other areas are not under the minister's office, it would be out of order to offer answers.
C. Tanner: Perhaps the minister would like to explain those situations concerning the Victoria accord and the St. Ann's Academy proposal, which come under her responsibility as minister in charge of BCBC.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said before, BCBC is responsible for the precincts and the Y lot. The Y lot is in the Humboldt valley. We have made recommendations on St. Ann's Academy to the Capital Commission. Those were just recommendations that came from BCBC. We did a study on their behalf. But the decisions that were made with regard to St. Ann's Academy came from the Capital Commission.
C. Tanner: I would suggest that they didn't come from the Capital Commission. The Capital Commission was dragged in at the last moment for the simple reason that they needed a front for the suggestions that actually came form Sam Bawlf via the Crown corporations secretariat working in conjunction with BCBC -- which is your responsibility, Madam Minister.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member, please.
C. Tanner: I don't think you are giving us a straight answer. Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister is giving us a straight answer to the question of what the involvement of BCBC is with both the Victoria accord and St. Ann's Academy.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know what you want me to do. I have stated what we did. We weren't dragged in; we were asked to do a report on behalf of the Capital Commission. We did that. That is our involvement. It is straight, it is clear. If the member chooses not to believe me, that's his choice. But I have no further answers on this. I can't change it.
C. Tanner: Could the Chairman then ask the minister to table that report in the House or at this committee?
The Chair: No, that's not possible in committee.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money was paid to Mr. Bawlf in this contract made with regard to the Victoria court?
[ Page 7810 ]
Hon. L. Boone: As I explained earlier, Mr. Bawlf is paid by the Crown corporations secretariat in the Ministry of Finance.
K. Jones: We'll take that up with the Minister of Finance, then. Could the minister give us an idea of what is causing the delay in occupancy of the former temporary court facilities in Cloverdale that have been left vacant for almost a year and a half -- maybe almost two years? Could she give us a justification as to why that facility is not in service?
Hon. L. Boone: The delay has been caused.... BCBC was working with the Ministry of Environment to identify its needs so that it can move into that space. The Ministry of Environment will be moving into their ministry. BCBC has been working with them on that.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when the Ministry of Environment will be moving into that site?
Hon. L. Boone: The program hasn't been finalized yet.
K. Jones: Would that be within this budget year? If so, would that change the economics of B.C. Buildings by having revenue coming in from that facility, or is planned that that facility will continue to be vacant throughout this fiscal year?
Hon. L. Boone: Before the end of the fiscal year.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is holding up the move in there? B.C. Buildings must have some idea why Environment is failing to move into this. Is it because there's something wrong with the site or facilities?
Hon. L. Boone: It's our understanding that they were consolidating from a number of locations. As to why the Ministry of Environment has been a little slow in getting its plans together, you are going to have to talk to the Minister of Environment on that.
R. Chisholm: I want to talk for a minute about the Chilliwack courthouse. I want to know if the procurement of the land has been finalized for the Chilliwack courthouse at Young Road.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
R. Chisholm: Is there any time frame for the start of the new courthouse? Has that been finalized, or worked out with the Attorney General's office?
Hon. L. Boone: No finalization. We are still working with them on that.
R. Chisholm: When this courthouse is finally built, are there any plans on what would be happening to the old courthouse buildings -- uses such as community services and that type of thing? Has that been looked into at this stage of the game?
Hon. L. Boone: No, it hasn't been decided yet.
K. Jones: With regard to the property that was owned by the government in the area of east Surrey -- normally referred to as Stokes' Pit -- and the adjoining properties to that, could the minister tell us how much the property sold for?
Hon. L. Boone: I will have to get that information for you. I don't even know where Stokes' Pit is, so I can't tell you how much it sold for.
K. Jones: To assist you, it is in the 24th Avenue and the 184th to 196th area, and it ranges from 20th Avenue up to 32nd Avenue in Surrey. Could the minister tell us what is being done to facilitate providing for consolidation of government offices in the outlying communities, and what plans are being made with the removal of the assistant government agent to change the usage of the building? Is there any change in the size of government requirements?
Hon. L. Boone: Recognizing changes in government's needs, there are currently 14 different space plans being worked on throughout the province.
K. Jones: Could the minister be more specific as to what sorts of areas are being affected by these space plans?
Hon. L. Boone: The province is actually divided into ten different regions, and the plans are based on those regions. There are specialty plans -- forestry, highways, Attorney General and fish hatcheries.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what BCBC is doing to bring more women into their operations?
[11:30]
Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to say that BCBC is doing what the restaurant industry is doing, which is to get into the employment equity program. It is called the workplace diversity program at BCBC and is merely opening doors for individuals who have had doors closed to them, and that certainly includes women.
Contrary to what some individuals may say -- that we are giving preferential treatment to women -- it just means that we are making the opportunities available for them where opportunities were not available in the past. They are working hard to make those opportunities and to open those doors so that women are able to apply for jobs and get employment in areas where they haven't normally been.
