1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 11, Number 25

[ Page 8379 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: I am advised, hon. members, that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will be with us shortly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk: Notaries Amendment Act, 1993 Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1993 Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Hon. D.C. Lam (Lieutenant-Governor): Hon. Speaker, hon. members, I greatly appreciate your giving me a moment of your precious time to say just a few words. I'm very touched by this gesture of respect for my office, and for this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you, for this may well be the last opportunity for me to appear in this chamber as the Lieutenant-Governor. It will soon be five years since I was sworn in as the twenty-fifth Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. That is a long time in anyone's life, particularly for one who came to Government House at the age of 65.

On assuming office, I was advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in fact the chief executive of the province, but I have preferred to consider myself the chief servant. In accepting this appointment, I promised myself that I would do everything I could to serve, to be a bridge to bring people and ideas together, and to work for the good of our community, our province and our country. I wanted to go out to touch the lives of as many British Columbians as possible, hopefully to encourage and inspire them, and generally to be a cheerleader for this great province. In the end, I have realized that I was the one being inspired and encouraged by those we have met, people who have overwhelmed my wife and me with their love and respect.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to spend time with many of you, and I thank you on behalf of all British Columbians for the commitment and dedication you have brought to this chamber as their representatives. It has been observed that Lieutenant-Governors are best seen but not heard. While I have attempted to change this perception in my schedule of official activities, I fear I have been less successful in dispelling this myth within this chamber -- the throne speech notwithstanding.

For nearly five years, Mr. Ian Horne, QC, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, has been my voice on the occasion of royal assent, such as today. I am advised that after distinguished service to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia spanning 36 years, Mr. Horne, like me, will be retiring in the near future. I wish him a long and happy retirement.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity you have given me to share this sentiment with you, and I wish you well in your future deliberations. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Hon. M. Harcourt: Your Honour, on behalf of all of us in this Legislature -- and it will be one of the few times in this Legislature that we are unanimous, with the diversity of opinions that exists in this great democracy of ours -- I would like, while you are here before us, to pay tribute to you and Her Honour for having honoured us over the last five years.

When I last talked with you, you said that you and Her Honour had just made your 650th return trip on B.C. Ferries, plus an equal number of plane trips and visits by car -- one unfortunate car trip up the Island Highway, which is reinforcing our need to finish the Island Highway improvements. You have thanked the people of British Columbia for the honour to have served them. I would like to say to you that the people of British Columbia thank you and Dorothy for having served them so ably and so well in so many ways.

You have taught us how to give. After succeeding so well in the business world, you have taught us how to use the benefits of one's enterprise to enrich one's community. The way you did it was anonymously and by saying to the rest of our community: "I'll put up a bit, but you put up some too." Your seed money sprouted into some wonderful projects at the University of British Columbia and at many of our other great institutions. You were able to trigger new library facilities, a garden and a health resource that our children can use. With the meagre resources you receive as Lieutenant-Governor, you also made a gift of a magnificent series of gardens at Government House and again triggered other British Columbians to give to that project. You have, at the last count I heard, 270.... Is it more than that now? Well, that was last week. Now it's over 400 of Victoria's finest gardeners coming as volunteers two or three times a week to tend the gardens you have helped to create. I think there are 31 different gardens that you have helped to establish. I remember attending an intimate little dinner of about 700 people who showed up at the Hotel Vancouver to donate an equal amount -- I think it was about $700,000 -- toward the gardens endowment. Again, it was you who triggered that.

[10:15]

I think you'll be remembered most by British Columbians as a great teacher. You taught us to love one another. In practising your very strongly held Christian principles, you taught us about cross-cultural understanding and the principle of standing in another person's shoes. Over and over again I've heard you give a speech that really isn't a speech, because you do it in such a splendid way. It's usually a series of stories with some jokes -- sometimes self-deprecating jokes -- to make a point. It is always sincere, always on the mark and always touches the people you are with, whatever their age, station, race or religion. Your Honour, that is 

[ Page 8380 ]

what you will be remembered as: a great teacher. We thank you.

F. Gingell: Your Honour, I can assure you, the Premier and all British Columbians that the official opposition joins everyone in the appreciation and respect for the dedicated service you have brought to this high office. You and your wife have both found a warm place in all of our hearts.

J. Weisgerber: Your Honour, I think the outstanding thing in the five years that I've observed your tenure as Lieutenant-Governor is the energy and enthusiasm that you've brought to this office. Most Lieutenant-Governors have been very dedicated and committed to the province, and have demonstrated that as well. But I think probably no other one has travelled to so many corners of -- and touched so many people in -- the regions of British Columbia. As someone who lives in those areas, I feel you should know that you are deeply respected around British Columbia for the effort you've made, the enthusiasm you have shown and the tireless schedule you've kept over these last five years which, I might say, would have exhausted many people half your age. You surely have warmed the hearts of British Columbians from one corner of this province to the other. On behalf of my caucus and, I'm sure, all of the House, I want you to know how very much appreciated your contribution to British Columbia over the last five years has been.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee stage of Bill 65. I also wish to advise hon. members that Committee A will be meeting this morning in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of Municipal Affairs.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 65; E. Barnes in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, in the proposed section 2 by adding the following subsection:

(4) Each of the parties to a collective agreement shall, at the time that the collective agreement is filed with the minister under section 51 of the Labour Relations Code, notify the director if a provision in the collective agreement provides a lesser benefit to the employees covered by the collective agreement than the benefit provided by a section in a Part or regulation referred to in Column 2 of subsection (2).]

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, would you mind giving us about 30 seconds to read the amendment before we pass it?

The Chair: Agreed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Why don't you read it and talk about it?

G. Farrell-Collins: Would you mind giving us about 30 seconds to read the amendment.

The Chair: Agreed.

Hon. M. Sihota: If I could just put into simple language what is being envisioned here, under current legislation all collective agreements have to be filed with the Ministry of Labour here in Victoria. All we're asking the parties to do is flag situations where the agreements do not comply with the sections, which I'm sure we'll debate. Instead of having to allocate the administrative resources, that will allow us to go through the grievance within the ministry and will allow the parties to notify us of a particular provision and its relationship to the act, so as to make for better administration under the legislation.

L. Hanson: As I understand this revision, the minister seems to be asking the parties to the agreement to make an assessment of the conditions in the agreement that do not adhere to the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act. It seems to me that another clause of the legislation gives the director the responsibility for determining an alteration to a contract and the degree of that. It seems to me that this section would require the two parties to make a determination that is really the responsibility of the director.

Hon. M. Sihota: They may have to make some judgment. I don't think it's that difficult an issue, given the fact that the parties are generally well aware of what this legislation requires in terms of employment standards. But if your argument is that they will have to make some judgment, I guess they will. If there's a dispute, we'll quickly find that out as well. They may have to make a judgment, and we're asking them to make that judgment, given what I think are relatively clear provisions in the legislation. This would then allow the director of employment standards to inquire into the matter. But it would require some knowledge on their part about the legislation, and I would assume that that's there.

L. Hanson: Yes, I think that was the point I was making. The act does give some discretionary decision-making to the director, who is going to be 

[ Page 8381 ]

appointed at some point in time, I guess. Now this seems to be transferring some of that responsibility to the parties involved. As this amendment reads: "Each of the parties to a collective agreement shall, at the time that the collective agreement is filed with the minister under section 51 of the Labour Relations Code, notify the director if a provision in the collective agreement provides a lesser benefit to the employees covered by the collective agreement...." That, to me, says that there is an ability to deviate, although slightly and with the director's consideration, from the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act.

The House resumed, the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 68.

HEALTH COUNCIL ACT

Hon. E. Cull: It's a pleasure to speak today about the Health Council Act and the body that this act will establish -- the Provincial Health Council. The New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia strategy, which is the government's strategy for health care in British Columbia, sets out the framework for building a new health system to take us into the next century. Underlying the New Directions is an increased emphasis on achieving better health for all British Columbians. I think all members will agree that achieving better health is crucial to the development of our province. It's not simply limited to providing advanced medical care or institutionalized services, but includes enhancing the social, economic and environmental factors that underlie our health status.

British Columbia has the opportunity, over the coming decades, to achieve and maintain improved health status through measures such as sustained economic prosperity, investing in our youth, protecting this province's extraordinary quality of life and through initiatives aimed at sustaining economic prosperity and enhancing educational training opportunities. Related initiatives such as these can address some of the key underlying factors or what we call the determinants of health -- the things that really have the most to say about whether we're going to be healthy or not. Again, I think most members will agree that the enhancement of these initiatives and of these particular factors lies well beyond the purview of simply the Ministry of Health. It requires the involvement of other provincial ministries, of local governments, of business, labour, community, schools and, in fact, of all sectors of our community.

Provincial health councils have been set up in other jurisdictions as one of a number of strategies responding to the reality that people's health is more impacted by economic and social factors such as income, education and employment than by the health care system per se. There is an opportunity and a requirement for all sectors to work together to improve the health of the population. The Provincial Health Council that will be established by this act is to provide a focus where these sectors can bring collective and varied views and expertise to achieve the council's purposes. Those purposes are: to increase the public's awareness and knowledge of the factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia; to set health goals for the people of British Columbia; and to monitor our progress toward those goals.

The Provincial Health Council will consist of at least 12 and not more than 15 members, and appointments to the council will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from a list of persons nominated to represent the people of British Columbia. The act provides that the council has a duty to report directly to the people on health issues or on the need for change in practice, policy or legislation respecting health in British Columbia, even where the report may be critical of the government. In addition, the council will be required to give an annual report concerning its activities to the Speaker of this assembly for tabling in the Legislature. The act sets out broad powers and procedures for the council to perform its functions, including the power to conduct hearings for the purposes of the act.

I believe this legislation marks an important step toward the government's goal of better health for British Columbians. It is another step in implementing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and the New Directions strategy that was announced in February of this year. Hon. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I move second reading of the bill.

L. Reid: I thank the House for its indulgence and flexibility around the calling of this bill this morning. Bill 68, Health Council Act, is not receiving the support of the official opposition. We are prepared to examine this bill in some detail. We wonder what the necessity is for establishing what we perceive to be a permanent royal commission on health care. We're not convinced that this is an independent body. We do not believe that a minister's appointments can function at arm's length, and we have some issues surrounding overlay or duplication. We believe that the Ministry of Health already has the mandate of health promotion and understanding; we believe that the Health Research Foundation already has this mandate to explore and examine in some detail the social determinants of health; we believe that that is their duty in terms of being taxpayers' funded. To add an extra layer is not something we're interested in doing at the present time.

In fact, we would consider, and would ask British Columbians to consider, a better use of taxpayer dollars. Perhaps that could be reflected in a 1 percent allocation of the overall health care budget -- which is over $6 billion this year -- to research and development in this province. We believe that would provide a better opportunity for an arm's-length evaluation of how we arrive at health care issues, how we expand health care goals and make them better understood by the public. I think the minister and I both agree that the focus of health promotion is education. To continue to educate young people about issues that will impact negatively 

[ Page 8382 ]

on their health -- and, hopefully, positively as well -- is definitely the way to go. So if we look at a 1 percent allocation to research and development and how it impacts on health care, we're looking at approximately $65 million this year. We believe that that is a better use of the taxpayers' dollars than the creation of what is indeed a statutory corporation.

Is this the forerunner for a health corporation? Are we looking at ICBC, WCB and then the health corporation? Are we looking at the creation of an entity that has the ability to acquire and dispose of real property? If indeed the mandate of this organization is to monitor and set health goals for the province, do they need that ability? I would submit that it is not an appropriate vehicle. The budget and staff required, if they indeed are going to be in the business of acquiring or disposing of property, are not necessarily going to add to future health outcomes for British Columbians. Again, that is an issue for the official opposition. We have some significant issues surrounding this piece of legislation. I've touched on what we perceive to be the lack of independence around those issues, and we would certainly like to continue that discussion.

We have some concerns and issues surrounding the opportunities for British Columbians to be heard before these hearings. A section of this act talks about the public coming forward in confidence to make a presentation. Will the opportunity exist for individuals to come forward and make presentations based on the practice of professionals? This bill does not preclude that. In fact, are we opening up an issue that we perhaps should leave with the new Health Professions Amendment Act? In terms of how this will proceed, we are wondering. It certainly seems that it is fairly open-ended at present.

We have some issues surrounding the use of laypersons. We support the use of laypersons in terms of how they will sit on the Health Professions Council and look at determining the functioning of colleges within British Columbia, whether it be the College of Chiropractors, the College of Dental Surgeons or of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Those issues should be publicly represented, and the opposition takes no issue with that.

Our issues look at whether or not this is a duplication of service and a reasonable use of taxpayers' dollars. We believe the mandate is already exercised by the Health Research Foundation and the Ministry of Health's health promotion branch. Is this somehow going to impact more positively on health care? Is this an appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars? Will this in fact result in improved health for British Columbians? Are these direct-care dollars? No, they are not. Indeed, if that is the issue in terms of providing better health care and we already have agencies performing this function, do we need to expand it?

Another concern we have is regarding the number of bodies that could possibly be employed by this new corporation. Honestly, it becomes a consultant's extravaganza or bonanza, in terms of the number of individuals who may or may not be employed by this new corporation. There is no ceiling on that. They may or may not bring on anyone they deem to be desirable or to have information that may be carried forward under the guise of the corporation. It's a tremendous concern for us, because we believe taxpayers are already paying the salaries of individuals who are performing those particular functions.

The original intent of the royal commission has not been diminished by our opposition to this bill. We believe that these tasks are being performed already. Indeed, if they're not being performed to satisfaction, perhaps we need to go back and evaluate the other agencies currently in place. The ministry currently has a $230 million prevention and promotion budget; of that, $70 million is in salaries and $1 million in advertising. We have already expended dollars. The budget is not attached to this particular piece of legislation, but in the discussion yesterday it appeared to be between $500,000 and $1 million. Indeed, that is not a ceiling; that is a rough estimate in terms of where this legislation may take us. So again we have some concerns that relate directly to the duplication of service. We truly believe that this function can be performed extremely well by existing agencies.

We have some concerns about the investigative powers of this newly constituted organization, if it comes to pass. We believe that there is the opportunity for abuse built into this system. We take issue with particular aspects of the legislation, and we wonder what similarity there is between this and other agencies that currently have the ability to acquire and dispose of property. I make the point very strongly again that I'm not convinced why this group would need the ability to acquire and dispose of real property, if its role is truly to monitor and create goals for health in the province of B.C.

[11:00]

I refer to section 5 on the powers and procedures of the council. In terms of practice complaints that may come forward, I made the point under subsection (5) that we are not at the present time able to say that this legislation would definitely preclude that. Again, I wonder if we are creating a grey area which in fact already belongs to the purview of the colleges or will belong to them very soon under the new college structure that was introduced yesterday.

Section 7 of the act refers to financial administration. It talks about participating in an audit. It makes no mention of whether or not this council would actually have to pass an audit. Are we creating direct accountability to the people of B.C., or are we again creating another Build B.C., which removes accountability from the taxpayer and does not allow opportunities for feedback? This group has the ability to report to the public, and we look forward to that, but it is certainly not an opportunity for accountability. We believe they have the opportunity to rise from time to time and make their reports public, but we have serious reservations in that the nominees to this council will be ministerial appointments. We again raise the issue of whether or not they can perform this function at arm's length.

We have concerns about section 8 and the issue of hearings. The council initiates hearings and conducts the hearings. It's not the intention of the council to prejudice hearings that may occur under health 

[ Page 8383 ]

professions legislation. Again, that is a concern, and it is certainly not precluded from happening under this piece of legislation.

Under commencement in section 16 it says: "This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." Certainly cabinet appointments to this council will be the process. I understand that the minister may ask for nominees to come forward, but there is no opportunity other than a ministerial appointment to sit on this particular council. Again, the opposition would raise the questions of impartiality and direct accountability to the public.

To close, we believe that the functions the Health Council will perform for the people of B.C., as the minister has outlined them in Bill 68, are already in place in other agencies within this province. At this time, we cannot support this duplication of service.

L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the principles of Bill 68, the Health Council Act. At the outset let me say that I am extremely disappointed in the way this legislation is being rammed through the House. It was tabled only a short time ago, and this has not allowed the opportunity for a proper critique by either opposition party. It disappoints me and, I'm sure, the people of B.C. Any good legislation coming out of this Legislature deserves the opportunity for all parties and all affected individuals involved to have the time to explore the ramifications of that particular piece of legislation. It takes a little time to give a good honest critique, hon. Speaker. I'm disappointed -- and we see this right through the last month of this session -- that legislation is being rammed through this House to the point of exhaustion. We saw some of the results of that at 12:30 last evening when the House really fell into disarray, and that was purely because of the tactics of this government. It disappoints me severely, and I'm sure it is not beyond the sight of most British Columbians.

Bill 68 is, I believe, just another process for this government to promote their views and their ideology without having to be accountable. The minister said some glowing words in her introduction. She said that cabinet has the opportunity to appoint individuals from those who have been nominated. What she failed to tell the House and the people of B.C. is that the minister has the authority to make the nominations, and cabinet makes the appointments from her nominations. Not only that, but the minister has total control over this council. It will meet at her demand and deal with the issues that she wants it to deal with. If they don't do so -- if they decide to be independent -- she has the autonomy to dismiss any member of the board who isn't carrying out her wishes or the government's wishes.

It was disguised quite well by the minister's opening remarks, but in reality this is another opportunity to put some NDP hacks in positions to create policy which government will not have to be accountable for. They can do it at arm's length through a group of their own appointees. That is without question the main motivation.

Interjection.

L. Fox: The Minister of Government Services is welcome to stand up and defend this whenever she pleases. I'm sure the hon. Speaker would afford her that opportunity.

This government is taking a step backwards. The federal government struck similar committees, and in two years they were done away with. They found out that they were redundant, costly and not in the best interests of the taxpayers, so they wiped them out. Yet this government finds it necessary to create a Provincial Health Council that will carry out its bidding, and it won't have to be accountable for it.

What is the autonomy of this group? What can they do? In many respects we can see the creation of another B.C. 21, because this council has the opportunity to enter into mortgages. What's going to flow out of that? If the government wants to decrease its budget in terms of financing health facilities, they can ask the Health Council to take out a mortgage and then move that debt from the operating debt of this government to a debt within the Provincial Health Council. I can't see any other motive for this except to shift debt from one arm of government to another.

I think the overall concern here is the fact that the only person these people are accountable to is the minister. They're not accountable to the people of B.C., and they certainly won't have to defend themselves in this Legislature. The minister won't have to defend them. To questions on the actions of this council, she can say: "That's within the jurisdiction of the council. Ask the council." We will see a report only if and when the minister asks for one. The act does not even have a consistent process for asking for an annual report from this council. It can be at the minister's whim if and when she wishes to receive one.

There's no question in my mind that once again this is a move that we have seen in so much legislation, to create more positions for NDP hacks. The overall objective of this government is to create structures that can put controversial issues at arm's length. In this case, criticism can filter down and be blamed on this council, and we've seen other instances from this minister. We're going to see more and more emphasis on regional and community boards, primarily to take criticism about the delivery of health care away from the minister and put that criticism onto locally appointed boards.

This will turn out to be a very large and costly bureaucracy. Section 5 gives the council an independent legal identity. It can purchase property, make contracts and take out mortgages. Honestly, I am extremely suspicious -- and I should think the people of British Columbia are as well -- of the rationale for that section. Had we had the time to do the necessary research, I think we could have come up with some situations to prove our point, rather than just stating it. But one of the goals of bringing in bills so late and passing them so quickly is to not give the opposition the opportunity to communicate with stakeholders around the province in order to make a more credible argument.

I'll be voting against this bill for the two reasons I spoke of. This is another bureaucracy that will carry 

[ Page 8384 ]

this government further into debt. It will cost a million dollars a year just to finance the council, never mind what it's going to do in terms of buying property, accepting mortgages and all those other items it will be mandated to do under the instruction of the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That's one reason. The other reason I will vote against it is that the minister and her government have not allowed adequate time for a good, honest critique of this bill and of the bill coming right after this bill.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill 68. In her comments on second reading, the minister was rather brief and, I believe, very modest in trying to explain why we require a Health Council Act. I don't believe she has made her case as to why the government wants to establish a health council in British Columbia or why we require it. It would appear to be a pet project of the minister. There's nothing wrong with that, because the minister couched the reason for the Health Council in the context of the reforms to the health care delivery system initiated by this government -- the New Directions initiative. The minister has received a fair amount of praise and platitudes for some of the initiatives that have been launched. But where does a health council fit into the so-called new directions?

In the public consultation process that preceded this government's election to office, the Seaton royal commission, where was the case specifically made that to administer the initiative we require a special health council with rather extraordinary powers -- a patronage body to which the minister would appoint friends and insiders? If there was need for an extra body, for a council to be appointed, surely this would not be the way to go about it. I'm concerned about this, because the Ministry of Health is the largest ministry of government. The Ministry of Health spends over $6 billion each year, and its mandate is rather broad. But if we look at the purposes of the council outlined in Bill 68, section 3 states: "The purposes of the council are (a) to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia, and (b) to set health goals for the people of British Columbia and monitor the achievement of these goals." Surely those are also the mandates of the Ministry of Health, the largest ministry of government, which spends most of the tax dollars in British Columbia. Why we would require a new council, which we are told will spend up to an extra $1 million a year to carry out the same mandate that the minister's office and her ministry have, is beyond me. The minister certainly hasn't made the case as to why this is required. Who asked for it? Why do we need another ministerial pet project?

[11:15]

We have to wonder whether or not this is some kind of window dressing. While the Minister of Health runs the largest ministry of government and is arguably one of the most powerful elected representatives in the province because of the bureaucracy she heads, there's no reason why the Legislature should be asked at this time in the session to ram through a bill that would give her yet another pet project -- a council that will spend $1 million a year of taxpayers' money -- and enable her to hire some friends and insiders to serve on a council that would have extraordinary powers to carry out pet projects. That's a concern. When we review legislation like this, we have to be concerned about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of taking this kind of action. One wonders why Bill 68 is necessary. The minister certainly hasn't made the case.

The powers of the council are outlined in section 5 of Bill 68, and they are rather extraordinary. They've already been referred to by some members in debate this morning. But I'd like to draw attention to the powers outlined in section 5(5) of this bill. While the meetings of the council are open to the public, the council may exclude the public from a meeting if it considers that it's in its interest to do so. So here we have a council that isn't required to meet more than four times a year -- one wonders how useful those meetings will be and why we require this council in the first place -- and they can meet in camera and exclude the public from their hearings. One wonders why we need a council whose members will be nominated and appointed by the minister. It's going to meet at least four times a year -- and perhaps not more than that -- and they can exclude the public from their meetings. What are they going to be doing? This is incredible in terms of the need today for public accountability and in the context of the other aspects of the so-called New Directions policy, which I believe attempt to include the public as much as possible -- but not when it comes to this council.

We've already talked about the cost. One section of this bill refers to professional services. The council is going to be able to hire consultants or specialists, whenever it wishes, to carry out its powers and duties. We have the NDP government creating a new project, a council, and they are going to be able to hire employees for the council, in their own right. In addition to that, they have the power by statute to hire contractors and specialists as they wish.

This is being done just after the government brought in the Korbin commission report last week. What did the Korbin commission do? It criticized the previous administration precisely for hiring contractors and specialists from time to time. Here we have this new government, which has been critical of the previous administration, giving one of its bodies the same powers to hire contractors and specialists. Will we ever know how much is really going to be spent indirectly by this council? Will we ever know what the criteria will be for hiring contractors and specialists? Will these contracts be put out to tender in order to get the best qualified British Columbians for whatever the project is? Or is this simply more patronage on the part of a government that has done more to institute patronage within the public service in less than two years in office than any administration has done in the history of British Columbia? I think we have to be concerned about that, especially in the context of the Korbin commission, whose report was tabled in the House last week by this government.

[ Page 8385 ]

Another section of the act that causes me concern in the context of duplication of services is section 8: "(1) The council may conduct hearings for the purposes of this Act...." The council can hold public hearings in British Columbia on anything it wishes, but we already have legislative committees that have the power to conduct hearings. We have a specific Select Standing Committee on Health that has done some very good work during the course of this session. Why we need a provincial health council to do the same work that legislative committees can do -- I would argue much more cost-effectively -- using the elected representatives of the province to do the work, is beyond me. I don't understand why it's necessary. The case hasn't been made by the minister, and the powers that are given to the council under this section of the act are rather extraordinary and sweeping.