K. Jones: What affirmative action plans are in place for making provision for additional women, aboriginals and visible minorities?
Hon. L. Boone: I just told you. Employment equity is opening the doors, making sure that individuals have access to those jobs and that there are no impediments for people to get into those positions. Sometimes it even means such things as making sure
[ Page 7811 ]
that the posting is not written in such a way that it denies access for some people.
For employment equity for the disabled, sometimes it means looking around and seeing if there's some functions of a job that others may be able to do, and switching over so that somebody can do a job. I use an example that came from the chair of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, Wolfgang Zimmermann. He sees a lot of people who are virtually left out because of a small disability. Somebody was not put back into his job function because he was unable to climb a ladder. Well, they looked around and said: "Why should he climb a ladder? Let's get so-and-so to climb the ladder, and we'll move this function over to this job." This person then was able to go back into the workplace.
Those are things that government as a whole and BCBC are doing, and that other Crowns are being encouraged to do, so that we can make sure the workplace is opened up for everybody. We are also involved in the satellite office, as you know, and telecommuting, which helps the disabled a lot. Through telecommuting people are able to stay at and function from their home and do office work there. It enables more women to be involved as well. So we are very aware of trying to open up the workplace, to make our workplace more reflective of society as a whole. BCBC is doing the same thing that other parts of this ministry are doing.
K. Jones: I guess the minister didn't quite understand that I was asking what affirmative action programs were in place within B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could she answer that question?
Hon. L. Boone: I just told you. We don't have affirmative action programs; we have employment equity programs.
K. Jones: That was the answer I was expecting but didn't get at the beginning.
Could the minister tell us how many aboriginal persons and members of visible minorities are employed by B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: I think it is illegal on employment applications to actually ask whether a person is of aboriginal descent or has a disability. Therefore it's very difficult for any employer to tell how many employees are from a visible minority, of aboriginal descent, etc. If you look on employment application forms you'll see that there is no place that you are able to do that. I think the Human Rights Act would be against that as well.
K. Jones: On the application forms, does it ask whether a person is male or female?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: If that's the case, how can the minister determine whether there is employment equity for females any more than for visible minorities, aboriginals or persons with disabilities?
Hon. L. Boone: It's a difficult situation. It didn't use to be so bad when there were Matthews and Johannas and names like that, but nowadays it's sometimes difficult to tell by name whether a person is a woman or man. We will be doing a survey in cooperation with the union, where people will be able to voluntarily tell us if they are aboriginal, disabled, of ethnic descent, male or female. According to the Human Rights Code, however, we cannot demand that people give us that information.
K. Jones: Does the minister think that getting the union's concurrence makes it correct to violate the Human Rights Code, which she claims is the reason why she doesn't have that information?
Hon. L. Boone: Listen, please. I said we are going to ask them; they can voluntarily do this. We are not demanding that they do this, and we are not in violation of any human rights code. We certainly respect the right of anybody to tell us or not tell us information, but it's clear that the information cannot be gathered up on an employment form -- that's what we don't have. So those who are interested in giving that information to us will do so. If they choose not to do that, that's also okay.
K. Jones: Most corporations today are quite capable of very accurately determining the numbers of their various mixes of employment, and they do it. In fact they do it as a requirement because they have to report it -- particularly those who are federally regulated. They have to report on a monthly basis as to what their status is in each of these categories. Surely, the minister has the same capability, and I'm absolutely positive that these are not in violation of the Human Rights Act, otherwise the federal government wouldn't be able to do it either.
Hon. L. Boone: This is why we are doing this surveying and getting the information. We're starting out the same way other corporations did. We need the information so that we can make those changes.
K. Jones: So finally, we are getting a program started after a year and a half of government that should have been actually.... I would have thought that the previous government would have had a program in place to do this, and perhaps they did. Perhaps the minister's program is just going to be a continuation of one that was established under the previous government. Is that not a fact? Was not this employment equity already started by the previous government? When you took office, were there not already people working on employment equity within your ministry and within the Crowns?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't speak on behalf of the minister for employment equity. You'd have to discuss
[ Page 7812 ]
this with her, and her estimates will be up soon. I only know what this ministry was doing, and it wasn't a high priority. It is a high priority now, and the Crowns know that.
K. Jones: It's good to see that a plan is coming forward, and I think it's very appropriate. I hope the minister will speed it along. I know just what the status of the ministry and of BCBC is with regard to this. I understand that basically it's a male-dominated organization at the present time, and perhaps there will be a need to take some action. I was thinking that the minister, being so interested in employment equity in the air services area, would have taken steps in other areas of her ministry to bring this about.
Hon. Chair, I'd like to inquire about the physical status of the precincts at the present time. Are there some difficult problems with moisture in the precincts?
Hon. L. Boone: Aside from some people being wet behind the ears, I don't think so.
Hon. Chair, at this point in time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]