I would like to refer to a couple of other sections of the act that cause me concern in terms of the sweeping powers given to this Health Council. Section 9 basically indemnifies the council, or any members or employees of the council, from any legal action whatsoever. It says that they are immune for any acts or omissions. It says that no action for damages may be brought against them. Why would it be necessary to indemnify members of the council from any legal action whatsoever? These are scary powers. The minister hasn't made the case as to why the Health Council is necessary. She hasn't made the case why extra tax dollars need to be spent to establish this council, yet she has given the council wide-ranging, extraordinary powers that even go to the point of indemnifying the council against any legal action that may be brought against it. One wonders what kinds of activities the council is going to be engaged in that might bring about legal action in the first place. What fears does the minister have that cause her to put this section into the statute?

Other extraordinary powers are given to the council under Bill 68. Under section 10 there is an exemption for fees and taxes, so that property vested in the council is exempt from any taxation under the Municipal Act, the School Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act or the Vancouver Charter. The council itself, even though it can acquire property and mortgages, take on debt and increase government direct debt, is exempt from paying any taxes or fees of any kind.

So we have a pet project being established by the minister. She is going to appoint the members of this commission. There are no criteria for who is going to be appointed, so we can only assume, given the record of this government, that these will be extremely partisan appointments. Yet the council is immune from any legal action and exempt from any fees and taxes. The minister hasn't addressed that in her second reading comments. I suppose we will have to go further into that when we get into committee stage of the bill. It seems rather extraordinary that the council will be given these powers and exemptions, even to the extent of exempting it from certain sections of the Offence Act.

The case has not been made by the minister as to why the Health Council Act is necessary. She wants to establish a health council. She wants to have the ability to appoint whoever she wishes to the Health Council. She wants to have a health council spend up to $1 million a year. It may or may not do anything, but when it does something, it's not going to be subject to the normal laws governing most British Columbians, be they individuals or corporations. One wonders whether this is window dressing that is being tacked on to some very good initiatives in the New Directions strategy the minister has brought forward -- some initiatives that I think we as legislators and British Columbians as a whole can applaud.

We wish the minister well with many of the initiatives she has launched with the Closer to Home strategy and with New Directions, generally speaking. But the case has certainly not been made that a health council is required to bring these about. The minister already runs the most powerful ministry in government -- the largest bureaucracy in the public service of British Columbia. She is spending $6 billion a year, and she wants another $1 million to appoint a council made up of some friends and insiders to do.... We don't know what, and the minister hasn't told us what. For those reasons I will not be supporting this bill.

G. Wilson: For the information of the Chair, I will be the designated speaker on this bill. I give that advice that only for those who might like to get an early lunch.

Let me start by saying that we have to see Bill 68 not so much for what it's going to do with respect to the provision of health care -- although I certainly want to address that in my remarks today -- but more in terms of the general strategy and system of delivery of government that we are witnessing in the dog days of the session. At least we thought they were the dog days of the session; perhaps we're not even midway through it. As we look at the enactment of other statutes -- namely, Bill 54, which is obviously outside the latitude of this debate -- we see that it starts to move this system toward a new kind of delivery, in the creation of Crown corporate government and corporations with greater authority to provide advice, direction and, indeed, even delivery of government in this province. This Health Council Act fits in with Bill 54 to a T, because what we're witnessing is the creation of yet another corporation.

Under section 3, we have not more than 15 members appointed by government from a list of persons that the minister alone will submit to represent all the people of British Columbia. As we look at what is intended, generally we see that the purposes of the council will be to "increase public awareness" -- something that can currently be done under the ministry, because it has the statutes right now to do public relations and awareness work -- and to develop "knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia." Then it says something far more pervasive and far more important for people to understand: this new corporation is going "to set health goals for the people of British Columbia and monitor the achievement of these goals."

Philosophically, we should be concerned about this, because the principal purpose of this new corporation -- and I'll talk about its powers, authority and 

[ Page 8386 ]

jurisdictions momentarily -- is to set goals for the people of British Columbia and to monitor and make sure that the achievement of those goals comes into place. This should give us all cause for reflection. What we had hoped to see from this government was a movement to decentralize health care administration and delivery. Closer to Home means closer to home. We thought this government was attempting, with its Closer to Home strategy, to take health care delivery systems through this new regional board proposal and set up greater authority in the regions, with community input and community elections -- albeit they only have one-third of their members elected. These boards would provide community-based administration, assessment and delivery of health care. Now we're witnessing a new Crown agency that has the power to set and monitor these goals to see whether or not they are being achieved.

Clearly, this is a movement toward a greater degree of centralization of authority -- not into the hands of an elected minister with a line ministry in this government, but into a corporation not unlike the one we've seen in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It is not unlike the restructuring of the office of the Ministry of Attorney General; not unlike what we see happening under Bill 54 with respect to the chief forester; not unlike the movement that is happening in the Ministry of Environment with respect to the new Environmental Assessment Act. It is happening in virtually every phase of government, and this one applies to health care in the province.

I, for one, would say that if this what the government intends to do, then it should be more open, more honest and more direct with the people and tell us that this is what it is planning to do, and argue the merits of this system. Let me make the people aware and hopefully, by making people aware, put out on the table that we want reform of government. We want to reform the manner in which this or any other government, or any future government, administers the tax dollars of this province with respect to the delivery of the primary services that we need for our people: health care, education, social services. But reforming government means that you have to put control back in the hands of the people. It means that you have to decentralize large, bureaucratic government and give a greater degree and sense of authority back to the people. Ironically, I notice that there's an attempt to do this in a companion bill that's coming forward, Bill 71, which talks about the empowerment of the various agencies within health care to do self-administration and self-policing. We would say that generally speaking there's some merit in doing that. It is also happening with Advanced Education, Training and Technology, where we anticipate the same kind of situation with respect to engineers in B.C. That is something we could support, and we would look at it generally as a positive move forward.

[11:30]

On the one hand we're giving people more options to participate and to be involved in defining health care goals and directing how those goals will be delivered; yet on the other hand we're putting in place another Crown agency that has enormous power. It has power outside of the legislative bureaucracy and outside of the discussion and debate in this House by legislators elected by the people. We can only say that the government is doing this because it has a strategy that's defined under Bill 54 -- that bill is, I realize, outside the parameters of this debate; I only bring it forward because it's something we have to put into context here -- to move us away from a government by line ministry toward a government by Crown agency. It is moving us much more toward an executive style of government -- a style of government that puts quasi-legal and quasi-judicial authority in the hands of various Crown agencies, such as the one defined in Bill 68.

If we need evidence for this, we can look at the powers that are given under the bill with regard to hearings. Section 8(3) says: "...the council has the powers and the council and its members have the protection and privileges given under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act...." Let's take a look at sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. Section 12 states that this council would be empowered to provide full protection to its members, is given to the justices of the Supreme Court. It says under section 15 that they're given the full power and legal weight of a summons to have all the material they deem relevant forwarded to the council. It gives them the power to compel witnesses to make material available to this particular council, whether or not the individual feels that there is an individual liberty at stake.

This is an important point, because we're talking about a health council that is going to deal with very confidential material referring to the health of individual citizens in the province. That alarmed me. But what alarmed me even more was the sentence that follows that in section 8(3), which says: "...a commissioner appointed under Part 2 of that Act...may receive or accept, under oath or otherwise, evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law."

People who may have the protection of the weight of the laws of British Columbia for saying that they don't need to bring this in, being compelled under sections 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act, are now going to be compelled to bring in material, and that would be admissible in this kind of hearing but wouldn't be admissible in a court of law. This body, which would be appointed by the government from a number of names selected by the minister, would have incredible powers of inquiry into the health protection of citizens in this province.

We've got to be really upset about this on this side if we believe in individual liberties and freedoms. I realize that I can't stray too far from this, but in Bill 33 we've already seen what is thought about individual liberties with respect to freedom of speech in this province. Now the protection of confidential materials, which would generally be held in the sanctity of a practitioner and their patient.... Any of the materials under that protection are going to potentially have to be made available by way of a summons, according to section 8(3), if this council deems that those records are necessary and available.

[ Page 8387 ]

Hon. Speaker, this is a pretty powerful piece of legislation, and it smacks of what this government's agenda is all about, which we're learning about in July of this year. We didn't hear anything about it in March of this year, when we started this session with a rather flowery Speech from the Throne. At that time, the only thing they were prepared to admit to was the Build B.C. concept, B.C. 21, the forerunner of what we're going to see in health care with this, and what we are going to see in a revised forests statutes act, which will come down to redefine the role and functions of that. I suspect we saw the forerunner of that yesterday. I suspect we're going to see it quite clearly with the redefinition of the Attorney General's office under Bill 54, when we get an opportunity to debate that -- for those of us who will be awake. I suspect it will be introduced at some point after 11 p.m. one night.

The point is that we find ourselves being given a new authoritarian body with incredible power, which is entrenched in a quasi-judicial group of people appointed by government. On this side of the House I think we have to have very strong opposition to what we are looking at. Beyond those powers, let us recognize that this body is not going to be in any way under the authority or influence of government. In section 5 of Bill 68, we recognize that this council is able to summon to their hearings materials under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act, and now has the power to bring in material that generally is not even acceptable in a court of law. Let's see what they do with respect to the powers and procedures of how this council is supposed to operate, because this is a powerful body. This body is going to infringe on and may potentially breach individual liberties in this province, and may break a time-tested tradition of physician-patient confidentiality, something that we have to be extremely cognizant and careful of.

Under the powers and procedures of section 5 of Bill 68, we are now going to find that the council, subject to the act, will be able to create bylaws, and by bylaw it will determine its own procedures. So this council is now independent of any direction or authority of the ministry, because it determines its own procedures. It can determine its own provision for the control and conduct of its meetings. It can decide for itself how it's going to conduct its meetings. Is it going to conduct them in a public manner? Is it going to conduct them in camera? Will open and public records from these meetings be available to all people? Will they determine that only certain matters can be available to the public and that the rest have to be kept in confidence? It says that it will provide for the election of officers of the council, including the chair and the members to be the acting chair in the absence of the chair. So it has within itself, as might be expected, the authority and powers to elect its own officials and officers from within this group of people appointed by the minister of the Crown.

It then says that it will be able to "establish committees and specify the functions and duties of these committees, and delegate administrative or management duties to its employees." Read this as salaries, expenses, cost to the taxpayer, another level of government or bureaucracy, or another group of people under the rights and provisions of the Public Service Act, which has just been amended, of course, to make sure that we have established the proper quotas. Read this as another agency of government that is going to become a pseudo-bureaucratic attachment to the Ministry of Health, with enormous powers that will provide it the authority and autonomy to act in a manner quite consistent with the propositions we look at.

Let me say, in looking at how this is going to function, that we also recognize that this council has the ability and opportunity to provide professional services, and may engage or retain specialists or consultants who the council considers necessary to carry out its powers, duties and so on. They will, it says, "...determine their remuneration, and the Public Service Act does not apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists or consultants." Isn't that an interesting line in this bill? The Public Service Act is amended to make sure that we have the appropriate and proper quotas in place for the hiring of the minion workers in this province. But when it comes to the hiring of the specialists -- those people you are going to have to hire on the basis of their absolute merit, knowledge and leadership in the field; the best people available -- then the Public Service Act does not apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists. That's interesting because we're told that merit is the reason we need the amendments to the Public Service Act in the first place. So we can recognize here that this Public Service Act, in terms of the way it applies, isn't going to apply to the high-paid help we're going to get for this council; it's only going to apply to the minion group of employees down below.

And it doesn't tell us how big this bureaucracy is going to become. It says they can establish their own committees and functions to go and do a whole lot of things that we might want to take a look at.

In terms of what this bill is all about, the purposes of this act are pretty widespread, pervasive and open for interpretation -- i.e., to increase public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health of the people of British Columbia. That is a pretty huge area. This public awareness and knowledge of the underlying factors that promote or impair health care is up for substantial debate. The whole Closer to Home proposition.... We had a royal commission that went around this province and developed a huge document of material, a great wealth of information that has taken a year and a bit to sift through and try to understand -- some of which has now come in for implementation. That royal commission was in place because it was providing us an opportunity to do the very thing that we're now finding this council is going to be struck to do, and that is provide knowledge and a greater awareness of the underlying factors that promote or impair the health care of British Columbia.

So presumably now we're going to expect this council to take this royal commission and break it down into its various subject headings. Those people who are familiar with the royal commission and have spent any 

[ Page 8388 ]

time with it will know there are a number of very defined subject areas that need to be looked at. All of them, of course, are integral in the delivery of the overall health care system, but each has its own set of problems, conditions, rules and regulations that need to be examined not only from a fiscal point of view, but in terms of better and more appropriate delivery of service to people. Presumably it's going to factor all that out.

They're going to set up a whole group of committees with their own set of employees and this new group of professional services and consultants, which don't have to be hired under the Public Service Act because clearly we need something quite different. This set of committees is going to become another rather large and extensive bureaucracy that is going to go out and fulfil the mandate that we know is clearly there through careful reading of Bill 55.

We know also that in terms of reporting to the public, this is not being driven by the ministry. We don't see the Ministry of Health turning around and saying: "We're going to determine that the following has to be done in an open and public manner so that there is an opportunity for the public to have input." In the reporting to the people of British Columbia, this council will consider if

"...the interests of the people of British Columbia are best served by making a public report on health issues in British Columbia, or" -- conjunctive "or" -- "on the need for legislation or" -- again a conjunctive -- "a change of policy or practice respecting health in British Columbia, the council must make this report in the manner the council considers most appropriate."

I emphasize it is the council that determines what is most appropriate. They don't have to make this report in a manner that is open to the public. They don't have to do this in a manner that is going to provide for open and full disclosure, like you would under a royal commission. I suppose they might, if you had a council that was predisposed to doing its business in an open, honest and proper way. That would be great.

But what if we don't? What if we've got a council that decides they're going to do it all in camera? What if we've got a council that has this enormous power to summon people, get records, look at what is normally confidential material and bring in and use evidence that would normally be thrown out of a court of law? You know what evidence we're talking about here. We're talking about unsubstantiated third-party information. Let me tell you, that can be pretty damaging if it's unsubstantiated third-party information that's inaccurate or untrue. I know something about that. When you look at that material coming into a council that has these kinds of authorities....

It's on the basis of those kinds of hearings that it's going to make recommendation to government with respect to legislation or a change of policy or the way that we practise health care in this province, in a manner that they decide most appropriate. Perhaps they'll decide to just go and chat to the minister over dinner. Maybe they will write the bill themselves and submit it to the minister. Maybe, because they've run into a hiatus with the government because they've had a change, they'll do it through the press. We may have an active and very aggressive council taking a position that's counter to government to make it more protracted and difficult to get agreement on what has already become a very protracted set of circumstances in this province.

[11:45]

This is bad legislation. It's not only bad philosophically and in principle, but also because it's creating a new bureaucracy. It is again centralizing authority. It is putting in place what this government has been driving for throughout the entire session. Bill 54 was the flag; we should have seen it coming. And then there's Bill 21, the Build BC Act. They rushed that one through early in the session because they needed to get the employment opportunities for youth and students in place for their reforestation program for the summer. That's the only reason that was dropped on us early. This one is another piece in the new puzzle that's been put before us, which, as we start to see the pieces fitting together, is painting a very different style and system of government.

I don't believe there's one member of this Liberal opposition that doesn't believe we need to reform government. We do. We need to reform the way that government operates; we need to find a way to downsize it and make it more responsive and cost-effective. We need to make the delivery of government services much more effective in the regions of the province, particularly in small communities in the interior, the north, the north Island and the Kootenays, because those people are being ignored right now. But a health council is not the way to administer these new systems.

We also have to recognize that this new Health Council is a companion to the new regional system of health care that is being put in place with the government's appointed authorities. Remember that there are three of them, and there are three that are going to come out of local government. Then at some point after 1996 or beyond, we're going to get the chance to have some publicly elected officials on it. This is an authority that is going to sit in a companion role to the new tier of government that I have referred to as the new regional district system for health care.

As we determine how the council is going to operate and what its role and duties are going to be, we recognize that this is now the entrenched bureaucracy of health care administration that gives this government full authority and power over health care delivery. It makes an absolute farce of what we were told was going to come down the line. Those people that thought there was going to be a more decentralized, more open, more community-based system have now witnessed that in fact that is not so. What has been thrown out as a carrot to keep the various groups occupied -- the nurses, the HEU, the practising physicians, chiropractors and other paramedical services -- until the time that Bill 68 is in place is another bill, which I understand this government thought they were going to get through sometime between the time it was tabled this morning and 12 noon. That is Bill 71, and I realize I can't get into debating that now. It's a huge document.

Interjection.

[ Page 8389 ]

G. Wilson: The member for Prince George-Mount Robson says that we're breaking another agreement. I refer her to last evening and 11 o'clock adjournment, and agreements about who is going to adjourn when and how and where. Let's not talk about agreements.

Over the next 24 hours, all of the agencies that will be self-regulating will be trying to read Bill 71, which is a huge bill -- 77 pages in length, 66 sections -- and affects virtually every registered health organization in this province. They'll have to read it to make sure that what's in place is something they'll accept, and they're not going to have time to look at what's going on with the introduction of this bill. I've got to hand it to this government, their timing is pretty clever. From a political perspective it's certainly good, because you get everybody focused on one thing and then you slide through what you want. Well, Bill 68 isn't going to move that quickly. Bill 68 is a bad piece of legislation. It's another part of the puzzle that I think has as its heart and soul Bill 54, which we'll presumably get to at some point this summer.

Turning to the question of financial administration, how is this new Crown agency going to be financed? How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay for it? How does it justify its expenditures? What kind of budget ceiling or limitations is it likely to have? To what extent is the government going to be able to regulate, in advance of its expenditures, what it may be empowered to spend its dollars on? In order to find out, we have to look at the bill and see what the government has given us by way of an explanation of how that issue is going to be addressed. In section 7 we see a fairly boilerplate kind of description of what's required: "The council must establish and maintain an accounting system satisfactory to the minister and must, whenever required, render in the form specified by the minister detailed accounts of revenues and expenditures of the corporation for the period or to the day the minister designates." How about if they had to provide a detailed explanation to the Legislature? How about if they had to provide it to the Legislative Assembly to examine, review and consider? How about if in fact it wasn't to the designation and determination of the minister, but that this administration had to provide full and proper accounting of its procedures to the minister? It suggests that all books, records or accounts, documents and other financial records of the council must at all times be open for inspection by the minister or a person designated for that purpose by the minister. What if we have a public accounting of this public body that is going to have such sweeping powers in terms of its ability to regulate the health care system? Why not have a public accounting system that allows an open opportunity for their books to be examined?

This council has been given powers under the Inquiry Act to examine information and evidence to compel people to come before them and provide information, and to receive information that would not even be acceptable in a court of law. It is empowered to look at documentation that traditionally and conventionally would be considered in the sanctity of a private relationship. It isn't even required to make its own expenditures. It is fully financed and funded by the taxpayers of this province. It isn't even required to make its books open to the public -- only to the minister.

And what do we get from the minister? We're going to get an aggregate form, and I know what will come back: you've got estimates accounts. You can sort it out in the estimates. And if you ask the right question, who knows? You might even get the answer you're looking for. But if you don't ask the right questions; if you don't know exactly what you're looking for.... Because there is nothing in here to say that any of these kinds of operations, expenditures or directions are going to be available for the public to look at, who knows what this little council can do with the taxpayers' money without anybody having any knowledge of it at all?

Then it goes on. This is an interesting one, because I think this tells us where we're headed. To see the similarity and parallels with this bill, you've got to read it in conjunction with Bill 3 and Bill 54; you've got to look at what's going on in the model of the direction of this government. Now we are starting to see the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Section 7(3) says: "The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations may direct the Comptroller General to examine and report to the Treasury Board on any or all of the financial and accounting operations of the council." That's a parallel, because if you look at what they did in Bill 3, it provided an opportunity for Crown agencies to be under that kind of authority and examination by the Minister of Finance and/or the comptroller general and/or the designate or delegate of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps you know somebody that might be in an overall coordinating role of Crown corporations. That person might be one who would have some input. I just put it out as a supposition.

It's also interesting that you have to have an audit. In section 7(4), it says that "the council must, at least once in every year, be audited and reported on by an auditor of a reporting company under the Company Act and the costs of the audit must be paid by the council." One assumes that that audit is going to be prepared in such a manner that it would form part of the report to the minister and that it will report as any other Crown agency reports to the minister and be tabled in the Legislature.

Those of us who have had the chance to look at reports of the various Crown agencies know that they vary substantially as to whether or not they are useful for understanding how a Crown agency operated that year. Some are excellent and give a lot of insight into what's going on; others are really just a composite of public relations information with a summary sheet of expenditures at the end of the year. They really don't give much more than a thumbnail sketch of that Crown agency.

Under section 7(5), it says: "The council must prepare in a form satisfactory to the minister...a report of the council on its operations for the preceding fiscal year" -- preceding fiscal year -- "and a financial statement showing the assets and liabilities of the council at the end of the preceding fiscal year and the operations of the council for that year." Hon. Speaker, again I ask you, the members and people who have been 

[ Page 8390 ]

following the debates in this House to go back and look at some of the sections and the revisions to Bill 3. We can see a nice comfortable fit is happening once again with this new system and style of government. We can see how this is going to change the mandate and direction in which government is starting to operate in the province.

I will conclude this portion of my comments on financial operation in this bill. If we are to look at that financial operation, we will see that the provisions and principles are fairly boilerplate in terms of what's required. We do notice that the Financial Information Act applies to the council. More can be said on that -- and on what levels and directions one can have -- later on. Given the kind of operation that we're looking at, it's a two-edged sword on this particular thing. I will get into some of those implications, pro and con, momentarily.

In all the information that has been provided to us on the financial administration of this particular Crown corporation, we recognize we are developing a new agency of government independent of the minister, or pseudo-independent, with a great deal of authority and an enormous amount of input, that is able to hire staff without any prescribed ceiling on expenditures. Later on we'll talk about the opportunity to purchase and acquire property and the various things it's going to do. There is not even a thumbnail description of the kind of proposition that is likely to be put in place. Clearly, this government is simply developing another agency, another directive of government, that is going to allow it to put in place one more piece of this puzzle they have been putting forward.

Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I would suggest that we adjourn the debate and reconvene at a later time.

[12:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the....

The Speaker: A point of order, the hon. Minister of Health.

Hon. E. Cull: With leave, I would suggest that the House give the member who had the floor before the adjournment motion the ability to continue, because I believe he is the designated speaker and that he does have some time left and some further remarks.

The Speaker: Is leave granted?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just for clarification of the Chair, a member with the leave of the House, of course, may make statements at any time. The Chair is asking if leave is granted for the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to continue with his comments. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House please quickly come to order, so that we can proceed with debate. Please proceed, hon. member.

V. Anderson: Contrary to most times in the House, I cannot say that I am pleased to rise to speak on this occasion. Last night, hon. Speaker, I rose to protest the introduction of a Forests bill at a quarter to twelve midnight -- an item that was not even on the agenda. Today, when we come to the normal noon hour of adjournment, once again the Minister of Health upsets the regular operation of this House by refusal of our opportunity to break for the lunch hour.

When we're discussing Bill 68, the Health Council Act, and when we're concerned about the dictatorial nature of this bill, it seems appropriate that the dictatorial nature of the government be used to make sure that this bill cannot have the proper consideration that is required by the public or by the members of this Legislature.

When we spoke on some of the health acts yesterday, such as the guardian act, we complimented the Minister of Health and the Attorney General because those particular bills were community-driven; they were not driven by the ministry or the minister. Here we have a bill that is driven by the ministry and by the Minister of Health, so we have an entirely different situation. We have a smoke-and-mirrors situation. We have a situation in which there is so-called public consultation and backroom midnight decision-making for legislation. The public needs to be aware that what they did in consultation is not what is coming forward in this Health Council Act.

When we were discussing companion legislation to this, which had to do with community and regional health councils, I attempted to report from the Closer to Home documentation -- the report of the Royal 

[ Page 8391 ]

Commission on Health Care and Costs. At that time I attempted to put the community and regional councils into context and refer to the summary of the report at that time, which had also brought forth a recommendation for a provincial health council. The bill we are dealing with today is reported to be the recommendation for the Provincial Health Council. However, the Health Council we see in this bill and the Provincial Health Council reported in the Closer to Home document is not the same, and there is a major distinction between the two of them. One is the health council brought forth by public consultation. The bill that we have before us is the Health Council Act worked up in the back rooms of the government legislation buildings and brought forth as the bill of the Minister of Health. It is not the provincial health council as is in the Closer to Home document.

I would like to quote from that document, because it's very important that we understand the context in which this bill is brought forth:

"The system of health care which we have studied for the past year and a half developed from various programs and policies which were created or changed to meet the political as well as the medical needs of the day. There has never been an overall plan, and, quite naturally, the structure that has evolved lacks coherence and sometimes logic. It also lacks the ability to assess itself and to objectively judge how just, efficient and effective it is in providing health care."

This is important:

"According to a number of submissions to the commission, the province needs the guidance of a permanent, independent council. We agree. In our opinion, such a council should be able to oversee the total health care system and be able to review the policies, plans and programs of the Ministry of Health, or of any other public or private body whose actions affect the health of British Columbians. It should be able to inform the public of how well the government is meeting the health care needs of the province and, as one commissioner put it, 'soften the political side' of contentious questions, bringing its influence to bear upon difficult, high-profile issues."

And in italics it says: "It must be completely independent of the government, the Ministry of Health and the health care industry." This bill does not provide for the independence of that council, as recommended by the Closer to Home report. It goes on to say:

"It should enunciate specific goals for the health care system; evaluate information to determine the degree of progress in reaching these goals; advise the government, when requested or on its own initiative, on contentious issues; review and comment on the health policies and plans of the Ministry of Health or of other ministries."

These are not all of the goals contained in this particular Health Council Act now before us. It goes on to say that they must: "assess the effectiveness of all parts of the health care system, including the evaluation component; ensure that authoritative health information is easily available to the public; direct the provincial health officer to investigate or research public health concerns."

Then they put in italics: "But we want to be perfectly clear: the royal commission does not question the ultimate power of the Legislature to make decisions about the health care system. That power is at the heart of our democratic system and should not be challenged." The Health Council Act now before us does just that: it challenges the power of the Legislature to be able to make decisions in the future and monitor health care in British Columbia.

The recommendations in this report are very crucial, and we need to review them. Even in the summary of the Closer to Home report.... The recommendations in the main report are not adequately reported. It goes on to say:

"If a health council is to have authority and credibility, the selection of its members and chairperson will be critical. They must be independent, objective and influential, have security of tenure, a small staff, the power to contract for services and the responsibility to make an annual public report."

These are not the recommendations in the act that is now before us.

[12:15]

It goes on to say: "They would need to have access to all of the information available to the Ministry of Health and other ministries, institutions and organizations. It is time for a provincial health council." Again, they put in italics: "It must be a creature of and report to the Legislative Assembly, not the Ministry of Health." This is totally opposite to the control the minister has under the Health Council Act. Further, the recommendations in italics are also before us. These are the recommendations of the commission, which are not necessarily the recommendations that are now before us.

"Therefore, the commission recommends that: a provincial health council be established, and that the provincial health council consist of six members," -- not the 12 or more referred to in this act -- "appointed for three-year terms, with two terms expiring each year. The first council should consist of two members appointed for three years, two members appointed for two years, and two members appointed for one year. No member may serve for more than six years...."

It then goes on to talk about the manner of the appointment of these persons: "...members be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor...."

A. Warnke: A point of order, hon. Speaker. I hate to interrupt my distinguished colleague, who is giving such a great presentation, but I believe it's necessary to call a quorum at this time under standing order 6.

The Speaker: In perusing the chamber the Chair determines that there is a quorum at this time, but I thank the hon. member for raising it. The member for Vancouver-Langara will please continue.

V. Anderson: The royal commission recommended that members of the health council "be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly" -- not on the recommendations of the Health minister, which is what she's doing in this particular act. She has totally gone against the recommendations of the Closer to Home document, which she maintains is the basis for the reports that she's bringing in. It's very clear that the 

[ Page 8392 ]

recommendations are to come from the Legislative Assembly: "...the Legislative Assembly recommend for appointment persons who have been unanimously recommended by a special legislative committee. No person actively involved in the delivery of health services shall be appointed...." That's the recommendation of Closer to Home, which the minister says is the blueprint for her program. It's not to be persons nominated by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has gone in complete contradiction to the recommendations of the Closer to Home document.

It goes on to say that "...the special legislative committee recommend one of the six members to be appointed chairperson, and to serve on a half-time basis. The other members shall serve on a part-time basis; the council be empowered to appoint appropriate staff, and authorized to contract for research or other services; and the council table an annual report with the Legislative Assembly." I want to affirm that this is in the Closer to Home document, which the minister says is the guideline for the acts she is bringing forward. No wonder she wouldn't allow me to read from it the other day in this House. She knew at that time that the policy she was bringing forward was in contradiction to the report. The minister holds up a document about changes in the future of health care policy in B.C., which she has written. As she holds it up and comments across the Legislature floor, she now says that the Closer to Home document is not the basis. The basis is her document, which is different from the Closer to Home document. It's important that the people of B.C. understand the difference. The minister herself has confirmed that she is not following the Closer to Home document. She has gone on in her own process. She's not listening to the consultations with the people from the community. She has taken that and gone from it on a tack in her own direction.

We need to be very clear that Bill 68, the Health Council Act which is now before us, does not come out of the Closer to Home document. It is not a result of the report of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. This document is the brainchild of the Health minister herself. Within the document she has retained for herself the powers to nominate and control the council, to direct the activities of the council and to make the council responsible to her in all of its functions. We need to make sure that the province is clearly aware that what they thought and were told was happening is not what is happening.

What a contradiction between today and yesterday when we worked with the Attorney General. Yesterday we had the opportunity to deal with him in honesty and straightforwardness and to commend him for the fine work he had done. He accepted recommendations or changes that were brought forth in the discussion and promised to take them into account and to act upon them. We have an entirely different process here with the Minister of Health.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment that the motion for second reading of Bill 68, Health Council Act, be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence." I so move it.

The Speaker: The Chair will allow debate on the amendment while the Chair considers the amendment.

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: There will be more opportunities to speak on this bill. It is very crucial because this Health Council Act is the whole fulcrum upon which the rest of the health council acts depend. The regional councils are subsidiary to this, the community councils are subsidiary to this and it itself is subsidiary to the Minister of Health in the direction in which she is trying to take the province -- not the direction of the Closer to Home document, but a direction that is of her own making and imagination.

Hon. Speaker, I now move that we adjourn debate at this point.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. E. Cull moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:27 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The Committee met at 10:30 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING

On vote 51: minister's office, $370,891.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It is my pleasure to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing for the year 1993-94. These estimates are based upon decisions that have been shaped by the many critical responsibilities of my ministry, and our mandate to create and sustain the kind of communities that British Columbians want and desire -- communities that are vigorous, safe and well-planned, democratically governed, well administered and adequately resourced, and which offer their citizens opportunities for personal and intellectual development.

Our long-term strategies toward these ends centre around the empowerment of local government, growth management through regional planning and the provision of leadership in the critical area of housing. In 

[ Page 8393 ]

addition, our responsibilities in public safety assurance, libraries, sport and recreation contribute to vital and healthy communities and individuals. It will soon be realized by everybody that this ministry is very diverse and covers a number of important areas in which government performs.

Because my ministry's work is so broad and varied, in the interests of time I won't be touching on all of the important aspects; we would be here all morning. I will focus instead on highlights.

Our strategies for 1993-94 are consistent with the work we began last year and represent our commitment to building upon the solid foundation we laid. Most importantly, these strategies will ensure that the communities of British Columbia are well positioned to meet the challenges of governing in the twenty-first century. Local government empowerment, sound local structure and adequate resourcing are key to the effective and efficient management of our communities, and to meeting future challenges.

This year's schedule of legislative modernization reflects our government's dedication to reform and to confronting the formidable challenges ignored by previous governments. Bill 35, introduced this session, is an excellent example of what we have been working so hard to achieve. The Local Elections Reform Act modernizes an antiquated local elections process that was conceived in the nineteenth century and not reviewed in a comprehensive way since 1957. Local governments had appealed repeatedly to the province to improve this legislation, so my ministry embarked on a comprehensive renewal to bring our Legislature's legislation into the 1990s. This new legislation, developed through extensive consultation with both local governments and the general public across the province, now ensures that the conduct of local elections will meet the standards of fairness, openness and accessibility expected by all British Columbians.

Other modernizing reforms introduced this session follow the same agenda: to institute badly needed reforms and increase community capacity for self-help and local problem-solving. Legislative amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter give more flexibility to local government to conduct their affairs and reduce unnecessary provincial involvement in community matters. We have made improvements to the Railway Act, the Fire Services Act and the Home Owner Grant Act: all of them recognize current technologies, and streamline and improve administration, for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Another significant aspect of legislative change involves reforming the system of grants to local governments. Prior to our government's budget announcement, the Minister of Finance and I travelled throughout B.C. meeting with local government officials. At the centre of our discussions were the fiscal constraints placed upon the province, the effect of the federal government's continued and dramatic withdrawal of its funding commitment to the provinces, and its impact on provincial and local revenue-sharing. More than 250 people representing over 100 local governments attended these consultations.

These meetings -- the first in our province's history in terms of local and provincial governments meeting on budget issues -- were significant for two particular reasons. First, what I heard at these meetings helped me effectively argue the case for local governments, as cabinet deliberated on how to control the provincial deficit while maintaining vital services. As a result, grant levels to municipalities remain intact at $150 million for local government revenue supplements and $165 million for service support. This is tangible proof that our government understands the pressure on local governments and the property tax payers of this province. Local governments were particularly concerned about the unconditional part of their grants, which goes into their general revenue to help balance their issues and their need for real property taxes. We maintained that at $120 million, the same level as last year. I have to say that in these difficult times, that was a difficult battle. But this government recognized that local governments were entitled to that kind of support.

Second, at these meetings I was able to represent our case for a reformed system of municipal grants. This year's government-wide budget deliberations threw the issue of revenue-sharing into sharp relief. It is clear that the present system is untenable and that local governments deserve more than the current uncertain system now in place. Every year they are never quite sure what they are going to get, and many local governments require multi-year commitments. They should also be rewarded in some way for special things they want to do that meet provincial objectives, like growth management. So we think it's time to take a look and consult about how we can improve the granting system for local government.

Once more, our government could have done the same as our predecessors: perpetuated a myth complete with a phony surplus fund that contained no genuine resources. Instead, we revealed the hard truth about the present system and have dedicated ourselves to a better approach -- one that is predictable, balanced and fair. It enables local governments to take timely budget decisions, takes into account differences among communities in the distribution of revenues, and includes open and honest accounting and responsiveness to the economy. This, in the final analysis, will prove most useful to local governments. One thing we may get to in discussions that many people -- even some local governments -- don't realize is that in 1988, the revenue-sharing account became part of the budget stabilization new accounting process. That really altered the system and the revenue-sharing account, which I don't think many local government people realize -- what is in the account and what is actually real.

Already, at the insistence of the UBCM, my ministry is involved in consultations with local government to examine such variables as the size of transfers, formulas to determine transfer size and growth, and the appropriate legal basis. I look forward to moving ahead on this critically important initiative. I believe we will be starting those detailed consultations in the very near future. My deputy says we start those detailed consultations a week today. I understand that the 

[ Page 8394 ]

UBCM is looking forward to it, because it really is going to be, I hope, a useful exercise in meeting the nineties in terms of grant review, grant need and the size of transfers for local government.

If the people of this province are to enjoy a quality of life in the twenty-first century, then governments must successfully manage our growth. Personally, I have to say -- breaking from the text here -- that this is probably the number one issue for me, and one of the keenest areas of interest that I have. If we are to perpetuate one of the most attractive and most sustainable places in the world, we must take time out to take a look at the need for growth management strategies, particularly in our urban areas, to protect a very important part of the world that we all love and cherish. So to this end, I am committed to instituting a system of regional growth management for local government, one that is widely accepted and that doesn't impose the artificial constraints of a uniform approach, but recognizes the real differences of our regions, which is very important for the members from other parts of the province. What we're saying is that you cannot have a universal growth management strategy or a regional planning strategy like we used to have before. We have to take into account the uniqueness and the differences of the regions, because they have different issues and different problems.

Last year my ministry developed and realized a research plan and provided $500,000 in regional strategic planning grants to the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional District to assist our most rapidly developing urban regions in developing growth management strategies. Half a million dollars represents the start of our initiative to get them on board and to look at growth management strategies. We expect to provide the same level of support this year as they continue their own work in this area and as we continue our research and our work towards legislation in '94. We will be funding new processes, I have to tell the committee today, in the Okanagan Valley, where we have some critical growth issues, and in the Nanaimo area.

These plans, in turn, will help government make capital investment decisions for transportation, evironmental infrastructure and other social capital improvements. Many of our regions have undertaken this work without an explicit legislative mandate. We are committed to supporting these local initiatives by providing a durable -- and I emphasize durable -- legislative basis for growth management. I know my Liberal critic is particularly interested in these kinds of strategies.

Our research program over the past year has been directed at developing institutions and tools so that regions can plan effectively. While there's agreement on the abstract notion of regional planning, there is no agreement on the means and on such matters as who gets what, who pays and who decides. All of this must be examined, therefore, within the context of regional governments. Most people are supportive of our objectives, but for those who feel that we are not moving fast enough, we have to remind them -- and ourselves -- that for ten years the provincial government basically checked out of planning and its involvement in regional planning. We just totally left the field to local government. Now we're going back in and, of course, when the province moves back in on an area that for the last ten years has been viewed as totally the purview of local government, you can imagine that there may be some people wondering what the province is up to. So we have treaded lightly and moved slowly. That is why we are very conscious of ensuring that people understand where we're going, and that people recognize that there have to be growth management strategies developed in the regions, in full consultation with those regions. This year, we will complete our research on regional governments, on new approaches to regional growth management and on developing and sustaining a political culture receptive to planning within our regional districts.

It is from this perspective that we are addressing British Columbia's need for adequate and affordable housing, because it is clear to us that comprehensive planning offers our communities the only viable context for effectively addressing housing issues. When I assumed the provincial housing responsibility last year, I inherited nothing in the way of a practical or cohesive agenda for meeting the housing needs of British Columbians. Through neglect, just as importantly, we lack the institutional capacity to generate effective, innovative and sensitive policies that must characterize a made-in-British-Columbia housing policy framework. In the absence of past provincial leadership, I set about focusing on three areas: encouraging local governments to accept their role in planning for housing in their communities; making immediate improvements to the province's chief agency of social housing, the B.C. Housing Management Commission; and convening a provincial commission on developing housing options.

Bill 20, introduced last session, was the amendment requiring local government to address and plan for the full spectrum of housing needs in their communities. It was a first step, which I backed up with a program of planning grants to lend our communities support.

This session saw the introduction of legislation designed to enable municipalities to work innovatively with developers for the purpose of affordable housing, and this was complemented by the recent release of a document called "Developing Community Housing Policies: A Guide for Local Government." It describes the approaches to planning for housing that have proven effective in British Columbia communities. One of the things we discovered is that when we talked to local communities about housing and what they could do -- and there are a multitude of things they can be involved in -- they would often say that they were not quite sure how to do this. They wanted to reinvent the wheel. What we discovered was that many creative municipalities had already done so many things, but they didn't have a way to share that information with their brother and sister local governments. We have put together a compendium, which all members will be getting, of how many local governments have really done well in providing affordable housing, and the techniques they have used. That can be utilized by all 

[ Page 8395 ]

other communities who are looking to get on to this issue.

[10:45]

Changes to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, the province's primary agency delivering social housing programs, were long overdue. In short, new leadership and new directions were in order. We have conducted a complete and exhaustive review of non-profit social housing programs. We have integrated the agency with the ministry, and appointed 11 new board members representing our diverse stakeholders and regions, as well as a variety of walks of life, including non-profit and business communities. The new board demonstrates our government's commitment to ensuring equal opportunities for women, and to providing representation from across the province.

In turn, the members appointed a new general manager, Mr. Saul Schubert, to work with them to ensure strong and innovative leadership for B.C. Housing. Mr. Schubert is a former deputy minister of Manitoba's Department of Housing, and former vice-chair of its Housing and Renewal Corporation; he is a veteran public servant who has served Manitoba governments of all stripes. He came, obviously, from the current Conservative administration. He brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in the housing field, including management of housing, organizations development, and administration of social housing.

I have charged Mr. Schubert and the board with focusing on strengthening the agency's links with the cooperative and non-profit sectors, local government, our communities, and our business representation on the board -- obviously with the private sector -- in terms of their involvement in helping us with the housing issues of today.

I have also charged them with designing a new process to involve tenants in the housing management decisions that affect them, and with ensuring prudent agency management that incorporates the best state-of-the-art fiscal and human resource management practices to safeguard the interests of our citizens and taxpayers. I have also charged them with developing innovative policies that will seek out new partnerships to further the work of the commission. I have to say that exhaustive work has gone into changing the financial arrangements and fiscal management of B.C. Housing, and it is ongoing. We may get into that today, and Mr. Schubert will be available to help me provide details of that work.

One of the new administration's first initiatives was to produce a streamlined proposal call designed to reduce work and costs for the non-profit and cooperative sector, which is a significant sponsor of social housing in B.C. For those members who are not aware of it, we go out every year on an allocation process, asking non-profit organizations to submit. The old system was incredibly complicated, horrendously difficult, and you had to jump over virtually a thousand hurdles to get to where you wanted to go. We have streamlined it. We have brought in a consultant, and it is much easier to work through. It does not cost local non-profit organizations a lot of money to participate.

B.C. Housing has adopted a proactive approach to soliciting expressions of interest in the development of affordable housing by targeting areas of greatest need, and where local government support already exists. This past January the Provincial Commission on Housing Options submitted its report. My ministry welcomed the report, and we began immediately to work on many of its 57 recommendations. To date, 17 of the recommendations have been implemented in the five months since the report's release, and others have become part of our long-term planning as we form a multi-year strategy to meet the need for affordable housing in British Columbia.

I'll quickly outline some of the initiatives that are already in place or underway. Firstly, we have a new housing department within my ministry, with its own ADM, and directors of housing policy, local government in housing and housing programs. This department will possess a vigorous research and policy-making capability, which previous governments did not provide. Secondly, we have established the priority for social housing for women fleeing abusive situations. We have appointed long-term activist Jim Green as a community development coordinator to find new strategies for securing affordable housing in B.C.'s urban centres, and he will be reporting very shortly on the first initiative. Thirdly, we have new approaches to assisting people who are at risk and in need of permanent housing.

An interministry committee on special needs housing to provide more effective coordination between housing programs and support programs to communities is now in place. The interministry committee is extremely important to our work. We find more and more that so much of our work involves so many other ministries, and we are working very hard to avoid duplication and inefficiencies and to make sure that all ministries are working together in a concerted effort, so that we all know where we're going in terms of housing.

Thirteen new housing developments were announced, representing a total of 166 units, which come with a significant progress report for people needing permanent housing and people at risk. This represents a commitment of $7.5 million in onetime funding, and $3 million in annual operating funds. The first stage of this initiative was announced some months ago, and it is just for homeless youth at risk and for single parents fleeing abusive situations. That is ongoing, and we will be announcing more initiatives in that area in the very near future.

We announced a package of programs that are targeting people for whom housing affordability is a serious issue. We plan to replace the renter's tax reduction program in '94-95, and we are working on a new range of housing programs for next year. A commitment was made that 5 percent of new non-profit and cooperative housing units be designated for people with special needs.

The commission identified widespread support for the legalization of secondary suites as an extremely cost-effective and efficient method of increasing affordable rental housing. Because of this, I will soon 

[ Page 8396 ]

launch a program to encourage the growth of secondary suites. To this end, we are developing a provincial building standard for secondary suites. As my colleagues know, we have staff within my ministry who work on the Building Code, and I have charged them that, by the fall, we would like to have a new section in the Building Code that specifically relates to secondary suites. Local governments have been saying that they want to do it, but they feel that the Building Code may be a hindrance and needs review. That is ongoing, and I am told it will be ready by the fall of 1993. I will also be announcing in the immediate future the establishment of a working group, consisting of representatives of the UBCM and a range of housing specialists, to address concerns and questions surrounding the issue. I know that some -- particularly my Liberal critic, perhaps -- feel that we should just legislate, introduce or force legalized secondary suites overnight. It is a contentious issue. We can get into more discussion on that in general debate, but I have taken the course of moving on the Building Code as an enticement while also bringing local government in. Let me first say that we are going to show leadership. I believe in moving in this area, but we need local governments as partners, and they have to be on board. Many are, but they want to make sure we cover some of the concerns they have.

Because land is the most significant factor affecting the creation and price of housing, my ministry is developing strategies that focus on using provincial land for housing and related community uses. For example, the announcement of Oaklands, the new Oakalla lands housing development that includes 75 affordable housing units for Burnaby families and seniors, is an excellent example of the innovative use of Crown land which we are working to achieve. Fully 28 percent of the homes in this development -- and in the first stage, I believe it is actually 32 percent -- will be committed to affordability, which is a significant move forward on a significant piece of Crown land. What we are saying is that yes, this is predominantly market housing, but there has to be some avenue in the non-profit and affordable housing category for our citizens who have affordable-housing problems.

I also expect to be able to announce very soon the first elements of a downtown housing strategy for B.C. urban centres. You can probably conclude that Mr. Green has been working on this for my ministry. We are focusing on preserving and improving affordable inner-city housing stock, including single-room occupancy lodgings, and involving a program of support services. This is one of my personal areas of interest. I have said from day one that I think it is very important that we deal with the urban centres and homelessness, and most British Columbians agree that there is a tragedy being played out on our streets. We have a role to play -- as all citizens do.

In addition, this government has introduced other housing programs, including HASI, Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence, which provides grants of up to $2,500 for lower-income seniors for home improvements that allow them to continue to live independently. I am particularly pleased with this program, as it is obviously not only socially beneficial, but it allows seniors to remain in their homes, where they want to be; they don't have to go somewhere else. It also takes pressure off our seniors' housing projects, which, of course, we never have enough of in terms of units. We have quadrupled the amount of matching-grant funds available to community groups to initiate affordable housing projects, and realized an increase -- from 30 percent to 50 percent -- in the number of subsidized units in existing housing co-ops to which lower-income families have access.

Also, in the next few days I will be announcing the composition of a minister's advisory council on housing policy that will take an active part in the development of a provincial housing policy, and offer practical advice on new initiatives and programs. The COHO, the Provincial Commission on Housing Options report, which has 57 recommendations, offers practical solutions which we are working on. But it is very important that we depict -- in policy form; that is, in black and white, on paper for the citizens of British Columbia -- what the private and public sector housing policy actually is in terms of key areas. The minister's advisory council will be giving that advice to me. It will be broad; it will represent the private sector and the public sector. As you know, the housing sector is extremely broad and we are trying to cover all the bases in terms of participation.

I have drawn the council's members from the architecture, development and real estate sectors, and from tenants', women's and aboriginal groups, from special needs advocacy groups, and representatives of local governments from a geographic cross-section of B.C.'s regions. There are many serious issues that we must deal with if we are to make suitable and affordable housing available to more British Columbians. I have just come back from Winnipeg, and one of the key ingredients in our troubles has been the drastic withdrawal of the federal commitment to social and cooperative housing. It strikes a terrible blow to our initiatives. You all know, and you've heard me say this many times, that next year the federal government is totally out of new initiatives or new dollars for social housing. If we get into that discussion, I have numbers on what the impact has been in the last few years and will be in 1994.

However, we are determined to maintain our level of financial support in these areas. Even though the federal government is withdrawing its money, we have left our support at 1991 levels. We are one of the few provinces, if not the only province in the country, that has made that commitment. Unfortunately, as the federal government has cut, some provinces have made the decision not to continue with their level of support. But we are not withdrawing one penny in terms of our commitments, which were made on the grounds that the feds would be there. We have left that money there and that, of course, is why we are going to continue to do unilateral provincial programs in new areas that we think are important.

So we are determined to maintain our level of financial support while working with housing advocates and provincial housing ministers across the country to put the issue of the federal government's 

[ Page 8397 ]

complete abrogation of responsibility before the public. I've just come back from meeting with my federal counterpart on this issue, and I can say that it was an interesting and somewhat heated meeting at times.

Earlier I spoke on my ministry's mandate to ensure healthy and safe communities, and our safety and standards department plays a critical role in helping to attain this goal. It's another important part and category of this ministry which doesn't get much attention, but it does excellent work and is always there in terms of safety and standards for British Columbians. In this area falls a broad and diverse range of duties, from fire and railway safety, to elevator, ski lift, boiler and vessel safety, to building, gas and electrical safety, covering all engineering and inspection programs necessary to protect British Columbians. In the coming year, the department will maintain its sound safety record by focusing on the following: adopting innovative technology-based approaches and updating the processes for safety assurance, increasing public awareness of safety issues and updating and modernizing safety legislation.

[11:00]

One of the difficulties in these difficult times of restraint and financial deficits and cuts is that we don't always have safety inspectors on the ground. What we have to do now is get into prevention, public awareness and new strategies for monitoring. We are moving ahead, quite frankly, with some very new innovations. If any of my colleagues are interested, I am sure we can provide the details.

In support of my ministry's housing initiatives, mentioned earlier, the department has already commenced a process of developing provincial standards for the upgrading and creation of secondary suites in existing single-family residences. Following our pattern of reform, we have already this year instituted modernizing of both the Fire Services Act and the Railway Act. Changes to the Fire Services Act will streamline fire-reporting requirements, and will authorize the fire commissioner to appoint local assistants rather than their having the current unclear and legally questionable authority. Reforms to the Railway Act move toward regulating railways by safety code to allow for greater flexibility and efficiency, and we will continue reforming this legislation so that it conforms to current realities and technology.

Another area of responsibility I have that may not always be known is libraries. Our libraries in British Columbia are among the oldest and most respected institutions in this province. British Columbians are quite rightly proud of their public library system -- it is one of the best in the country -- which is a unique partnership among local governments, municipal governments and the province. As a further commitment to our goals of modernization and reform, the legislation governing library boards is being reviewed and updated for the first time since 1911. My ministry will be introducing new public library legislation based on community response to its recently released White Paper, a discussion of possible reforms to the provincial Library Act. Five thousand copies of the White Paper have been distributed to public libraries, municipalities, regional districts and government agents to allow for thorough consultation. I have to report that we are getting lots of response to the White Paper. If the paper's recommendations are adopted, residents of British Columbia will enjoy library services in their local communities such as book borrowing free of charge. Other proposals include new roles for regional districts in the provision of library services and a requirement that library boards advertise vacancies, to encourage broader public participation. We will also continue our support for InterLink, an access-to-libraries project involving all lower mainland libraries. We are in the process of reviewing with the Ministry of Government Services a proposal for a permanent government publications depository system, which will provide greater opportunities for British Columbians to access the full range of government publications and materials.

Our government understands the important contribution that sport and recreation make to the wellness of British Columbians. This is an important part of my ministry, one that is very active and one that I have taken a particular interest in, in terms of moving ahead. Through sport and recreation, we can do a lot more for our citizens, especially the young people of this province. This year we have managed to increase overall funding for sport and recreation by $400,000, to a total amount of $28 million for sport and recreation. Our commitment to the regional delivery of sport and recreation services to British Columbians beyond the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, and to consulting with stakeholders in the region, also reflects this understanding. It is a natural response from a government dedicated to the principles of consultation and equity.

We have also begun a process of reform that is resulting in a fairer and more rationalized way of funding sports organizations. Instituted this year, Sport Discovery is a comprehensive performance-based evaluation process that measures the achievements of 71 sports organizations in the province, to improve their performance in delivering sports and opportunities to all British Columbians. The system rates sports organizations on how well they develop athletes, coaches and officials, and on their own organizational effectiveness in terms of 58 factors, including financial management, human resources, recruitment, support systems and education. For the first time, British Columbia now has a balanced and systematic funding framework for all sports organizations, one that other jurisdictions are following with interest -- and I understand many other provinces are looking to introduce the system we have developed here. There is an important additional benefit, in that we have now established a comprehensive database on sports organizations.

In March this year, I appointed a new 17-member Sport and Recreation Advisory Council to help me realize these objectives. This board includes representatives from the whole range of stakeholders in communities across British Columbia -- representatives like Ken Shields, head coach and program director of Canada's national basketball team, and Silken 

[ Page 8398 ]

Laumann, the 1992 Olympic bronze medallist in women's single sculls in Barcelona. She has graciously agreed to be a full participant in my advisory committee. It gave me great pleasure recently to announce Ms. Laumann's new role as B.C.'s Ambassador for Youth in Sport, in which she will be talking to young people throughout B.C. about the importance of self-esteem, the important role recreation and sport can play in helping kids and young people develop a positive self-image. I am very pleased that she has joined the team to work with young people in this province.

I have asked the advisory council to address issues of equal access, including the regional delivery of sport programs and sport and recreation funding priorities. I expect it to play an important and influential role as we move ahead to make this section of my ministry far more important in terms of its social impact on citizens of this province. One of the issues I talked about earlier was homelessness and young people at risk. I am convinced, as I think we all are -- I see the impact of full participation with my own children -- about playing and recreation opportunities to keep people active; creative ways that they can pass their time. We are expanding our efforts in this area.

The Chair: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I have just about finished.

The Chair: It would require leave of the committee.

D. Schreck: I know we are all just fascinated by these remarks, and I am more than happy to provide this brief pause to allow the minister to continue.

Hon. R. Blencoe: To my good colleague, I appreciate that. I have just about finished. As this ministry is in many ways three ministries in one, it is really important and very hard to try to cover all of the issues we deal with in as short a time as we would all like.

This year we have delivered a substantial funding increase for those who work in community recreation. Aimed at B.C.'s smaller communities, the sport and recreation division of my ministry, working with the B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, will target this assistance to the 250 recreation commissions in rural and remote areas of the province. We have also developed a strategic plan for recreation, which was developed in consultation with these stakeholders and sets program priorities in concert with them. I know that there are some members from the opposition here who come from some of those remote parts of the province, and I have to say to them that our work in recreation and getting our objectives and our support out from just the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island is very important to us. I have doubled support for the recreation commissions in more rural and remote parts of the province, because their services are often nowhere near those of more populated areas of this province.

Special assistance will also be available to establish recreation commissions in aboriginal communities. More resources are going to other important areas, including leadership development for community-based recreation programs and public education about the benefits of active living.

Earlier I made reference to our exceptional commitment to hosting multisport games. B.C. is the only province whose communities annually accept the challenge of hosting five major multisport games. Indeed, this afternoon I am going to Burnaby to launch the annual B.C. Games for the Physically Disabled. In addition, the next 1,000 days will see B.C. play host to the '93 Canada Summer Games in Kamloops this August, the fifteenth Commonwealth Games in Victoria in '94, and the Western Canada Games in Abbotsford-Matsqui, which some of my colleagues across the way are very familiar with.

What these events mean in real terms is decades of sport development compressed into three years, a legacy of facilities throughout the province, and, just as importantly, a legacy of advanced volunteerism in our communities. In addition, more than 300 million viewers worldwide will turn their attention to British Columbia as the Commonwealth Games are beamed across the globe, resulting in valuable exposure as a highly attractive tourist destination. I won't get into all of the other benefits that are coming to Victoria in '94; as you can imagine, I have a bit of interest in as many people coming to this great community as possible. These games will serve as an economic stimulus provincewide, generating employment for British Columbians, and $3 of economic activity for every $1 the province invests.

In closing, hon. Chair, I would like to acknowledge those people who daily dedicate their skills and talents to the pursuit of our goals -- the women and men who comprise my ministry staff. I firmly believe that they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in the country, and I would like to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation for the past year. It has been a very active year, and I'm sure they wondered many times if they would ever get through it.

Hon. Chair, in a broad stroke these are my ministry's goals and activities for fiscal 1993-94. We will continue to serve the people of this province by remaining dedicated to meet any challenges that come from governing, to build upon the solid foundation which we have laid and to make the necessary reforms that will strengthen British Columbia and its governments. I now look forward to the debate on the estimates of my ministry.

Hon. Chair, I would like -- which I should have done as I started -- to introduce staff who are with me today: Mr. Larry Seminiuk, who is the comptroller, the executive director and the gentleman who manages the books in the ministry; Mr. Ken MacLeod, who is the deputy minister; and behind me is Mr. Gary Harkness, the assistant deputy minister of safety and standards 

[ Page 8399 ]

who takes care of elevators and all those other wonderful things that we administer in this ministry.

Hon. Chair, if I have an indication from my colleagues across the way of when they would like to bring up certain things, it would be useful. As we are such a diverse ministry, to have staff here or on standby all the time is a bit difficult. So if I had a sense of what was going to come up, then staff could prepare themselves and be readily available. With that, hon. Chair, I open the floor to my good colleagues across the way.

A. Cowie: It gives me pleasure to make a few general comments, give the Social Credit Party an opportunity to make some general comments as well and then move into examining the estimates.

I appreciate the minister's comments. I recognize that it has been a very active year, and in fact at times it has been a pleasure to follow much of the progress that has taken place. In the field of planning and in municipal affairs, the last ten years haven't been as active as I would like to have seen, and I give credit to the minister for moving along with some very needed programs and reviews. As the official opposition critic, it has been my practice to contribute in a positive way, if I can, to the programs as I see them progressing and to criticize when I see something that isn't being done well. I have to say, however, that most of the changes have been pretty positive. So at least for another year or year and a half I will probably remain in a very positive framework -- hopefully all the way through.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Especially when we do planning and all that stuff.

A. Cowie: Yes, as long as we're getting something done.

I've also noticed that over the last few years there has been quite a variety in the length of time spent on the estimates of Municipal Affairs. Last year we spent eight hours. The year before there was no time spent. The estimates didn't get booked for examination. In 1990 I think it was five hours, and I can go back 12 years, seven years and so forth. There was one year when only one hour and 33 minutes was spent. I don't quite know what happened in 1983, but maybe nothing much was happening.

R. Neufeld: Is that when you were the opposition critic?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That was 198....

The Chair: Hon. members -- what's the line the Chair usually uses? -- through the Chair, please.

A. Cowie: These side comments are useful occasionally. Thank you, hon. Chair, for bringing us back to the highlights that the minister went through.

[11:15]

I attended a number of sessions of the Canadian Planning Institute and the provincial planning meetings here in Victoria in the last few days. I know the minister was away in Winnipeg and wasn't able to attend all of those or as many as he might have wished, but he did speak at the function. I found a number of things that were quite stimulating -- to me, anyway -- and some of the things that are happening reinforce what the minister is moving toward in some of the estimates here.

One of the most important issues that I came away with from the conference was the importance of local government, and the emergence of local government as a level of government that really can deal with things quicker. It's more flexible, and that's where the action is taking place throughout the world. In fact, there were some comments about city-states emerging and being far more important than nation-states as ways of getting things done, as ways of dealing with finance and as ways of dealing with shifting money around and real issues. I think Singapore and Hong Kong were mentioned as two examples -- the economic life and vitality of those cities far outstrips some of our cities in North America.

It was pointed out that in the future our large urban areas, such as Vancouver and greater Victoria, will in fact continue to be the vital moneymaking areas -- the most economic parts of our province, regardless. The reason is very simple: there's less reliance on resource, technical and even manufacturing industries, and more on the brains or knowledge area where the money is being made and where jobs are created.

That will give our province a number of hardships as we adjust, and some of the northern areas continue to go through difficulty. I think it is very important for the province to help those smaller communities that are having problems, especially resource communities, with that transition. We've seen a number of references throughout this year to the changes in the forest industry and the changes in the level of employment. We're losing a good quarter of our labour force in the forest industry over just two or three years. So it's going to be a very challenging time over the next few years, and it is very important that we in the Legislature understand that and try to do something about it in a meaningful way.

It was interesting that the minister mentioned the number of improvements he's putting into housing. That's an area I am particularly interested in, and I look forward to examining some of those in detail. I thought it was very clever of the minister to appoint Jim Green from Vancouver to assist in this manner, and I was lucky enough to get an insight into some of the things that they're possibly doing. Unfortunately, since they haven't been dealt with, we weren't able to find out exactly what the programs are, but there were sort of indications of what is coming.

It's certainly important to understand that if we do not do things to help the street people, for instance, we may well end up like San Francisco. San Francisco used to be a place that I truly enjoyed visiting 15 or 20 years ago -- even ten years ago. The situation there has become so bad with the street people that tourists are no longer going there. In fact, the city is having such a major problem with the filth and other problems in the streets that they are simply not getting the funds they 

[ Page 8400 ]

used to get. So they are having to struggle with innovative ways of dealing with the people on the street.

In Toronto there is a good example of an industrial building that has been changed into accommodation for street people. What they found was that they couldn't just provide the accommodation; they had to get those people involved in the process of rebuilding that warehouse and getting it in shape for proper accommodation -- they just didn't want to be given the space. I think the minister has indicated that we are soon going to have a number of equally interesting programs, even to the extent that the street people have their own bank where they can go and borrow up to $50, because there is always welfare Wednesday that they can't get beyond very easily, and there are institutions that take advantage of these people. So that's an area that I would like to examine in a little more detail as we go along.

As for the opportunities in secondary suites, the minister mentioned that we in the Liberal Party are particularly interested in that -- not only secondary suites, but more flexibility in housing altogether. That was another thing that was mentioned at this conference, and I believe we are moving in that direction. Certainly a number of municipalities -- like Kelowna, for instance -- already allow secondary suites in new subdivisions. There are a number of municipalities going in that direction. I would also like to examine how the minister is going to deal with the problem of NIMBYism. It's a very difficult problem, because some areas where the greatest growth is taking place are also where the greatest inflexibility is taking place. People simply aren't being very realistic; they're entrenching rather than dealing with the real problem. Perhaps there are incentives that could encourage municipalities to move in those directions. And if those municipalities don't wish to go in that direction, maybe there could be disincentives. The province certainly has ways of doing that through their grant system. So I would like to examine some of those incentives to see how we can make progress in that area.

Public participation is very important, and it's not possible to implement new programs in our communities -- nor should it be -- without involving the public in a very meaningful way. The public also has a responsibility. If they are going to take on the task of helping, they have to come out and give their opinions freely and not just hold back and resist. I look forward to getting some comments on that.

As for the Oakalla lands in New Westminster, I think that's an interesting program going on there. We have had a number of complaints, however, on the bidding method, and I just want the minister to know that. In fact, I know some of the people who are involved with it, and I know they're very honest and credible people. In spite of that, the process has been criticized because it's not like normal contracts. The bids are not open for examination, and the results aren't known by the people doing the bidding. That's the normal way one bids on contracts, and I think the minister might want to look into that.

I also have to recognize -- and I say this with some hesitancy -- that sometimes when you have had a long period of rather conservative government, as we've had, you need a fresh approach and a change -- a drastic change. I think that's what I'm looking for: some changes to create a balance. I just want to say that we don't need too much of it, and it doesn't have to last too long. But sometimes you need this to get the balance, and then you have to come back to some centre approach.

I also want to recognize that the minister has been, I think, very diligent and has done a good job of contacting the various players: the Urban Development Institute, the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C. and the professionals, such as the architects. I know the building inspectors have been actively working on his secondary suite process, and even the planners have been consulted, and that's really something.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Planners are now recognized again in the province.

A. Cowie: That's good. Now all the planners have to reevaluate what their role is, and I think that's an ongoing process. A lot of planners -- if I can make one side comment -- have become paper pushers, and they recognize that themselves. They are examining how they can be more relevant within the local and provincial or even federal system so that they can actually plan, and I think that was part of the topic during this recent convention. It's a very healthy situation when professionals start to examine their own roles.

I think even the banks have to be consulted. I don't want to overstate what happened at this conference, but during it we had a satellite linkup with a banker in New York, a banker in London and a local banker, and I found it absolutely fascinating. That was yesterday morning, just after Bob Williams gave a dissertation about Crown corporations, which I also found very fascinating -- but I will deal with that at a different time. We tend to think of banks as being pretty cold, and bankers being very cold sort of people, but they are beginning to have a social conscience; they realize they have to get involved with many of the problems. The big corporations have to get involved or there just won't be customers. But the world is changing so fast that it is interesting to go to the banks. Money now transfers all over the world. This province goes to New York and Europe and different places to borrow money. Money flows, and it is very important that we have a good grasp of where banks are investing for their own good, or where they think the future is going, to at least have a common understanding.

The minister asked if there was going to be some structure. I want to put forward a structure that he and all parties might want to consider. I have few questions on philosophy that will probably take two or three hours; the purpose of that is to clarify where we are going in a number of directions. On most of that I think we probably will generally agree. Then I want to maybe spend a short period on the minister's office -- I suggest 

[ Page 8401 ]

that we follow the estimates, so that is fairly easy -- and then get into operations. I have some questions on why the ministry is doing all these wonderful things. Can some other people not do them? For instance, I wonder why Municipal Affairs is even doing elevator inspections, or electrical inspections -- I don't know why municipalities can't be encouraged to take that on. You can actually make a profit on that.

Housing and recreation. Housing is the area that I would like to spend most of the time on, primarily because I didn't bring forward a number of questions last year, and I would like to catch up on that. I know the minister has done a lot of work on that, so it might be interesting. I would like to follow that with recreation, and maybe a short time on revenue-sharing.

With those very few words, I will sit down and let the Social Credit opposition also make a general statement before we get into the more detailed analysis.

H. De Jong: I should note at the outset that our official critic is busy elsewhere in the Legislature. Therefore I am here representing him. I will be making the initial comments in relation to what the minister has said this morning. However, the official critic will undoubtedly be at many of the sessions, and will ultimately be the spokesman when we close the debate.

I was interested to hear the minister talk about municipalities being democratically governed, and how that is the real intent of the ministry -- that that statement really comes true in all respects. I have no difficulty with that statement as such, but I have some difficulty with how it is done sometimes. I am fully in favour of democratic elections. I have no problem in terms of who votes and when voting takes place, and so on, other than in some of the little things within the bill that is before the House. But we generally believe in democratic elections. Once the people have been elected, the working out of those elections is not always democratic, often because of interference by the provincial government -- not necessarily the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but other government regulations which limit the democracy of the locally elected person and council.

[11:30]

To go a bit further on that, there are many communities in British Columbia that are surrounded by agricultural land. All of these communities, as we know, are growing, one faster than the other, and one in greater need of additional development land than another. But several communities have a great need for additional land for development purposes. The democratically elected local people want to see this happen. I can tell you that in our own community there are about 200 acres that even before the ALR came into effect were already paying a tax; the property owners were paying a tax toward a trunk system for sewers. That land is still in the ALR. It has been rejected time and time again -- by the previous government as well, which I am not necessarily appreciative of, either. But still, today -- and now with the changes that are proposed in legislation before the House -- I can see a far greater difficulty coming in because of the powers that are given to the Land Commission and because the mandate is so specific. It is so specifically narrow that it will further erode the democracy of the locally elected people to provide for the land and services required for necessary growth.

We may think that we can stop growth by putting a wall around it, and I suppose, then, that the only way is to go up and up. The fact of the matter is that these types of restrictions have driven up land prices to the point that, in the Abbotsford area, you now pay more for the lot to build on -- even though the lots are smaller than they used to be -- than what it cost five years ago to buy a home and lot combined. Those are the real effects of limited land base for development. It's not because the costs of services haven't gone up. Sure, they all had an effect, but the big problem is the limited land base. And then the Premier can go out and say: "Oh well, there are thousands of acres of land in the lower mainland that can be developed. It's all up on the hillsides." But what happens when a logger goes up on the hillsides and cuts a few trees down? You hear the howl and scream of the general public about baring the sides of the hills. Is the Premier suggesting that all the sides of the hills will be bared for housing way out yonder, not near any facilities at the present time? Every community hasn't got those types of hills, either.

The minister talks about the servicing grants having been stable at $165 million. I'm just wondering what effect the fair wage policy has had on the ability to provide a number of services, compared to when the initial amount was $165 million. Prices have gone up. The fair wage policy has had a serious effect, I'm sure. So the minister may think that we're keeping pace with things -- let the $165 million continue. I doubt very much we're keeping pace. We're having faster growth rates in many communities, and more infrastructure services are needed. So, again, there is going to be a greater cost put on the local developer and ultimately on the homeowner.

The minister says that the municipalities would like to have a multi-year commitment in terms of grants. I recall the day when the municipalities wanted a grant system based on the revenues of the provincial government. If there was growth in the revenues, there should be growth in the grants. I was never too much impressed with that situation. I felt that a steady grant was better than one based on growth, because if there is a decline in the revenues it would also have an effect, and we've heard the cries of the municipal governments in that respect as well -- and, I suppose, rightly so. However, when there is a decline and a shortage of money, I think we all have to share the burden, and it doesn't matter which level of government.

We have also heard the minister this morning talking about a more regional approach to local government. I'm not sure whether the minister is thinking about an eventual county system or whether he's talking about expanded regional districts or changes to regional districts -- either making them larger or having more of a regional approach to local government.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What do you think?

[ Page 8402 ]

H. De Jong: Well, we may get to that later in the estimates, but I won't have the time this morning to explain all this.

Interestingly enough, hon. Chair, we have a situation in California, for instance, where there has been a real growth problem in many communities. In California, like many parts of British Columbia, where the population is the heaviest there is also a strong agriculture presence. Except for the Peace River area, in areas where the agriculture component is very strong and has been strong for as long as British Columbia has existed, there is also a strong growth in housing and so on. In that long-term process, and to accommodate it properly, I would hate to see a situation develop in British Columbia like we have seen over the last few years in California, where there was a fight over the water supply between the agriculture community and the cities. In some instances, there may be a difference in the types of water. Some lakes in British Columbia are used for irrigation purposes, while other sources are used for domestic water supply. So there may be some difference in situations, but there are also many places where there is a combined use of that limited resource. We talk about the preservation of farmland within those communities -- great. The only way the farmland can be saved from real urbanization is to allow the farmer to have more high-density farming, which again is going to place a demand on the water supply. So we can talk about housing planning until the cows come home, you might say, but I think there are very serious things that should be studied long before we talk about spreading all this social housing throughout British Columbia. Some of these areas may not be able to afford that kind of social housing, as well as other housing, because of the nature of the use and supply of resources. So let's take a close look at that. I would suggest that the minister spend some time on that.

I was intrigued by the opposition member's comments on providing money for welfare recipients from a bank other than the normal banks in terms of giving them some money ahead of the welfare cheque, whenever it comes due. I think that the problem today is not necessarily a shortage of housing; it is that people haven't been taught how to manage money. There are some exceptions, no doubt, but the majority of people who supposedly should have that opportunity to borrow that $50 ahead of time have not learned how to manage their funds to begin with. If you know that you have a certain amount of income, then you are also responsible to make sure that you are going to meet your obligations with that money, if at all possible. There are ample programs available from the Ministry of Social Services to do that now. So my real question on this issue is: are we perhaps looking at providing housing for people who should have been a lot more conscious of what is available to them on a weekly or monthly basis -- by way of a salary earned, or through government programs? If we try to do something better than that, we will be forever and ever short of funding to provide for those people who have not taken on the responsibility. The people of British Columbia who are responsible are going to be those who finally throw up their hands and say: "If this is the kind of system we are going to look at here, and that we are going to be approaching, then I have had enough of British Columbia." It is happening in some of the businesses now. I would hate to see it. In fact, I had a visitor yesterday in my office who is leaving British Columbia for exactly that reason -- the higher taxation and higher demands on the salary that he's earning to provide for those, so called, who need that additional assistance.

I know that the hon. Chair is trying to wind this session up, because it's getting close to noon, but I have only a couple of minutes more. If I could go on, on a couple of issues yet....

The Chair: Hon. member, I regret the interruption, but we are quite a bit past the normal time that committee would rise and report progress. The danger becomes getting trapped outside the other House; if they have finished their activities, we have no place to report. I would leave it in the hands of the hon. member for the next minute or two, but we have to rise soon.

H. De Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister made continual reference to the decline in federal funding, and housing was one of those components. I have some difficulty with that because I believe -- and I don't only believe, I know -- that this ministry has had a number of presentations from a businessman from our area who is very much involved in providing low-cost housing. He has done this for years for various organizations. It is the type of proposal where the owner owns the home but it is also partly within the society. If a unit initially sells for $65,000, for instance, when he sells the home or he wants to move out of it, or he passes on, then this house is still worth $65,000 to the next purchaser. There is no increase in the cost. It is an excellent concept. These homes have been provided by this developer for less than half the cost of similar types of units -- and I can show the minister the units in our community if he wants to come out and see them. The comparison of the units is almost equal, at half the price and no government subsidy involved. So there are other methods of doing things, but the bureaucracy seems to be reluctant to deal with these situations and to say yes, this is the way to go.

[11:45]

The minister mentioned that he was also going to initiate recreation commissions in aboriginal communities. If the communities are totally aboriginal, I have no problem with it. But if it is an aboriginal community within an overall community, then I have a real problem with the separation of cultural backgrounds, because I believe that a mix of people will make a far greater community than separating them out one from the other.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate my colleague's opening comments. With that, I move the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada